Bias, Power, and Epistemic Authority in the Dewey Decimal Classification System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/f0qjz291Keywords:
Bias, Power Dynamics, Epistemic Authority, Dewey Decimal Classification, Knowledge OrganizationAbstract
The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system is critically reviewed in this paper using the intersecting perspectives of bias, power, and epistemic authority. Although DDC has traditionally been one of the most popular and useful knowledge-organizing tools, it was shaped by the philosophical, cultural, and historical beliefs of its designers - most especially, Western, Christian, and Enlightenment epistemologies. This study identifies the presence of hierarchical, Eurocentric, and gendered biases in the system that determines the visibility and legitimacy of various knowledge traditions through an analysis of its foundations in the works of Bacon, Harris, and Dewey. The paper also examines the manner in which power is exercised in classification choices affecting user experience as well as power to determine what is deemed as knowledge. The paper with the help of epistemic stance puts forward a greater understanding of the ideological forces behind DDC and the necessity of an inclusive, pluralistic, and context-specific reforms. In conclusion, the analysis can be used in the current discussions of how to develop equitable knowledge-organization systems that are reflected by the diversity and complexity of global epistemologies.
References
Dewey, Melvil. (1876). A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloguing and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library.
Chan, L. M. (2007). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Olson, H. A. (2002). The power to name: Locating the limits of subject representation in libraries. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9884-7
Furner, J. (2007). Dewey deracialized: A critical race-theoretic perspective. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 144-168.
Bacon, F. (1605). The advancement of learning. London: Henrie Tomes.
(Original work; modern editions also available, e.g., Oxford University Press, 2000).
Wiegand, W. A. (1998). The "Amherst method": The origins of the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme. Libraries & Culture, *33*(2), 175–194
Furner, J. (2007). Dewey deracialized: A critical race-theoretic perspective. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 144–168.
Tennis, J. T. (2008). Epistemology, theory, and methodology in knowledge organization: Toward a classification, metatheory, and research framework. Knowledge Organization, 35(2-3), 102-112.
Radford, G. P., & Radford, M. L. (2005). Structuralism, post-structuralism, and the library: De Saussure and Foucault. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578014
Nakata, M., & Langton, M. (Eds.). (2005). Australian Indigenous Knowledge and Libraries. Sydney: UTS ePRESS. https://doi.org/10.5130/978-0-9802840-1-0
Feinberg, M. (2007). Hidden bias to responsible bias: An approach to information systems based on Haraway’s situated knowledges. Information Research, 12(4), paper 320. http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/paper320.html
Lara, M. (2016). Toward a pluralistic epistemology in knowledge organization: Digital challenges and opportunities. Knowledge Organization, 43(8), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2016-8-609
Gnoli, C. (2020). Knowledge organization and its role in democracy. KO: Knowledge Organization, 47(5), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-5-397
This work is licensed under a 