Knowledge Profiling: The Basis for Knowledge Organization

How are we able to construct truly realistic representations of knowledge organizations (KOs)? The paper introduces and defines the knowledge profile as a method to investigate the epistemological basis of any KO to outline the consequences this basis has upon its research object. The knowledge profile is inspired by C. S. Peirce’s doctrine of pragmaticism, and it further reflects the relevance of pragmaticism in the context of KO. Introduction When trying to make a representation of a given knowledge organization (KO)1 the best place to start is to investigate the epistemological basis of the knowledge domain—this foundation is the fundamental sign of the knowledge domain (Thellefsen, 2002, 2004). The basic premise is, “When trying to identify a KO and afterward trying to represent it, the least we can ask for is that the representation truly represents the KO in the knowledge domain and in respect of its knowledge structures. If this is impossible due to the character of the knowledge domain, then the least we can ask for is that the representation truly represents distinctive features of the knowledge domain, and by distinctive features I mean the essence of the knowledge domain.” Therefore, I do not think that either the structure of the classical thesaurus as we know it from library and information science (LIS) or the way LIS identifies knowledge2 is capable of representing the true KO of a knowledge domain. On the contrary, the thesaurus structure is a nonrealistic structure that is forced upon the domain, often by librarians or information specialists. Instead, I suggest a drawing of a knowledge profile Torkild Thellefsen, Aalborg, Department of Communication, Kroghstraede 3, 9220 Aalborg Sø, Denmark 508 library trends/winter 2004 of the knowledge domain. Indeed, this article aims to define the knowledge profile and to clarify how to draw a knowledge profile. In my opinion, that is a far better way of identifying the KO of a knowledge domain than the rigid and nonrealistic thesaurus structure. Moreover, as shown in Thellefsen (2003), the knowledge profile also can be used to sharpen the terminology of a certain research project; it is a method that helps to keep a research project on its terminological tracks. It is a method that I impose on my students to keep their project in accordance with their chosen epistemological basis. If someone chooses to study a problem from a hermeneutic angle, it has other consequences for the research problem than using a phenomenological theory or a pragmatical one for that matter; these consequences have to be identified and dealt with or else we end up in a situation that the American philosopher C. S. Peirce refers to as “terminological unethical behavior.” By drawing a knowledge profile, we are able to identify the epistemological basis of a knowledge domain, and we are capable of identifying the consequences of this epistemological basis. The consequences reside in the way the knowledge domain correlates its research objects and in the ways in which it develops concepts and theories. In the following, we shall take a closer look at how to draw a knowledge profile and where we can use it. Basically, the knowledge profile is about sharpening terminology. It is about removing redundant and misleading connotations in order to make the single concept or related term appear as sharp and precise as possible. Indeed, it is necessary to sharpen terminology to create a scientific terminology that is able to communicate knowledge in a precise way. There are several ways of using the knowledge profile; here, I will develop a knowledge profile for the concept “fundamental sign,” which is a concept I have defined in relation to the semiotic KO method called SKO (Thellefsen, 2002, 2004). The knowledge profile also can be used to identify the epistemological basis of knowledge domains, both small domains involving few researchers and vaster domains both scientific and nonscientific. The essence of the knowledge profile is that every choice made results in consequences and these consequences are identifiable. Theoretically, this is anchored in Peirce’s doctrine of pragmaticism, which, in short, is defined as follows: “Pragmaticism consists in holding that the purport of any concept is its conceived bearing upon our conduct” (CP 5.442). And further: “ . . . pragmatism does not undertake to say in what the meanings of all signs consist, but merely to lay down a method of determining the meanings of intellectual concepts, that is, of those upon which reasonings may turn” (CP 5.8). Furthermore, Peirce writes: “Now pragmaticism is simply the doctrine that the inductive method is the only essential to the ascertainment of the intellectual purport of any symbol” (CP 8.209). Hence, it is the consequences of intellectual action that grant us insight in meaning or in a more biblical way: it is “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:15–20). 509 thellefsen/knowledge profiling Knowledge Profile for the Fundamental Sign Figure 1 is a diagrammatic knowledge profile of the fundamental sign. When creating a knowledge profile of a concept, project or a knowledge domain, the first thing to do is to consider the most general level that has an influence on the concept. In the case of the fundamental sign this general level is the concept “semiotics.” This concept is so general and vague because it contains all kinds of theories that deal with signs. It contains both the European structural semiotics and the American pragmatic semiotics, and this almost makes the concept useless. By prefixing “pragmatic” to “semiotics” we get a much more precise concept. “Pragmatic semiotics” refers to Peirce, and this rules out the pragmatic theories of Dewey and James, for example. However, we can sharpen the knowledge profile even further by defining the fundamental sign in relation to Peirce’s doctrine of pragmaticism. At this time, we have defined the fundamental sign in relation to Peirce’s pragmaticism. We could say that we have prefixed the fundamental sign with pragmaticism. This means that it is within the doctrine of pragmaticism that we understand the fundamental sign. Now we are getting closer to the knowledge profile of the fundamental sign. However, we are able to sharpen the definition a bit more. Using pragmaticism involves understanding knowledge and thus concepts such as fallibilism, idealism, realism, and within Peirce’s phaneroscopy. In short (referring to Thellefsen, 2004 for a thorough discussion of these concepts), fallibilism means that knowledge is provisional. Knowledge contains a potential of development. In this pragmaticistic context, idealistic means that the concepts strive for the truth. Epistemological basis