The Simple and the Complex in E. C.
Richardson’s Theory of Classification:
Observations on an Early KO Model of the
Relationship between Ontology and
Epistemology
Thomas M. Dousa
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
ISKO 2010
Rome, Italy
Ontology, Epistemology and
Classification in KO
• Ontology: an account of what exists in the world.
• Epistemology: an account of how human beings
come to know what they know.
• Both ontology and epistemology are necessary for
classification design, but there are divergences of opinion
over which should take precedence.
• What are the ways in which ontology and epistemology
interact within a single classification system?
E. C. Richardson’s Theory of Classification:
A Case Study in the Interaction of Ontology and
Epistemology
• E. C. Richardson (1860–1939):
• American librarian and bibliographer
• Author of Classification, theoretical and practical (1st
ed. in 1901; further eds. In 1912 & 1930), the first major
book on classification theory in (Anglo-American) L(I)S.
• Richardson’s theory provides a historically influential
early attempt at synthesizing ontology and epistemology
in a single classification scheme.
Richardson’s Evolutionary Classification:
An Ontological Order from the Simple to the Complex (I)
According to Richardson,
• Bibliothecal classification was to be based on the order of
sciences.
• “The order of the sciences is simply the counterpart of the
order of things” (Richardson 1901, p. 19).
• In other words, theoretical classification is to follow an
ontological order.
Richardson’s Evolutionary Classification:
An Ontological Order from the Simple to the Complex (II)
• Like other intellectuals in late 19th and 20th century
America and Europe, Richardson adopted a popular
form of evolutionism positing development from simpler
to more complex forms of being in all phases of existence
(i. e. physical, biological, social).
.
Richardson’s Evolutionary Classification:
An Ontological Order from the Simple to the Complex (III)
• Richardson’s three laws of general classification:
1. “The law of likeness”
2. “The historical law”
3. “The law of evolution”
* Evolutionary classification = “Classification according to
the order of likeness from the simplest to the most complex”
-- See Richardson 1901, pp. 15 & 11
Richardson’s Evolutionary Classification:
An Ontological Order from the Simple to the Complex
(IV)
• Evolutionary order from “simple” to “complex” acc. to Richardson:
Things:
basic particles -> inanimate matter (“lifeless things”) -> plants and
animals (“living things”) -> “human things” -> God (“supernatural
things”)
Sciences:
“hylology” (physical sciences) -> “biology” -> “anthropology”
(includes psychology and sociology) -> “Theology”
-- Richardson 1901, pp. 29–44.
Richardson’s Logical Classification:
An Epistemological Order from the Complex to the Simple (I)
• According to Richardson,
Logical classification = “classification according to the degree
of likeness from most complex to the simplest” (Richardson
1901, p. 11): it is thus an “inverse evolutionary order” (p. 72).
Evolutionary classification and logical classification form two
“‘faces of the ‘one natural order’” of the world” (p. 11).
Richardson’s Logical Classification:
An Epistemological Order from the Complex to the Simple
(II)
• According to Richardson,
The inverse evolutionary order of logical classification
“follows the order in which the human mind proceeds in
tracing out the order of things [rather] than the natural
order of things …” (Richardson 1901, pp. 72–73).
Logical classification thus represents an epistemological
order.
Richardson’s Epistemology:
Some Core Assumptions
• Richardson’s epistemology is:
* realist.
It assumes that human concepts can truly correspond to
things in the world.
* representationist.
It assumes that both the conceptual content and structure
of a well-constructed classification constitute “an inner
cosmos ‘mirroring’ the outer cosmos” (Richardson, p. 28).
Richardson’s Epistemology in light of current
KO discussions about epistemology
• From the perspective of Hjørland’s (1997, 2008)
typology of epistemological positions, Richardson’s
epistemology is empiricist and positivist.
• From another perspective, it can be viewed as a
version of the naturalistic epistemology outlined by
Gnoli (2004).
Richardson and the Naturalistic Approach to
Epistemology and Ontology: Convergences
• Both understand human knowledge to be strongly constrained by, and so to reflect, the way the external world
is.
• Both posit classificatory orders based on an ontological
order progressing from the simpler to the complex
(“evolutionary classification” for Richardson; integrative
levels for Gnoli).
Richardson and Gnoli’s Naturalistic Approach
to Epistemology and Ontology: Contrasts
• Richardson’s and Gnoli’s epistemologies differ in their
account of the tightness of fit between things in the world
and human conceptualizations of those things:
* Richardson’s epistemology offers a single, neutral, and
universal account of human knowledge.
* Gnoli’s epistemology, by contrast, acknowledges local
cultural diversity within a deeper underlying cognitive
unity (“hypothetical realism”).
To Sum Up …
• In positing an inverse relation between ontological and
epistemological order, Richardson created a comprehensive
theory of classification that, neatly and simply, harmonized
ontology and epistemology.
• However, the simplicity of Richardson’s solution came at the
price of an oppressively “monistic” account of human knowledge.
• More recent versions of naturalistic epistemology that make
allowance for perspectivism (e.g., “viewpoint warrant” in Gnoli
2009) provide a more promising path to reconciling ontology and
epistemology in a single comprehensive classification scheme.
References
• Gnoli C. (2004). Naturalism vs. pragmatism in knowledge organization. In I. C.
McIlwaine (ed.), Knowledge organization and the global information society:
Proceedings of the Eighth International ISKO Conference, 13–16 July, 2004,
London, UK (pp. 263–268). Würzburg: Ergon.
• Gnoli C., 2009, Animals belonging to the emperor: enabling viewpoint warrant in
classification, in Proceedings of the IFLA satellite pre-conference of the
classification and indexing section: “Looking at the past and preparing for the
future, Florence, 20–21 August, 2009, <www.ifla2009satelliteflorence.it/meeting2
/program/assets/Gnoli.pdf>.
• Hjørland B. (1997). Information seeking and subject representation: an activitytheoretical approach to information science, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
• Hjørland B., 2008, What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowledge Organization,
35(2/3): 86–101.
• Richardson E. C. (1901). Classification: theoretical and practical, New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.