Universal models / Universalism

One way of understanding universalism in knowledge organization is to imagine a fixed system of classes or categories into which new knowledge may be added without a need to change or modify the structure itself. The search for such a system is a dream in the rationalist tradition in philosophy and closely related to the search for a set of semantic primitives or the search of an ideal language (cf. Eco, 1995).
               In designing classification schemes it has often been thought that subjects develop only by subdivision of classes. Thus many systems have preserved empty class numbers for supposed developments in classification structure. This approach fails to consider, however, that new subjects are not just specializations of given subjects according to given criteria. New subjects are formed by completely different criteria, often abandoning existing criteria of division.
               Another way of understanding universalism is represented in cognitivism: principles of categorization and classification that is hardwired in our cognitive system and common for all human beings. This is the way George Lakoff (1987, 1990), among others, argues. As Kasper Graarup writes: “

 
“The universalism that is presumed in traditional classification systems is thus not totally eradicated by Lakoff, it is rather substituted. Borges [1990] demonstrates the untenable in the idea of eternal, objective and universal categories and Lakoff respond by recognizing this circumstance and also by arguing that cultural differences nonetheless are based on universal cognitive principles. The universality is thus preserved. It is just the case that the universality no longer expresses objective attributes by the classified universe (signifies), but not less objective attributes by the classifying subject (significant). This movement from a focus on the described until a focus of the describing subject is also characteristic for LIS today. It is visible by the tendency to leave objective and universalistic norms in classification research and turn to user studies, and exactly this recognition is after all also what “the cognitive revolution” refers to.” (Graarup (2003, p. 24; my translation).

 
The universalistic assumption is not connected to the studies of how users in different cultures, domains and social contexts are different, but from the pretension to uncover general principles from the study of decontextualized users.
 
Andersen (2001) writes: Implied by the norm of universalism in modern science, known from Merton's CUDOS-normset, is the demand that scientific careers should be open to talents, independent of personal attributes such as race, religion, class, and gender. In spite of a large amount of studies related to CUDOS-norms very few deals with class origin of researchers. Based on a survey among a sample of 788 Danish researchers this article investigates class bias, compared to gender bias in researcher recruitment and careers, and researcher assessments of impartiality and objectivity of evaluations and reward system. The data demonstrate very strong class bias, and also confirm the well-known gender bias in recruitment, class bias being the strongest. This is shown to be mainly because of bias in the educational system, however. Concerning later career attainment bias is also found, but much weaker, and most pronounced concerning social origin. Regarding researcher assessments of impartiality there are no indications of strong mistrust among researchers in general; nor are there significant differences in degree of trust in reward system, conditioned by class origin or gender. In conclusion, the analysis does not lend strong support to an assumption of deviance from norms of universalism.
 
 

Literature:
 

Andersen, H. (2001).The norm of universalism in sciences. Social origin and gender of researchers in Denmark. Scientometrics, 50(2), 255-272.
 

Borges, J. L (1990). John Wilkins’ analytiske sprog. Almen semiotik, 2, 11-14.
 

Eco, U. (1995). The Search for the Perfect Language (Translated from Italian: Ricerca della Lingua Perfetta Nell a Cultura Europea). Oxford: Blackwell.

Frohmann, B. (1992). Knowledge and power in library and information science: Toward a discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint. Pp. 135-148 IN: Conceptions of Library and Information Science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. Ed. by Pertti Vakkari & Blaise Cronin. London: Taylor Graham.
 

Goody, J. (1987). The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 

Graarup, K. (2003). Religion, klassifikation og kontekst. Biblioteksarbejde, #65, 21-33.
 

Green, R. (2002). “Conceptual Universals in Knowledge Organization and Representation,” (Keynote address for 7th International Conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization.) In M.J. Lopez-Huertas (ed.), Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Organization for the 21st century: Integration of Knowledge Across Boundaries – Proceedings of the Seventh International ISKO Conference, 10-13 July 2002, Granada, Spain, 15-27. Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag.
 

Green,R. Carol A. Bean, Michele Hudon (2002). “Universality and Basic Level Concepts,” in

M.J. Lopez-Huertas (ed), Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Organization for the 21st Century: Integration of Knowledge Across Boundaries – Proceedings of the Seventh International ISKO Conference, 10-13 July 2002, Granada, Spain, 311-317. Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag.
 

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangeous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Mind. University of Chicago Press.
 

Lakoff, G. (1990). Klassifikatorer som afspejling af tanken. Almen Semiotik 2, 15-23.
 

Magnus, M. (1997-2001). Margo’s magical letter page. http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/Universals.html
 

Olson, H. A. (2002). Classification and universality: Application and construction. Review article. Semiotica 139, 377-391.

Olson, H. A. (1994). Universal Models: A History of the Organization of Knowledge. Advances in Knowledge Organization, 4, 72-80.
 

Pinxten, R. (1976). Universalism versus relativism in language and thought. The Hague: Mouton.

See also: Ideographic & Nomothetic (Epistemological lifeboat).
 

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 18-06-2006

Home

to be edited:
Ethvert fag stræber efter at opstille almene *principper eller *love. *Informationsvidenskaben udgør ingen undtagelse herfra. Det er imidlertid væsentligt at skelne imellem almene principper på den ene side og på den anden side en universalistisk og totaliserende diskursiv strategi, der ikke anskuer informationsprocesser som underlagt skiftende kulturelle og sociale kræfter. Denne tendens i informations­viden­skaben er kritisk analyseret af f.eks. Frohmann (1992) og Olson (1994). Domain analysis er et *sociologisk-videnskabsteoretisk alternativ til en sådan universalistisk tankegang.

Indenfor kognitionsforskning repræsenterer f.eks. Jean Piagets velkendte stadiemodel for intelligensens udvikling en universalistisk model, der i de senere år er blevet kritiseret netop for ikke at tage hensyn til de kulturelle faktorer og domænespecifikke forhold i tænkningens udvikling (jfr. f.eks. Goody, 1987). Dybest set hænger bestræbelserne på at opstille universalistiske modeller sammen med rationalistiske og positivistiske opfattelser af videnskabsteoretisk art.