Resources

Epistemological Lifeboat

Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences

“This Encyclopedia is the first attempt in a generation to map the social and behavioral sciences on a grand scale.”

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Comprehensive resource. Articles from all continents, all periods and cultures.”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up to date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public."

Wikipedia

Readings

The readings are posted on Blackboard. 

Beghtol, Clare. 2005. Ethical Decision–Making for Knowledge Representation and Organization Systems for Global Use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (9): 903–912.

Borges, Jorge Luis. 1973. The Analytical Language of John Wilkins. In Other Inquisitions 1937-1952. London: Souvenir Press. pp. 101–105.

Bowker, Geoffrey C. & Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
            Introduction: To Classify is Human. (pp. 1-32)
            Chap. 1: Some Tricks of the Trade in Analyzing Classification. (pp. 33-50)
            Chap. 2: The Kindness of Strangers: Kinds and Politics in Classification Systems. (pp. 53-106)
            Chap. 3: The ICD as Information Infrastructure. (pp. 107-133)
            Chap. 4: Classification, Coding and Coordination. (pp. 135-161)
            Chap. 10: Why classifications matter. (pp. 319-326)

Boyne, Roy. 2006. Classification. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2-3): 21-30.

Buckland, Michael. 1997. What is a 'Document'? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (9): 804-809.

Cornelius, Ian. 2002. Theorizing Information for Information Science. Annual Review of Information and Technology, 43: 393-425.

Donohue, Mark. 2006. Classification and Human Language. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2-3): 40-42.

Dupre, John. 2006. Scientific Classification. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2-3): 30-32.

Dupre, John. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   Supplementary. 
            Chap. 1: Natural Kinds.

Ereshefsky, Marc. 2001. The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  Supplementary. 
            Chap. 1: The Philosophy of Classifcation (pp. 15-49)

Feinberg, Melanie. In press. Organization as Expression: Classification as Digital Media. In: Digital Media, Bill Aspray and Megan Winget (eds). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Fiske, John. 2011. Introduction to Communication Studies, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Routledge.
          Introduction:  What is Communication?  (pp. 1-4)
          Chap. 1: Communication Theory. (pp. 5-21)
          Chap. 2: Other Models. (pp. 21-36)
          Chap. 3: Communication, Meaning, and Signs. (pp. 35-60)
          Chap. 4: Codes. (pp. 61-79)
          Chap. 5: Signification. (pp. 80-94)

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.  
         Chap. 5, part 2:  Lecture Two: 14 January 1976 (pp. 92-108)
         Chap. 2: Prison Talk (pp. 37-54)  Supplementary. 
         Chap. 3: Body/Power (pp. 55-62)  Supplementary. 
         Chap. 4: Questions on Geography (pp. 63-77)  Supplementary. 

Frohmann, Bernd. 2008. Subjectivity and Information Ethics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,  59 (2): 267-277.

Furner, Jonathan. 2007. Dewey Deracialized: A Critical Race-Theoretic Perspective. Knowledge Organization. 24 (3): 144-168.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:  What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 
       Preface (pp. xi-xvii)
       Chap. 1: The Importance of Categorization (pp. 5-11)
       Chap. 2: From Wittgenstein to Roach (pp. 12-57)
       Chap. 3: Prototype Effects in Language (pp. 58-67)
       Chap. 4: Idealized Cognitive Models (pp. 68-76)
       Chap. 5: Metonymic Models (pp. 77-90)
       Chap. 6: Radial Categories (pp. 91-114)
       Chap. 7: Features, Stereotypes, and Defaults (pp. 115-117)
       Chap. 8: More about Cognitive Models (pp. 118-135)
       Chap. 9: Defenders of the Classical View (pp. 136-152); &
       Chap. 10: Review (pp. 153-154)

Levy, David M. 2001. Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age. New York, NY: Arcade.
       Chap. 1: Meditation on a receipt. (pp. 7-20)
       Chap. 2: What are documents? (pp. 21-38)

Mai, Jens-Erik. 2010. Classification in a Social World: Bias and Trust, Journal of Documentation, 66 (5): 627-642.

Maciel, Maria Esther. 2006. The Unclassificable. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2-3): 47-50.

Smith, Brian Cantwell. 2011. A Rough and Ready Guide: To the Tortuous Landscape of Metaphysics, Ontology, and Epistemology. Unpublished manuscript.

Sokal, Robert R. 1974. Classification: Purposes, Principles, Progress, Prospects. Science, 185 (4157): 1115-1123.

Unsworth, Kristine. 2009. Ethical Concerns of Information Policy and Organization in National Security. Cataloging and Classifciation Quarterly, 47: 642-656.

Weinberger, David (2007) Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York, NY: Times.
          Chap. 7: Social knowing. (pp. 129-147)
          Chap. 10: The work of knowledge. (199-230)

Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Free Press.
          Chap. 1: Island of meaning. (pp. 5-20)
          Chap. 2: The great divide. (pp. 21-32)
          Chap. 3: The rigid mind. (pp. 33-60)
          Chap. 4: The social lens. (pp. 61-80)
          Chap. 5: The fuzzy mind. (pp. 81-114)
          Chap. 6: The flexible mind. (pp. 115-122)

Practical stuff

Communication policy

If you have a question, there is a pretty good chance that other people in the class will have the same question or, at least, will benefit from the answer.  Therefore, please do not email questions directly to the instructors or TAs, instead please post all questions to Blackboard (in the forum threads) so everyone in the class can benefit from your questions and our answers.  Questions posted to Blackboard will normally be answered within 24 hours (except on weekends).

Late assignments

Students are expected to submit all assignments by the specified deadlines. 

Late assignments may be accepted without academic penalty if, prior to the due date of the assignment, the student has made an arrangement a later specific submission date.  If you are need an extension past the assignment due date, simply upload to the Blackboard site under the Assignment tab a (short) document stating when you will have your assignment complete.  Then, on or before that date, upload your completed assignment, as a "second attempt".

Please note that assignments submitted later than their specified due date -- without prior agreement with your instructor -- will be deducted an academic penalty of one grade level per week (e.g., A- to B+, B to B-).  Late assignments should be submitted on Blackboard.

Graduating students must have submitted all three assignments by Tuesday April 10.  If we receive any of the three assignments later than this date, we cannot guarantee that we will have a mark ready in time for the student to graduate this semester.

For non-graduating students:  No assignments will be accepted after Tuesday April 17, 2012.  [In other words, all students must by April 17 have submitted all three assignments.  If a student has not completed all assignments by April 17, then the student must submit a Request for Extension to Complete Course Work to his/her class instructor.  Besides all the requested data, all fields in Section 1 must be filled out, and the reasons for the delay must be described in as much detail as possible.  The form must be signed and it must be submitted in hard-copy to the Student Service office in an envelope with the relevant instructor's name.  Students who fail to submit either all three assignments or the Request for a Course Extension by April 17 will have their final grade calculated based on the coursework completed by April 17.]

All grades you receive in this course will be expressed as a letter [in accord with the iSchool's interpretation] – the following will help you convert letter grades for the individual assignments to a letter grade for the final grade:
First:            Each letter is converted to a number: A+=9, A=8, A-=7, B+=6, B=5, B-=4, and FZ=0.
Second:    Apply the number for each assignment into this equation:
                        (Assign. #1*0.2)+(Assign. #2*0.4)+(Assign. #1*0.4)=value for final grade
Third:        Convert the ‘value for final grade’ back into a letter, using the above conversation table.
Note:        Any value ending in x.6 or below is rounded down, any value ending in x.7 or above is rounded up.
[The above is in line with the Faculty of Information’s policy on this matter.]

All grades you receive in this course have been assigned by one or more of the instrcutors.  The Teaching Assistants will have read, commented on, and provided input on the quality of the work.  Grades for individual assignments as well as the final grades for the course are assigned by the instructors. 

In the case you have questions about the comments and/or the grades, please first meet with your TA.  The TA will review, with you, the assignment requirements, the Grade Interpretation document, the writing tips, the submitted paper, the comments it received, and the grade it was assigned.  If, after this discussion, you do not feel that the assigned grade is appropriate you should set up a meeting with your class instructor. 

Please prepare a short written rationale for why the grade should be re-considered - make sure that the rationale refers to the Grade Interpretation document.  Please make bring your rationale to the meeting with your instructor.  In the rare situations where a re-grade is required, theinstrcutor will work with a different TA to re-grade the assignment.  The second grade will stand regardless of whether it is higher or lower than the first one.

Please note that students always have the option to appeal a grade via the appeals process.