Research precis, as of 26/July/2012

Darwin wrote that "[i]f the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin" (quoted in Gould, 1996). The power of institutions to bring misery to marginalized groups, which Darwin describes as a great sin, I see as one example of a larger problem: the harm of classification.


I plan to make the harm of classification one of the foundational concepts of my dissertation. At its core, the harm of classification is well described by Borges, who wrote that "it is clear that there is no classification of the Universe not being arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what thing the universe is" (1999). Because we are unable to clearly define what the universe is, it is difficult to create classification systems which do justice to the available diversity of our universe, our world or even our species. The inability to accurately represent the diversity of nature is, to me, the fundamental harm of classification. The harm of classification is a subject which cuts across disciplines and is significant in fields as diverse as gender studies, critical disability studies and the history of science (for example, see Gould, 1996). Being housed in an information school, I see the harm of classification as both a large, interdisciplinary subject and as a problem intimately situated in information studies (covered as such in a wonderful form by Bowker & Star, 2000). From our history as librarians, who have been prominent builders, implementers and users of classification systems, to our new-found interest in folk classification, search and flexible modes of information architecture, information is an area in which classification and its attendant harms are vital topics of study. It is worth noting that I am not anti-classification. Classification has utility. Eliminating hierarchical systems of classification is not, in my view, the solution to classification's problems. Instead, I argue for a more nuanced understanding of classification and its social impacts.


My own particular interest in the broad area of the harm of classification can be described as the study of how people create individuated material realities in a world of standards. The history of classification has been intimately involved with the sorting and organization of physical artefacts. We abstract those artefacts into information systems, often losing some sense of their vital materiality in our quest to achieve broad, usable categories. In my view, some of the most harmful classification issues come from the attempt to abstract humans and their bodies. From anthropometrically derived classifications of human race to definitions of mental illness, to systems as prosaic and everyday as (non-) standard clothing size, the stratification of human diversity is one of the major sites of classification-borne harm.


When I state that my area of interest is in the way people create individuated material realities in a world of standards, I mean to be very deliberate with my use of the word "standards," for it is a word of many meanings. Standards, in their everyday understanding, can be measures of compliance (meeting standards), excellence (standards of excellence) or even practical accounting (standard measures and methods) (Legget, 1970). In addition to the everyday uses of the word, my interest in standards is in their more specialized application. Standards, most often in the form of voluntary standards, are technical definitions and specifications by which products and methods are designed, measured and implemented. Standards in the technical sense are often segregated into three categories: voluntary, government and industry. In my own framework (following Pargman & Palme, 2009), these three categories can be distributed into two practical groupings: explicit and de facto. Explicit standards are those which are created through a public process and which are available for adoption by anyone who may wish to participate in their implementation. De facto standards are standards which are created by individual actors (often companies) and which have higher barriers to adoption, if their full adoption by outsiders is even possible. My aim is to study both de facto and explicit standards, their interconnections and differences, as those contrasts relate to people and the material environment.


In my treatment of the relationship between individuals and material standards, I have three major potential sites of study: the standards themselves; the effects of their widespread use; and the coping mechanisms, workarounds, co-optations or rebellions of those who do not fit into the standards. The third site, the co-optations and workarounds of those who do not fit standards, is of particular interest. I see the relationship between the individual and the standard as a tense one. There is a tension that exists between the quest for individuality and the standardized easy-fit model of society. The desire to be individual contrasts against the practical need to fit in. We construct our own individuality either within or without the standards of our society, although it is quite difficult to forgo all standards.


I hope to base my dissertation on two or three small case studies of groups who come into conflict with material instantiations of standards. Some potential case studies include: clothing, the way it fits, the ways different communities deal with and appropriate it, with one potential group being women who wear men's clothes; people with eating disorders, including what standards are applied to the practices of eating, exercising and regulating the body as well as how those standards medicalize and where lines between practices and disorders are drawn; people with culturally divergent eating habits (vegans, celiacs, raw foodists, etc) and how they create or have created for them new sets of standards; subcultural adaptation and co-optation of everyday objects (for example, urban cyclists who have modified, function-added versions of street clothes in the form of garments like Levi's commuter jeans and functional biking shoes made to look like fashionable sneakers).


In conjunction with case studies, I am interested in the ways in which business models and technologies have, over time, impacted the processes of standardization and customization. Concepts such as mass-customization, Anderson's long tail, disintermediation and the increased availability of computerized design and manufacture of products provide an interesting contrast to standardized mass-production. In sum, I hope to study the areas of conflict in the creation and use of standards, alongside how those conflicts are being dealt with in personal, group, institutional and commercial contexts.



References

Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail. New York: Hyperion.

Borges, J. L. (1999, July 15). The analytical language of John Wilkins. Retrieved from http://www.alamut.com/subj/artiface/language/johnWilkins.html

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. London: Norton.

Legget, R. F., Economic Council of Canada., & Science Council of Canada (1971). Standards in Canada. Ottawa: Information Canada.

Pargman, D., & Palme, J. (2009). ASCII imperialism. In M. Lampland & S. Star (Eds.), Standards and their stories (pp. 177-199). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.