Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Mapping perspectival ambiguity in bioethics : revisiting the viewpoint warrant / Denis Kos, Sonja Špiranec, Ante Čović.

By: Kos, Denis.
Contributor(s): Špiranec, Sonja [aut] | Čović, Ante [aut].
Material type: ArticleArticleDescription: 959-961 str.Other title: Mapping perspectival ambiguity in Bioethics : revisiting the viewpoint warrant [Naslov na engleskom:].Subject(s): 5.04 | 8.03 | transdisciplinary knowledge organization ; perspectives ; pluriperspectivism ; integrative bioethics | transdisciplinary knowledge organization ; perspectives ; pluriperspectivism ; integrative bioethicsOnline resources: Click here to access online In: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) Conference (15 ; 2018 ; Porto) Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Organization in the Digital Age : proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July, 2018, Porto, Portugal str. 959-961Summary: Introduction This doctoral paper reports on the current state of a doctoral thesis by PhD candidate Denis Kos from the Department of Information and Communication Science in Zagreb. It presents an original research approach to organize knowledge and provide documentational support in the field of bioethics. It is grounded: • in the specific conceptualization of integrative bioethics (IB) which approaches bioethical topics with intent to integratively preserve the pluralism of perspectives that contribute to a full characterization of different bioethical phenomena i.e. pluriperspectivistically, • in the conceptualization of an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge organization (KO) as it was discussed by different authors in the field of KO (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995 ; Broughton, 2002 ; Gnoli, Bosch i Mazzocchi, 2007 ; Leon Manifesto, 2007 ; Gnoli, 2008a ; Cameron & Mengler, 2009 ; García Gutiérrez, 2011 ; Gnoli, 2012 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2013 ; García Gutiérrez, 2014 ; Kleineberg, 2014 ; Albrechtsen, 2015 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2015 ; Szostak, Gnoli & Lopez-Huertas, 2016), and • in the evocation of the concept of perspectives in IB and KO (Leon Manifesto, 2007 ; Gnoli, 2008b ; Cameron i Mengler, 2009 ; García Gutiérrez, 2011 ; Kaipainen i Hautamäki, 2011 ; Gnoli, 2012 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2013 ; García Gutiérrez, 2014 ; Kleineberg, 2014 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2015 ; Szostak, Gnoli i Lopez-Huertas, 2016) and the viewpoint warrant in KO (Beghtol, 2002). These foundations of the thesis all stem from the critique of the domination of disciplinary perspectives and the idea that we have to address scientific monoperspectivism by representation of a higher complexity of the world which warrants the ability to look at knowledge from a number of different perspectives. However, Szostak, Gnoli & Lopez-Huertas (2016) stipulated that in order to achieve this one first has to determine how much perspectival ambiguity there is in different studied knowledge domains. Objectives & Proposed Methodology The objective of this paper is to present why ethical issues have potential to be used as a starting point for investigative methodologies that aim to map the perspectival ambiguity surrounding particular (bioethical) phenomena. The author will also expand on the proposed methodology to achieve the research goals of the accepted thesis proposal. Proposed methodology consists of • a conceptual analysis of the concept of viewpoint warrant in order to elaborate its definition in the context of transdisciplinary KO, and in order to map the role of relevant concepts in its definition like: transdisciplinary knowledge, perspectives, knowledge integration, pluriperspectivism etc. ; • a bibliometrical and content analysis of literature in the field of IB to create a prototype system of relationships between studied bioethical phenomena, explored perspectives and characteristics of documents they are affiliated with ; • a study of consensus of experts by using the Delphi method in order to submit the constructed prototype for validation which will be based upon group consensus of its exhaustiveness and appropriatness of term respresentation. Expected Results & Contributions This paper will propose that ethical issues, as one of the most ambiguous areas of study, are central to studies of perspectival ambiguity which remains a key challenge of transdisciplinary KO, and will propose methodologies to approach the resolution of these challenges. References 1. Albrechtsen, H. (2015). This is not domain analysis. Knowledge Organization. 42, 8, 557–561. 2. Beghtol, C. (2002). A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems. Journal of Documentation. 58, 507–532. doi:10.1108/00220410210441 3. Broughton, V. (2002). Facet analytical theory as a basis for a knowledge organization tool in a subject portal. In: Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Organization for the 21st Century: Integration of Knowledge across Boundaries. Presented at the The Seventh International ISKO Conference, 1013 July 2002, Granada, Spain, Granada, pp. 135–142. 4. Cameron, F., Mengler, S. (2009). Complexity, transdisciplinarity and museum collections documentation: emergent metaphors for a complex world. Journal of Material Culture. 14, 189–218. 5. García Gutiérrez, A. (2011). Declassification in knowledge organization: a post-epistemological essay. Transinformação. 23, 5-14. doi:10.1590/S0103- 37862011000100001 6. García Gutiérrez, A. (2014). Declassifying Knowledge Organization. Knowledge Organization. 41, 5, 393-409. 7. Gnoli, C. (2008a). Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization. Knowledge organization 35, 137–149. 8. Gnoli, C. (2008b). Animals Belonging to the Emperor: Enabling Viewpoint Warrant in Classification, in: Subject Access : Preparing for the Future, IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 91–100. 9. Gnoli, C. (2012). Metadata about what? Distinguishing between ontic, epistemic, and documental dimensions in knowledge organization. Knowledge organization. 39, 268–75. 10. Gnoli, C., Bosch, M., Mazzochi, F., (2007). A new relationship for multidisciplinary knowledge organization systems: dependence, in: Actas Del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 Y 20 de Abril de 2007. Presented at the La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico: Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge, Servicio de Publicaciones, León, pp. 399–410. 11. Hjørland, B., Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46, 6, 400-425. 12. Kaipainen, M., Hautamäki, A. (2011). Epistemic pluralism and multi- perspective knowledge organization: explorative conceptualization of topical content domains. Knowledge organization. 38, 503–514. 13. Kleineberg, M. (2014). Integrative Levels of Knowing. An Organizing Principle for the Epistemological Dimension. In: Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference (Kraków, Poland, May 19-22, 2014). Advances in knowledge organization, no. 1. Würzburg: Ergon, 80–87. 14. Leon Manifesto, (s.a.). URL: http://www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php (4.18.17). 15. López-Huertas, M. (2013). Reflexions on Multidimensional Knowledge: Its Influence on the Foundation of Knowledge Organization. Knowledge organization. 40, 6, 400-407. 16. López-Huertas, M.J. (2015). Domain Analysis for Interdisciplinary Knowledge Domains. Knowledge Organization. 42, 8, 570-580. 17. Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3- 319-30148-8
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
No physical items for this record

Introduction This doctoral paper reports on the current state of a doctoral thesis by PhD candidate Denis Kos from the Department of Information and Communication Science in Zagreb. It presents an original research approach to organize knowledge and provide documentational support in the field of bioethics. It is grounded: • in the specific conceptualization of integrative bioethics (IB) which approaches bioethical topics with intent to integratively preserve the pluralism of perspectives that contribute to a full characterization of different bioethical phenomena i.e. pluriperspectivistically, • in the conceptualization of an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge organization (KO) as it was discussed by different authors in the field of KO (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995 ; Broughton, 2002 ; Gnoli, Bosch i Mazzocchi, 2007 ; Leon Manifesto, 2007 ; Gnoli, 2008a ; Cameron & Mengler, 2009 ; García Gutiérrez, 2011 ; Gnoli, 2012 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2013 ; García Gutiérrez, 2014 ; Kleineberg, 2014 ; Albrechtsen, 2015 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2015 ; Szostak, Gnoli & Lopez-Huertas, 2016), and • in the evocation of the concept of perspectives in IB and KO (Leon Manifesto, 2007 ; Gnoli, 2008b ; Cameron i Mengler, 2009 ; García Gutiérrez, 2011 ; Kaipainen i Hautamäki, 2011 ; Gnoli, 2012 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2013 ; García Gutiérrez, 2014 ; Kleineberg, 2014 ; Lopez-Huertas, 2015 ; Szostak, Gnoli i Lopez-Huertas, 2016) and the viewpoint warrant in KO (Beghtol, 2002). These foundations of the thesis all stem from the critique of the domination of disciplinary perspectives and the idea that we have to address scientific monoperspectivism by representation of a higher complexity of the world which warrants the ability to look at knowledge from a number of different perspectives. However, Szostak, Gnoli & Lopez-Huertas (2016) stipulated that in order to achieve this one first has to determine how much perspectival ambiguity there is in different studied knowledge domains. Objectives & Proposed Methodology The objective of this paper is to present why ethical issues have potential to be used as a starting point for investigative methodologies that aim to map the perspectival ambiguity surrounding particular (bioethical) phenomena. The author will also expand on the proposed methodology to achieve the research goals of the accepted thesis proposal. Proposed methodology consists of • a conceptual analysis of the concept of viewpoint warrant in order to elaborate its definition in the context of transdisciplinary KO, and in order to map the role of relevant concepts in its definition like: transdisciplinary knowledge, perspectives, knowledge integration, pluriperspectivism etc. ; • a bibliometrical and content analysis of literature in the field of IB to create a prototype system of relationships between studied bioethical phenomena, explored perspectives and characteristics of documents they are affiliated with ; • a study of consensus of experts by using the Delphi method in order to submit the constructed prototype for validation which will be based upon group consensus of its exhaustiveness and appropriatness of term respresentation. Expected Results & Contributions This paper will propose that ethical issues, as one of the most ambiguous areas of study, are central to studies of perspectival ambiguity which remains a key challenge of transdisciplinary KO, and will propose methodologies to approach the resolution of these challenges. References 1. Albrechtsen, H. (2015). This is not domain analysis. Knowledge Organization. 42, 8, 557–561. 2. Beghtol, C. (2002). A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems. Journal of Documentation. 58, 507–532. doi:10.1108/00220410210441 3. Broughton, V. (2002). Facet analytical theory as a basis for a knowledge organization tool in a subject portal. In: Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Organization for the 21st Century: Integration of Knowledge across Boundaries. Presented at the The Seventh International ISKO Conference, 1013 July 2002, Granada, Spain, Granada, pp. 135–142. 4. Cameron, F., Mengler, S. (2009). Complexity, transdisciplinarity and museum collections documentation: emergent metaphors for a complex world. Journal of Material Culture. 14, 189–218. 5. García Gutiérrez, A. (2011). Declassification in knowledge organization: a post-epistemological essay. Transinformação. 23, 5-14. doi:10.1590/S0103- 37862011000100001 6. García Gutiérrez, A. (2014). Declassifying Knowledge Organization. Knowledge Organization. 41, 5, 393-409. 7. Gnoli, C. (2008a). Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization. Knowledge organization 35, 137–149. 8. Gnoli, C. (2008b). Animals Belonging to the Emperor: Enabling Viewpoint Warrant in Classification, in: Subject Access : Preparing for the Future, IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 91–100. 9. Gnoli, C. (2012). Metadata about what? Distinguishing between ontic, epistemic, and documental dimensions in knowledge organization. Knowledge organization. 39, 268–75. 10. Gnoli, C., Bosch, M., Mazzochi, F., (2007). A new relationship for multidisciplinary knowledge organization systems: dependence, in: Actas Del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 Y 20 de Abril de 2007. Presented at the La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico: Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge, Servicio de Publicaciones, León, pp. 399–410. 11. Hjørland, B., Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46, 6, 400-425. 12. Kaipainen, M., Hautamäki, A. (2011). Epistemic pluralism and multi- perspective knowledge organization: explorative conceptualization of topical content domains. Knowledge organization. 38, 503–514. 13. Kleineberg, M. (2014). Integrative Levels of Knowing. An Organizing Principle for the Epistemological Dimension. In: Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference (Kraków, Poland, May 19-22, 2014). Advances in knowledge organization, no. 1. Würzburg: Ergon, 80–87. 14. Leon Manifesto, (s.a.). URL: http://www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php (4.18.17). 15. López-Huertas, M. (2013). Reflexions on Multidimensional Knowledge: Its Influence on the Foundation of Knowledge Organization. Knowledge organization. 40, 6, 400-407. 16. López-Huertas, M.J. (2015). Domain Analysis for Interdisciplinary Knowledge Domains. Knowledge Organization. 42, 8, 570-580. 17. Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3- 319-30148-8

Projekt MZOS projekt

ENG

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Powered by Koha

//