Martin and Bernard Breslauer Professor in Bibliography, Associate Professor, UCLA Department of Information Studies & Director of California Rare Book School
POLITICS, CULTURE, AND THE ORGANIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE Special Issue of Knowledge Organization Extended abstract submissions due Nov. 15, 2018
Edited by:
Robert D. Montoya, Indiana University, Bloomington. Department of Information & Library Science
Gregory Leazer, UCLA, Department of Information Studies
Jonathan Furner, UCLA, Department of Information Studies
It is a commonly held assumption that different domains (see, for example, Birger Hjørland’s work on domain analysis) and other types of knowledge communities generate and require different kinds of documentary practices. One familiar example is the academic discipline, such as art history or chemistry; another dimension is illustrated by the example of children’s library services which provides services on the basis of age. In these examples, the different documentary needs and practices required by these groups entails the need for specialized collections and specialized forms of knowledge organization (KO). An open question is the degree to which other kinds of communities require specialized information services. And if specialized services are required, the question remains how we meet divergent ontological and epistemological needs in the systems that deliver them.
We are interested in exploring the relationship between non-disciplinary cultural groupings and knowledge organization, in particular those cultural groupings that correspond with historically established patterns of socio-cultural power. The concept of the “traditionally underserved community” is commonly recognized in librarianship and education. We are interested in exploring whether and how systems of knowledge organization, broadly conceived, act as barriers to accessing knowledge, or in overcoming them.
One theory is that classification schemes reflect intentional and unintended biases of those who construct them and are structurally bound by the technical systems in which they are built. Sanford Berman and Hope Olson have explored, for example, how the conventions of controlled vocabularies privilege the terminology of predominant culture, and disenfranchise the marginal members of a pluralistic society. KO systems identify entities, concepts and terms, and by their nature are also systems of exclusion and restriction. To what degree do KO systems facilitate and restrict various forms of culturally-based meaning and interest? Following Berman and Olson, we need to establish a broad research front that explores the political aspects of KO systems.
THEORIES INVESTIGATIONS PROJECTS
We invite submissions that explore the various questions related to culture, power, and knowledge organization. In particular, we are interested in the point of view of minoritized populations, including ethnic and immigrant groups; linguistic, indigenous, economic, sexual, gender, disabled, and other minorities. “Community” and “culture” can also reference professional, educational, epistemological or other situated communities or groups that produce or are affected by knowledge organizing structures in some capacity. Perspectives on ecological (non-human) communities are also welcome, broadening our discussion into domains often overlooked in studies of KO and technology.
Potential questions to explore include:
How do domain- and community-specific KO systems interrelate with other systems?
How do we incorporate models of a pluralistic society in classification systems, including the incorporation of multiple epistemological perspectives, cross-language facilitation, alternate modes of representation, etc.?
How do the concepts of plurality, diversity, and justice actually intersect with KO in practice?
Can a single classification or method of knowledge organization simultaneously represent two distinct epistemological or cultural systems?
What methods exist for the critical reading of classifications and KO systems?
In what ways can the design or use of a KO systems be a creative, critical, or liberating act?
In what ways do builders of KO systems solicit community involvement for their systems?
What methods exist to change KO systems to reflect social or cultural change, or reduce social bias? Are these methods adequate?
What kinds of participatory design frameworks would help us develop more sensitive KO systems? Who authors KO systems and what implications does this have on various communities?
Who builds KO systems and what implications does this have on various communities?
SUBMISSION
Initial submissions
Abstracts of no more than 1500 words covering these or other relevant topics shall be submitted by email to: montoya [at] indiana.edu by November 15, 2018. Email subject line for submissions should contain “Politics and KO: [First author last name]”.
