首页> 外文期刊>Knowledge Organization >Is Facet Analysis Based on Rationalism? A Discussion of Satija (1992), Tennis (2008), Herre (2013), Mazzocchi (2013b), and Dousa & Ibekwe-SanJuan (2014)
【24h】

Is Facet Analysis Based on Rationalism? A Discussion of Satija (1992), Tennis (2008), Herre (2013), Mazzocchi (2013b), and Dousa & Ibekwe-SanJuan (2014)

机译:构面分析是否基于理性主义? Satija的讨论(1992),网球(2008),Herre(2013),Mazzocchi(2013b)和Dousa&Ibekwe-SanJuan(2014)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In several writings I have claimed that the basis of knowledge organisation (KO) must be found in subject knowledge, and that researchers and practitioners in KO must achieve knowledge about the domains that they are organising. Domain knowledge is not neutral, but rather is based on competing epistemologies and worldviews, and the classifier is therefore participating in struggles related to worldviews. Different traditions, approaches and paradigms in knowledge organisation research (and practice) can best be understood as more or less associated with one of four epistemologies: empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, or pragmatism/critical theory (of which only the last position fully acknowledges the non-neutrality of knowledge organisation). Ranganathan-and the whole facet-analytic school-has formerly been exemplified as a rather clear example of rationalism. Some have objected to this claim, and Satija (1992), Tennis (2003), Mazzocchi (2013b), Herre (2013), and Dousa and Ibekwe-Sanjuan (2014) have each provided important arguments that need to be considered. This paper therefore takes these authors' studies as the point of departure and examines the arguments that have been raised in relation to my position.
机译:在几篇著作中,我声称必须在学科知识中找到知识组织(KO)的基础,并且KO的研究人员和从业人员必须获得有关其组织领域的知识。领域知识不是中立的,而是基于相互竞争的认识论和世界观的,因此分类器正在参与与世界观有关的斗争。最好将知识组织研究(和实践)中的不同传统,方法和范式理解为或多或少与以下四种认识论之一相关:经验主义,理性主义,历史主义/诠释学或实用主义/批判理论(其中只有最后一个立场是充分的)承认知识组织的非中立性)。 Ranganathan(以及整个方面的分析派)以前曾被作为理性主义的一个明显例子加以举例说明。有人反对这一主张,Satija(1992),Tennis(2003),Mazzocchi(2013b),Herre(2013)以及Dousa和Ibekwe-Sanjuan(2014)都提出了需要考虑的重要论点。因此,本文以这些作者的研究为出发点,并考察了与我的立场有关的论点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号