Classification Essay

For this paper, I would like to talk about Amazon classification system.

Your goal in this paper is to examine the descriptive and retrieval-oriented elements of your classification system. This semester has generally been concerned with the efficacy and “goodness” of classification systems, and how well their identities match the entities they represent, or communities they are meant to cater to. This essay will provide you the opportunity to use the intellectual tools you’ve gained in this class to make your own comprehensive judgment about one classification system. Unlike your former projects which asked you to build and compare systems using careful description, evidence, and some research sources, this is a research paper requires that you look to original research articles and books to really dig down into the theoretical and technical elements of your given system. Once again, the classification system you choose need not be a traditional, hierarchical system, just make sure that whichever system you choose you know it very well and that that expertise comes through in your paper.

Recall that Jonathan Furner has provided the framework for this entire course in terms of how we understand and produce difference kinds of “identities” within knowledge organization systems—in terms of representing things (objects, concepts, people) as a kind of description-oriented systems, as well as in terms of how navigable a system is and how well it helps people “people find the documents they think they want to find” as retrieval-oriented system.*

Your goal in this paper is to examine the descriptive- and retrieval-oriented elements of your classification system. Furner begins his paper by outlining the four elements he is going to examine to assess whether a KO system is good at representing identity:

• Identity;

• Knowledge organization;

• Representation; and

• Goodness.

Analytic tools and concepts need to use:

• Goodness and a descriptive system and goodness and retrieval system,

• Metadata elements,

• Standards,

• Relationships — How are they created, fostered, or valued?

• Aboutness,

• Infrastructure: administration, institutional context, labor, technologies, infrastructural inversion.

Be sure that you hit upon each of these broad elements in your paper in a way that a reader can explicitly locate a clear discussion of each of these elements. You will note that the course has been designed to support these four elements, so you have a great deal more expertise about these matters than you might realize!

Some broad and narrow questions you might ask are:

• What kinds of “identities” are at play in your system? Or at least those worth pointing out as significant for your purposes? (See Section 2.0.)

• How are relationships built here, and how can we understand the identity of these relationships in relation to the concepts in the system?

• What kinds of personal and social identities are at play here and significant for your critique?

• What is the KO system’s identity as a functional object, and how does this identity help us understand it as a system that must also retrieve information? (Section 3.)

• Is how your system modeled important to any of the issues that you have raised?

I can go on and on, but you get the picture. Go through the structure of this course, and the structure of Furner’s article, and ponder, explicate, research, browse, ask questions, read, download, discuss, and do whatever else you have to do, to understand your system inside and out.

Paper Length

Your explanations, interpretations, and comparisons should take the form of a cohesive essay of about 2,700 words. Your essay should have a clearly identified argument and structure.

Grading Criteria

• Basics: Does it meet the minimum length requirements, format, and include images and references?

• Research: Are the references of good quality, well-used, and properly cited?

• Argument: Does the exhibit have a clear argument stated in a thesis, is it well-presented, demonstrated, and sustained?

• Paper Logic: Are the sections of the paper clear and do they support your thesis in a developed manner?

• Presentation: Is the writing (and, if applicable, images) carefully presented, proofed, and finished?

• Quality of thought: Is the work developed, reflective, and thoughtful?