TY - JOUR
AU - Jack Andersen
AU - Laura Skouvig
AB - In this article, the authors examine the discipline of knowledge organization by harnessing the theories of Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas. The argument is that knowledge organization is not just a question of improved technology; as an academic discipline, it has to define and legitimize its relevance for society. The authors use the theories of Foucault and Habermas to provide a sociohistorical analysis and critique of knowledge organization in order to point out how the discipline understands itself and how it is a de facto human activity. The self‐understanding of the discipline is investigated through the case of knowledge organization in the Danish public libraries at the beginning of the twentieth century, using the theories of Foucault. The second part of the article deals with the correspondence between the organization of society and knowledge organization based on the concept of Habermas’s public sphere.
BT - Library Quarterly
IS - 3
LA - English
N2 - In this article, the authors examine the discipline of knowledge organization by harnessing the theories of Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas. The argument is that knowledge organization is not just a question of improved technology; as an academic discipline, it has to define and legitimize its relevance for society. The authors use the theories of Foucault and Habermas to provide a sociohistorical analysis and critique of knowledge organization in order to point out how the discipline understands itself and how it is a de facto human activity. The self‐understanding of the discipline is investigated through the case of knowledge organization in the Danish public libraries at the beginning of the twentieth century, using the theories of Foucault. The second part of the article deals with the correspondence between the organization of society and knowledge organization based on the concept of Habermas’s public sphere.
PY - 2006
SP - 300
EP - 322
T2 - Library Quarterly
TI - Knowledge Organization: A Sociohistorical Analysis and Critique
VL - 76
ER -