Rorty's Neo-Pragmaticism and its Implications on Knowledge Organization System Development

로티의 신실용주의와 정보조직 시스템 설계의 의미

  • 박옥남 (상명대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2016.01.22
  • Accepted : 2016.02.11
  • Published : 2016.02.29


The study acknowledges the importance of philosophical basis such as paradigms and epistemology in knowledge organization system development. The study aims at providing implications of Rorty's neo-pragmatism on knowledge organization system development. The study discussed Rorty's main concepts - Anti-Dualism, Languages, Ethnocentrism, and Solidarity, and further how these elements are utilized in system design. The study focuses on philosophical basis, knowledge organization system development approach, and methodology. It has values in that it provides implications for other philosophical discussions to be applicable to knowledge organization.


Rorty;Neopragmatism;Knowledge Organization System Design;Methods;Philosophy


Supported by : 상명대학교


  1. Rorty, R. 1995. Philosophy and the Future. Saatkamp, H. J. ed. Rorty & Pragmatism: The Philosopher Responds to His Critics. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
  2. Rorty, R. 1999. Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin Books.
  3. Shirky, C. 2005. Ontology Is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags. Clay Shirky's Writings about the Internet, Economics & Culture, Media & Community. [online] [cited 2014. 12. 10.]
  4. Smiraglia, R. P. 2002. "The Progress of Theory in Knowledge Organization." Library Trends, 50(3): 330-349.
  5. Svenonius, E. 1992. Classification: Prospects, Problems and Possibilities. In Williamson, N. J. and Hudson, M. ed, Classification Research For Knowledge Representation and Organization. New York: Elsevier.
  6. Szostak, R. 2015. "A Pluralistic Approach to the Philosophy of Classification." Library Trends, 63(3): 591-614.
  7. Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. Philosophical Papers, 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Hjorland, B. 2002. "Domain Analysis in Information Science: Eleven Approaches-Traditional As Well As Innovative." Journal of documentation, 58(4): 422-462.
  10. Hjorland, B. 2003. "Fundamentals of Knowledge Organization." Knowledge Organization, 30(2): 87-111.
  11. Hjorland, B. 2013. "Theories of Knowledge Organization: Theories of Knowledge." Knowledge Organization, 40(3): 169-181.
  12. Kloppenberg, J. T. 1996. "Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of Thinking?" The Journal of American History, 83(1): 100-138.
  13. Mai, J. E. 1999. "A Postmodern Theory of Knowledge Organization." In Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 36: 545-556.
  14. Mai, J. E. 2002. "Is Classification Theory Possible? Rethinking Classification Research." Advances in Knowledge Organization, 8: 475-478.
  15. Mai, J. E. 2006. "Contextual Analysis for the Design of Controlled Vocabularies." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 33(1): 17-19.
  16. Mcllwaine, I. C. 2002. "Where Have All the Flowers Gone? An Investigation into the Fate of Some Special Classification Schemes." Advances in Knowledge Organization, 8: 479-485.
  17. McIlwaine, I. C. and Mitchell, J. S. 2006. The New Ecumenism: Exploration of a DDC/UDC View of Religion. London: University College London.
  18. Mika, P. 2005. "Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics." In the Semantic Web-ISWC 2005. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  19. Morato, J. et al. 2003. "Experiments in Discourse Analysis Impact on Information Classification and Retrieval Algorithms." Information Processing & Management, 39(6): 825-851.
  20. Neilsen, L. M. 1998. "Future Thesauri: What Kind of Conceptual Knowledge Do Searchers Need?" Advances in Knowledge Organization, 6: 153-160.
  21. Park, O. 2008. Current Practice in Classification System Design: An Empirical Investigation of Classification System Design Team Practice. Ph.D. diss., School of Information, University of Washington, U.S.
  22. Rorty. R. 1967. The Linguistic Turn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.
  24. 강순애. 2011. KDC 제5판 '한국음악[전 국악] 및 동양 전통음악'의 항목 전개와 개선방안에 관한 연구. 서지학연구, 49: 107-142.(Kang, Soon-Ae. 2011. "An Analysis of the Division "Korean Music [Korean Traditional Music]& Orient Traditional Music" in the 5th Edition of Korean Decimal Classification and RelativeIndex." Bibliography Research, 49: 107-142.)
  25. 김성훈. 2015. 소셜미디어 데이터 분석에 적용된 온톨로지 개발 및 효용성에 관한 연구. 박사학위논문, 성균관대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과.(Kim, Seong Hoon. 2015. Developing an Ontology and Its Usability to Social Data Analytics.Ph.D. diss., Department of Library and Information Science, Graduate School of SungkyunkwanUniversity, Korea.)
  26. 박옥남. 2015. 고전문학의 대중화를 위한 온톨로지 설계에 관한 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 26(3): 267-290.(Park, Ok Nam. 2015. "The Study on Design of Korean Classical Literature Ontologies forPopularization." Journal of Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 26(3):267-290.)
  27. 박용민 외. 2014. 소셜 미디어 데이터의 세부 주제 레이블링을 위한 2단계 클러스터링. 정보과학회논문지, 41(3): 225-232.(Park, Yongmin et al. 2014. "Two-Level Clustering for Sub-Topic Labeling of Social MediaData." Journal of KIISE, 41(3): 225-232.)
  28. 서덕희. 2011. 담론분석방법. 교육비평, 28: 218-239.(Seo, Deok Hee. 2011. "A Method for Discourse Analysis." Education Review, 4: 218-239.)
  29. 손흥숙. 2013. 교육정책 분석을 위한 방법론 탐색: Fairclough의 비판적 담론분석. 교육학연구, 51(1): 163-189.(Son, Heungsuk. 2013. "Exploring the Research Method of Education Policy: Fairclough'sCritical Discourse Analysis." Korean Journal of Educational Research, 51(1): 163-189.)
  30. 오동근, 여지숙, 배영활. 2014. 한국십진분류법 제6판의 이해와 적용. 대구: 태일사.(Oh, Dong-Geun, Bae, Yeong-Hwal, and Yeo, Ji-Suk. 2014. Understanding and Applicationof Korean Dewey Decimal Classification 6th Edition. Daegu: Taeil.)
  31. 오동근. 2007. DDC 22의 이해. 대구: 태일사.(Oh, Dong-Geun. 2007. Understanding of DDC. Daegu: Taeil.)
  32. 유호종. 2010. 소셜미디어를 이용한 웹 홍보전략에 관한 연구. e-비지니스연구, 11(5): 97-116.(You, Ho-Jong. 2010. "A Study on the Web PR Strategy using Social Media: The Case ofChungcheong Tourism." e-Business Research, 11(5): 97-116.)
  33. 이유선. 2008. 실용주의. 살림지식총서, 324. 서울: 살림.(Lee, Yu-Sun. 2008. Pragmatism. Salim Knolwedg Series, 324. Seoul: Salim Publisher.)
  34. Albrechtsen, H. and Jacob, E. K. 1998. "The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library." Library Trends, 47(2): 293-312.
  35. Almeida, C. C. 2012. "The Methodological Influence of Peirce's Pragmatism on Knowledge Organization." Knowledge Organization, 39(3): 204-216.
  36. Albrechtsen, H. and Pejtersen, A. M. 2003. "Cognitive Work Analysis and Work Centered Design of Classification Schemes." Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4): 213-227.
  37. Beghtol, C. 1998. "Knowledge Domains: Multidisciplinary and Bibliographical Classification Systems." Knowledge organization, 25(1/2): 1-12.
  38. Budd, J. M. 1995. "An Epistemological Foundation for Library and Information Science." The Library Quarterly, 65(3): 295-318.
  39. Donovan, R. 1995. Rorty's Pragmatism and the Linguistic Turn. In Hollinger, R. and Depew, D. ed. Pragmatism: From Progressivism to Postmodernism. London: Praeger.
  40. Dousa, T. M. 2011. "Classical Pragmatism and Its Varieties: On a Pluriform Metatheoretical Perspective for Knowledge Organization." Knowledgy Organization, 37(1): 65-72.
  41. Hjorland, B. and Albrechtsen, H. 1995. "Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6): 400-425.<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  42. Hjorland, B. and Albrechtsen, H. 1999. "An Analysis of Some Trends in Classification Research." Knowledge Organization, 26: 131-139.