This document discusses the implications of knowledge organization systems (KOS) and their impact on indigenous knowledge. It notes that current KOS are largely Eurocentric and problematic for representing indigenous ways of knowing. Specifically, they are hierarchical, linear, and culturally biased. This marginalizes indigenous groups by not adequately representing their holistic knowledge paradigms. The document advocates considering indigenous KOS to improve access for indigenous users and address issues of cultural bias in the dominant classification systems. Alternative approaches could include developing new subject headings or entirely new classification schemes in collaboration with indigenous communities.
Understanding the Implications of Knowledge Organization Systems with particular consideration of indigenous Knowledge
1. UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATIONS
OF KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION
SYSTEMS
WITH PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION OF INDIGENOUS
KNOWLEDGE
Shavonn Matsuda
LIS 610
Fall 2013 / Asato
December 10, 2013
2. KOS FRAMEWORK
„Knowledge Organization Systems‟ (KOS)
Schemes for organizing information for knowledge
management and retrieval.
KOS Examples:
Categories – Library of Congress Subject Headings
Classifications – Dewey Decimal System, Library of
Congress Classification Schedules, Universal Decimal
Classification
1
4. CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES
Dewey Decimal System
Public libraries
Hawai„i State Public
Library System
(HSPLS)
Most prominent
Library of Congress
Classification Schedules
Academic libraries
University of Hawai„i
System
Widely used in Englishspeaking world
3
5. EFFECTS OF CURRENT KOS SYSTEMS
Controlled vocabularies stability & reliability
Provides standard, uniform access
Access largely dependent on users‟ abilities to map
information needs with topics & classifications
… Librarians‟ duty to help bridge the gap in user
and system vocabularies
4
6. PROBLEMATIZING CURRENT SYSTEMS
Eurocentric
“The „majority reader‟ and the norm, as far as LC is
concerned, is white, Christian (often specifically
Protestant), male, and straight” (Marshall 1972 quoted in Olson 2002, p. 7)
Hierarchical
Linear
Biased (e.g. subject headings)
KOSs are culturally-specific, meaning they are
inherently biased and disenfranchising for indigenous
peoples and marginal groups
5
7. SIGNIFICANCE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
“For those, the Other, whose knowledge
processes follow different paradigms, the
traditionally structured Western library becomes
almost completely inaccessible. The division
of knowledge into disciplines in Western science
is at complete
odds with the Indigenous
view of knowledge as holistic and interrelated, and it is this disciplinary division
which forms the basis of library classification
systems.” (Johnston 2006, p. 2)
6
8. DOCUMENTED HISTORY ON TOPIC
Issue of cultural bias in subject access is not new
Documented since the 1930‟s (Doyle 2006, p. 4)
Issues raised include:
Marginalization
Omission
Lack of specificity
7
9. ETHICAL QUESTIONS
Equity?
Effective for access?
ALA Code of Ethics, Article I:
We provide the highest level of service to all library
users through appropriate and usefully organized
resources; equitable service policies; equitable
access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous
responses to all requests.
- http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics
… one-size fits all approach?
8
10. “The international standardization of knowledge
organization and subject representation systems
enables unprecedented sharing of knowledge and
also holds unprecedented power to erase local and
regional knowledge domains. At risk are the
voices that represent diversity of human
experience, including the thousands of unique
Indigenous cultures, languages, stories and
ways of expressing them.” (Smith 2005 in Doyle 2006, p. 438-439)
INSTITUTING A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE IS
NOT ONLY IMPOSSIBLE,
BUT INAPPROPRIATE
9
11. LARGER THEME - THE POWER TO NAME
“All naming is of necessity biased and the process of
naming is one of encoding that bias, of making a
selection of what to emphasize and what to overlook
on the basis of a strict use of already patterned
materials.” (Dale Spender quoted in Olson 2002, p. 4)
Cultural paradigms – ideologies and bias
Maoist classification replaced earlier schemes
based on the Seven Epitomes of Confucian doctrine
Post-Soviet view of knowledge adopted in revisions
to the Library Bibliographical Classification (LBC)
10
Images:
Flag of Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Russia.svg
Flag of the People‟s Republic of China: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg
12. MAP OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Map of California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Californi
a_tribes_%26_languages_at_contact.p
ng
11
14. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
1.
Supplemental subject headings
2.
Entirely new subject headings
3.
National Indian Law Library Thesaurus Project
NgāŪpokoTukutukuMāori Subject Headings
New classification schemes
Brian Deer Classification Scheme
13
15. KEEP IN MIND
Knowledge organization systems
1) Define relationships,
2) Control the interpretation of knowledge, and
3) Determine level(s) of access
Indigenous Knowledge Organization Systems must
be considered for the purpose of improving access
Language
Collaboration with indigenous peoples
14
16. SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Western knowledge organization systems are
Dominant systems at current
At odds with indigenous knowledge
Inadequate for providing access to indigenous
users (and users from marginal groups)
Becoming the international standard
… Related inquiry (for future research):
How can we capitalize on technology‟s affordances to remedy
cultural bias in knowledge organization systems?
15
17. As information professionals,
we should
and strive to provide
“appropriate and usefully organized resources”
& “equitable access.”
16
Image: http://mandrekarkabir.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/mind-the-gap/
19. REFERENCES
Doyle, Ann M. “Naming and Reclaiming Indigenous Knowledges in Public Institutions: Intersections of Landscapes
and Experience.” Presentation at the Knowledge Organization for a Global Learning Society: Proceedings of the
9th International Conference for Knowledge Organization. International Society for Knowledge Organization 9 th
International Conference. (Vienna, Austria. Jul, 2006). Advances in
Knowledge Organization Vol 10. Ergon. Würzburg: 435-442. (revised version).
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/105581/1/Naming_and_Reclaiming_Doyle06.pdf
Hodge, Gail. “Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files.”
Washington, DC: The Digital Library Federation, 2000.
http://www.kevenlw.name/downloads/working/%E5%85%83%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E4%B8%8E%E4%BF
%A1%E6%81%AF%E8%B5%84%E6%BA%90%E7%BB%84%E7%BB%87/reference/pub91.pdf
Johnston, E Lorraine. “The Role of Libraries and Archives in the Preservation and Revitalisation of Indigenous
Knowledge: The case of Revitalization of te reo Māori.” Presentation at the Library and Information Association of
New Zealand Aotearoa Conference, Wellington, NZ, October 1, 2006.
Lee, Deborah. “Indigenous Knowledge Organization: A Study of Concepts, Terminology, Structure and (Mostly)
Indigenous Voices.” Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 6:1
(2011). http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/viewArticle/1427/2089
Olson, Hope A. The Power to Name: Locating the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
18
Notas del editor
‘Knowledge organization systems’ is an umbrella term referring to schemes for organizing information for the purpose of knowledge management and retrieval. “A KOS serves as a bridge between the user’s information need and the material in the collection,” according to Gale Hodge, in a 2000 report for The Digital Library Federation. Controlled vocabularies are of utmost importance to the stability and reliability of these systems to perform uniform access for users. For libraries and other memory institutions, knowledge organization systems usually take the form of categories, such as a subject list, or classification schemes (e.g. the Dewey Decimal System, the Library of Congress Classification Schedules, and the Universal Decimal Classification).
The act of assigning names to materials, and essentially to knowledge, that is central to knowledge organization systems should not be underestimated or taken for granted.
Access largely dependent on users (and librarians’) abilities to map information needs with topics (LCSH) and classifications
Both systems utilize a controlled vocabulary which provides stability and reliability in the provision of standard, uniform accessIn choosing to implement these systems, access becomes dependent on mapping user info needs and vocabularies to the CV.… Librarians duty to bridge the gap between user and system vocabularies
Berman advocated common sense and dignity in subject cataloging – Sandy BermanA library catalog is reflective of the values of the society that creates it. Therefore subject headings should be changed and adaped along with society. The catalog cannot remain static. – Olson
Paradigm: a set of ideas that are used for understanding or explaining something, especially in a particular subject.http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/paradigm
Shows how there’s numerous indigenous groups, and many many languages and cultures/perspectives… and this is just in California alone+ Important to consider these ways of knowing in cataloging (that is, naming in info systems)
The act of assigning names to materials, and essentially to knowledge, that is central to knowledge organization systems should not be underestimated or taken for granted. By incorporating traditional names and perspectives in the naming and classification of Hawaiian materials via alternative knowledge organization systems, cultural institutions will better document and represent the materials they seek to preserve and disseminate.