Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
358 Knowl. Org. 43(2016)No.5 D. Martínez-Ávila and J. Beak. Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization Daniel Martínez-Ávila* and Jihee Beak** * São Paulo State University—UNESP, Graduate School of Information Science, Av. Hygino Muzzi Filho, 737, Marília, São Paulo, Brazil, 17525-900, <[email protected]> ** University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), Office of Assessment and Institutional Research, 2310 E. Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA, <[email protected]> Daniel Martínez-Ávila is Assistant Professor at the Department of Information Science, São Paulo State Uni- versity (UNESP), Marília, Brazil. He is a member of the Theoretical Foundations of Information and Infor- mation Organization (Formação e Atuação Profissional em Organização da Informação, FAPOI) research groups. He also collaborates with the Satija Research Foundation for Library and Information Science (SRFLIS), India, and the Institute for Gender Studies (IEG) at the University Carlos III of Madrid, Spain. Jihee Beak has a PhD in information studies from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She is a member of the Knowledge Organization Research Group, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin Mil- waukee, and Assistant to the Editor-in-Chief of Knowledge Organization. Her major research area is knowledge organization including metadata, children’s information seeking behavior, domain analysis, social tagging, sub- ject headings, classification theory, etc. Her dissertation is a child-driven metadata schema based on children’s book selection behavior study. Martínez-Ávila, Daniel and Jihee Beak. 2016. “Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization 43: 358-366. 41 references. Abstract: This paper analyzes the epistemic stances and research methods and techniques of the thirty-three journal articles that Hope Olson published during the period 1991-2015. For the analysis of the epistemic stances, we use Hjørland’s classification of epistemological stances (namely rationalism, empiricism, histori- cism, and pragmatism), and for the classification of methodologies and methods we use the taxonomy used by Beak et al., loosely based on the consulted literature. Results of the analysis are presented and discussed in the context of the poststructuralist stance adopted by Hope Olson throughout her career. We highlight the impact of the innovative research methods and techniques and poststructuralist theoretical frameworks that Hope Ol- son introduced and used in knowledge organization. Received: 22 February 2016; Revised: 27 April 2016; Accepted 29 April 2016 Keywords: Hope Olson, knowledge organization, methods, methodologies, epistemology, classification 1.0 Introduction tions, and other problems such as “bibliocentrism.”1), is something that probably most students have experienced Having the fortune of encountering Professor Hope Ol- at some point. KO is full of presumptions, sometimes sub- son (both her work and the person) can be described as a tle and unstated, and the mere questioning of those pre- very liberating experience in academia. Theory and practice sumptions, principles, “one right answers,” decisions, and in knowledge organization (KO) can be an alienating ex- even alternatives is sometimes perceived by instructors and perience for conscious students and professionals trapped supervisors as lack of knowledge of the standards or the in the technical waters of positivism. The tyranny of the matter and even a potential threat for the field. Hope Ol- “one right answer” in KO (together with the prejudices of son, however, always encouraged students to question the standards, rigidity of the standards, cultural imposi- those presumptions and think critically. In her classes and https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2016-5-358 Generiert durch IP '170.106.33.42', am 28.09.2021, 20:43:53. Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig. Knowl. Org. 43(2016)No.5 359 D. Martínez-Ávila and J. Beak. Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization throughout her research, Olson always made it clear that While critics and proponents of positivism might see she adopted a poststructuralist stance; this means the ques- the poststructuralist stance as “unscientific” according to tioning of underlying assumptions, the rejection of univer- the objective dogmas of academia, Hope Olson strived to sal truths, and the exposition of realities as constructed by use the most rigorous and innovative poststructuralist discourses. She also always made it clear that she adopted methodologies and theories to conduct sound and rele- critical feminist and postcolonial approaches to provide vant research. Hope Olson’s studies not only exposed the agency to her methodologies and studies. In our field, a assumptions and realities as constructed, and therefore very professional and practical one, she knew that it might potentially demolishable, but also her methods served as not be enough to just intellectually deconstruct binaries, so a valuable source of inspiration for other researchers in she gave them a social and ethical impetus to achieve prac- the area embracing poststructuralism. tical applications and goals. With her research and teaching, Interested in epistemology as she was, it is not a sur- Hope Olson did not only influence and inspire many stu- prise that the methodological aspects were a fundamental dents to follow her path but also fought and changed many part of her papers. The link between the epistemology and injustices in the profession. Aware of the controversy of methodology has been highlighted in different studies (e.g., some of her research topics and the possible resistance to Bradley 1993; Mattos et al. 2015; Martínez-Ávila et al. acceptance of some of her ideas, one of the key aspects of 2016). While discussing the distinction between quantita- her success was the meticulous and faultless use of the re- tive and qualitative methods regarding epistemology, Hope search methods and methodologies. She had to strive to do Olson (1995) echoed Lynn Westbrook (1994) suggesting so in order to silence the potential positivist, sexist, racist that the distinction is of a different research “paradigm” and imperialist critics. In this paper, we attempt to pay rather than a method. She also echoed Barbara Wildemuth homage to the relevance of her work while studying and (1993), suggesting that it is rather a difference between reviewing those research methods that she used in her positivist and interpretive paradigms in which the former journal articles. recognizes an objective reality not dependent on the re- searcher, and the latter views reality as subjective and so- 2.0 Poststructuralism and research methods cially constructed. Olson also cites Wildemuth’s observa- tion in which she links the epistemic assumption to the Neil deGrasse Tyson relates in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey method and she sees the method determined by the epis- (2014) how the works of Chinese philosopher Mo Tze temology, not vice versa (Wildemuth 1993, 451): were destroyed by the measures of the first emperor and unifier of China Qin Shi Huang. As Neil deGrasse Tyson It is true that the positivist approach, with its goal narrates, Qin Shi Huang took drastic measures to stan- of discerning the statistical regularities of behavior, dardize everything within the empire, including mandat- is oriented toward counting the occurrences and ing a single coinage, making all weights and measures uni- measuring the extent of the behaviors being stud- form, the width of carts and roads, as well as the precise ied. By contrast, the interpretive approach, with its way the Chinese language was to be written. This story goal of understanding the social world from the evokes the efforts on universality and standardization of viewpoint of the actors within it, is oriented toward Melvil Dewey, Charles Cutter, and other “fathers” of li- detailed description of the actors’ cognitive and brary science, and not only related to KO but also to symbolic actions, that is, the meanings associated many other aspects such as Dewey’s “simpler spelings” with observable behaviors. (e.g., Dewey 1932) and more. As in the case of Qin Shi Huang, these measures can also have disastrous effects Hope Olson (1995) stated that “methodology develops for diversity and culture in subject access. Aware of this, from the researcher’s ontological and epistemological Hope Olson has been one of the leading exponents of stance,” and right after this claim she cited Gareth Mor- change of the last decades while denouncing and fighting gan and Linda Smircich’s differentiation of ontological social injustice in library standards. Olson has decon- and epistemological stances (1980). Olson commonly structed the foundational texts of these authors using the used this spectrum from subjectivist to objectivist to il- most sophisticated poststructuralist techniques and pro- lustrate the ontological assumptions, epistemological posed ameliorative counter-measures from feminist and stances, and the relation between the knowing subject postcolonial stances. Of course, much of Olson’s intel- and the studied (known) object for different theories (see lectual knowledge and sensibility to universality comes Table 1, made by Olson and often used in her classes). from her postmodernist and poststructuralist back- For instance, a parallelism could be drawn between