Devising a framework for assessing the subjectivity and objectivity of information taxonomy projects

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to summarise research to determine if a framework for assessing the subjectivity and objectivity of information taxonomy work can usefully be applied in practice. Theories proposed by US philosopher Helen Longino formed the basis for the framework, which was used to assess 16 contemporary taxonomy projects.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative naturalistic enquiry, based on semi-structured interviews conducted with information professionals, was undertaken. The transcripts were coded, scored, statistically analysed, and correlated to identify trends or themes. Participants were invited to comment on and amend all research outputs. Triangulation with external sources was undertaken as far as possible.

Findings

Following analysis using the framework, projects were ranked, grouped, and compared to German sociologist Max Weber's characterisation of political hierarchies. This illuminated a number of interesting aspects of practical taxonomy work.

Research limitations/implications

Practical limitations constrained the depth and extent of the study. Creative interpretation of the qualitative data collected was required. Results obtained highlight points of interest rather than offering quantitative comparisons.

Practical implications

Taxonomy practitioners are concerned with usability and accessibility, so a framework for assessing subjectivity and objectivity of taxonomy projects could provide a useful tool, set of heuristics, guide, or checklist.

Originality/value

There has been little research carried out on contemporary taxonomy projects in commercial and corporate environments and how knowledge organisation systems can enhance or constrain an individual's ability to access online content. No similar frameworks appear to have been developed.

Citation

Alexander, F. (2014), "Devising a framework for assessing the subjectivity and objectivity of information taxonomy projects", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2012-0117