THESIS OUTLINE (1029853): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Thesis outline of Kimberley: | Thesis outline of Kimberley: | ||
====== (Issue #1: The use of categorisation divide, exclude and therefore may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised.) ====== | |||
====== (Issue #1: | |||
The relations formed across different items of an aggregation participate to its understanding as a whole. However, the record of these relations may stumble upon the limits imposed by the use of ''categorisation'' which rather operates through the process of ''division''. These limits are specifically threatening within organisation systems related to the cultural field, such as libraries, archives or collections, if we assume that these infrastructures are intended to be inclusive. By dividing instead of connecting, by confining the understanding of something in "what [it] ''is''" instead of "what it ''does''" (Drucker, 2013), there is a risk that the use of categorisation may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised. | The relations formed across different items of an aggregation participate to its understanding as a whole. However, the record of these relations may stumble upon the limits imposed by the use of ''categorisation'' which rather operates through the process of ''division''. These limits are specifically threatening within organisation systems related to the cultural field, such as libraries, archives or collections, if we assume that these infrastructures are intended to be inclusive. By dividing instead of connecting, by confining the understanding of something in "what [it] ''is''" instead of "what it ''does''" (Drucker, 2013), there is a risk that the use of categorisation may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised. | ||
====== (Issue #2: ) ====== | ====== (Issue #2: Categorisation prevents the activation of what is being categorised, locking up items, which is contradictory to the informative purpose of an archive (for example)...) ====== | ||
Although collected items need to be stored following a well thought order (for retrieval purposes), they also need to be activated when consulted. This activation begins with the understanding of an item's position within its hosting structure and in relation to its neighbouring items. Thus, revealing implicit stories (in archives). If archives may preserve the elements of (hi)story, it fails to return the full story, often hidden under smooth search boxes. | |||
====== (Issue #3: Limited ways of navigating | ====== (Issue #3: Limited ways of navigating the differences of bodies of information.) ====== | ||
Online, a flat navigation experience might result from sorting a body of information through means of categorisation. ''Lists'' are skimmed linearly, alphabetically, chronologically, hierarchically and in all possible modes. However, these modes of navigation often lack in translating the relations that exist between the contained elements. Binary approaches, such as the simple use of "next" and "previous" buttons to circulate among contents, tend to impose a unique worldview on bodies of information, in other words, a missed opportunity to acknowledge the specificities of a collection. | Online, a ''flat'' navigation experience might result from sorting a body of information through means of categorisation. ''Lists'' are skimmed linearly, alphabetically, chronologically, hierarchically and in all possible modes. However, these modes of navigation often lack in translating the relations that exist between the contained elements. Binary approaches, such as the simple use of "next" and "previous" buttons to circulate among contents, tend to impose a unique worldview on bodies of information, in other words, a missed opportunity to acknowledge the specificities of a collection. | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 6 December 2022
Thesis outline of Kimberley:
(Issue #1: The use of categorisation divide, exclude and therefore may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised.)
The relations formed across different items of an aggregation participate to its understanding as a whole. However, the record of these relations may stumble upon the limits imposed by the use of categorisation which rather operates through the process of division. These limits are specifically threatening within organisation systems related to the cultural field, such as libraries, archives or collections, if we assume that these infrastructures are intended to be inclusive. By dividing instead of connecting, by confining the understanding of something in "what [it] is" instead of "what it does" (Drucker, 2013), there is a risk that the use of categorisation may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised.
(Issue #2: Categorisation prevents the activation of what is being categorised, locking up items, which is contradictory to the informative purpose of an archive (for example)...)
Although collected items need to be stored following a well thought order (for retrieval purposes), they also need to be activated when consulted. This activation begins with the understanding of an item's position within its hosting structure and in relation to its neighbouring items. Thus, revealing implicit stories (in archives). If archives may preserve the elements of (hi)story, it fails to return the full story, often hidden under smooth search boxes.
Online, a flat navigation experience might result from sorting a body of information through means of categorisation. Lists are skimmed linearly, alphabetically, chronologically, hierarchically and in all possible modes. However, these modes of navigation often lack in translating the relations that exist between the contained elements. Binary approaches, such as the simple use of "next" and "previous" buttons to circulate among contents, tend to impose a unique worldview on bodies of information, in other words, a missed opportunity to acknowledge the specificities of a collection.