|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cal Index; exact equivalence with the terms appearing in the Tabular List is not always possible" (ICD-10, 1: 215). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ICD, however, presents itself clearly as a classification scheme and not a nomenclature. Since 1970, there has been an effort underway by the WHO to build a distinct International Nomenclature of Diseases (IND), whose main purpose will be to provide: "a single recommended name for every disease entity" (ICD-10, 1: 25). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the purposes of this book, we take a broad enough definition so that anything consistently called a classification system and treated as such can be included in the term. This is a classic Pragmatist turnthings perceived as real are real in their consequences (Thomas and Thomas 1917). If we took a purist or formalist view, the ICD would be a (somewhat confused) nomenclature and who knows what the IND would represent. With a broad, Pragmatic definition we can look at the work that is involved in building and maintaining a family of entities that people call classification systems rather than attempt the Herculean, Sisyphian task of purifying the (un)stable systems in place. Howard Becker makes a cognate point here: |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Epistemology has been a . . . negative discipline, mostly devoted to saying what you shouldn't do if you want your activity to merit the title of science, and to keeping unworthy pretenders from successfully appropriating it. The sociology of science, the empirical descendant of epistemology, gives up trying to decide what should and shouldn't count as science, and tells what people who claim to be doing science do. (Becker 1996, 5455) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The work of making, maintaining, and analyzing classification systems is richly textured. It is one of the central kinds of work of modernity, including science and medicine. It is, we argue, central to social life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classifications and standards are closely related, but not identical. While this book focuses on classification, standards are crucial components of the larger argument. The systems we discuss often do become standardized; in addition, a standard is in part a way of classifying the world. What then are standards? The term as we use it in the book has several dimensions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. A "standard" is any set of agreed-upon rules for the production of (textual or material) objects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. A standard spans more than one community of practice (or site of activity). It has temporal reach as well in that it persists over time. |
|
|
|
|
|