Future research in this area should examine the extent to which users differentiate between algorithmic and human judgment modes of large-scale classification design. In particular, such research should examine whether systems in which the human judgment is more open and participatory—as in Stack Overflow and LibraryThing’s instantiations—are perceived differently than instantiations such as TFR’s, in which the decision making is behind-the-scenes. I suggest that, as with other classification design decisions, the extent to which the system makes human judgment open and participatory—or, conversely, hidden and selective—would reflect other values in the community. To that end, in my closing theme I address the extent to which we might view classification systems and their design as a research lens in their own right. Inherent in my argument that the classification system and the approach to classification design at TFR reflected the values of the community is the idea that the reverse is also true; evidence of the values of TFR’s community were found in classification design. Though my questions in this study were about the design process and not about the community, future research could take the reverse approach. Indeed, studies of labelling and naming have provided persuasive and provocative insights into other cultures, such as in Lakoff’s (1987) account of gendered nouns in Women, Fire, and Systematic studies of community values that incorporate studies of Dangerous Things. how a community agrees to organize and label their knowledge and their documents will reveal a more complete picture of that community. I argued here that the classification system and its community were complementary, especially as the system reflected the community’s of inclusivity. However, there is the possibility that research into other settings would find less
Future research in this area should examine the extent to which users differentiate between algorithmic and human judgment modes of large-scale classification design. In particular, such research should examine whether systems in which the human judgment is more open and participatory—as in Stack Overflow and LibraryThing’s instantiations—are perceived differently than instantiations such as TFR’s, in which the decision making is behind-the-scenes. I suggest that, as with other classification design decisions, the extent to which the system makes human judgment open and participatory—or, conversely, hidden and selective—would reflect other values in the community. To that end, in my closing theme I address the extent to which we might view classification systems and their design as a research lens in their own right. Inherent in my argument that the classification system and the approach to classification design at TFR reflected the values of the community is the idea that the reverse is also true; evidence of the values of TFR’s community were found in classification design. Though my questions in this study were about the design process and not about the community, future research could take the reverse approach. Indeed, studies of labelling and naming have provided persuasive and provocative insights into other cultures, such as in Lakoff’s (1987) account of gendered nouns in Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Systematic studies of community values that incorporate studies of how a community agrees to organize and label their knowledge and their documents will reveal a more complete picture of that community. I argued here that the classification system and its community were complementary, especially as the system reflected the community’s of inclusivity. However, there is the possibility that research into other settings would find less
Bullard-Dissertation-ClassificationDesign.docx