The paradox of atheoretical classification

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

The paradox of atheoretical classification. / Hjørland, Birger.

In: Knowledge Organization, Vol. 43, No. 5, 06.2016, p. 313-323.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Hjørland, B 2016, 'The paradox of atheoretical classification', Knowledge Organization, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 313-323.

APA

Hjørland, B. (2016). The paradox of atheoretical classification. Knowledge Organization, 43(5), 313-323.

Vancouver

Hjørland B. The paradox of atheoretical classification. Knowledge Organization. 2016 Jun;43(5):313-323.

Author

Hjørland, Birger. / The paradox of atheoretical classification. In: Knowledge Organization. 2016 ; Vol. 43, No. 5. pp. 313-323.

Bibtex

@article{209318e5f12047409c72b549bb1d5e94,
title = "The paradox of atheoretical classification",
abstract = "A distinction can be made between “artificial classifications” and “natural classifications,” where artificial classifications may adequately serve some limited purposes, but natural classifications are overall most fruitful by allowing inference and thus many different purposes. There is strong support for the view that a natural classification should be based on a theory (and, of course, that the most fruitful theory provides the most fruitful classification). Nevertheless, atheoretical (or “descriptive”) classifications are often produced. Paradoxically, atheoretical classifications may be very successful. The best example of a successful “atheoretical” classification is probably the prestigious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since its third edition from 1980. Based on such successes one may ask: Should the claim that classifications ideally are natural and theory-based be reconsidered? This paper argues that the seemingly success of atheoretical classifications hides deeper problems and that the ideal of theory-based classification should be maintained.",
author = "Birger Hj{\o}rland",
note = "This is an article in a special issue in honor of Hope Olson",
year = "2016",
month = jun,
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "313--323",
journal = "Knowledge Organization",
issn = "0943-7444",
publisher = "Ergon-Verlag",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The paradox of atheoretical classification

AU - Hjørland, Birger

N1 - This is an article in a special issue in honor of Hope Olson

PY - 2016/6

Y1 - 2016/6

N2 - A distinction can be made between “artificial classifications” and “natural classifications,” where artificial classifications may adequately serve some limited purposes, but natural classifications are overall most fruitful by allowing inference and thus many different purposes. There is strong support for the view that a natural classification should be based on a theory (and, of course, that the most fruitful theory provides the most fruitful classification). Nevertheless, atheoretical (or “descriptive”) classifications are often produced. Paradoxically, atheoretical classifications may be very successful. The best example of a successful “atheoretical” classification is probably the prestigious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since its third edition from 1980. Based on such successes one may ask: Should the claim that classifications ideally are natural and theory-based be reconsidered? This paper argues that the seemingly success of atheoretical classifications hides deeper problems and that the ideal of theory-based classification should be maintained.

AB - A distinction can be made between “artificial classifications” and “natural classifications,” where artificial classifications may adequately serve some limited purposes, but natural classifications are overall most fruitful by allowing inference and thus many different purposes. There is strong support for the view that a natural classification should be based on a theory (and, of course, that the most fruitful theory provides the most fruitful classification). Nevertheless, atheoretical (or “descriptive”) classifications are often produced. Paradoxically, atheoretical classifications may be very successful. The best example of a successful “atheoretical” classification is probably the prestigious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since its third edition from 1980. Based on such successes one may ask: Should the claim that classifications ideally are natural and theory-based be reconsidered? This paper argues that the seemingly success of atheoretical classifications hides deeper problems and that the ideal of theory-based classification should be maintained.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 43

SP - 313

EP - 323

JO - Knowledge Organization

JF - Knowledge Organization

SN - 0943-7444

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 142061717