|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
Some Tricks of the Trade in Analyzing Classification |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
My guess is that we have a folk theory of categorization itself. It says that
thing come in well-defined kinds, that the kinds are characterized by shared
properties, and that there is one right taxonomy of the kinds.
It is easier to show what is wrong with a scientific theory than with a folk
theory. A folk theory defines common sense itself. When the folk theory and
the technical theory converge, it gets even tougher to see where that theory
gets in the wayor even that it is a theory at all.
(Lakoff 1987, 121) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction: A Good Infrastructure Is Hard to Find |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information infrastructure is a tricky thing to analyze.
6 Good, usable systems disappear almost by definition. The easier they are to use, the harder they are to see. As well, most of the time, the bigger they are, the harder they are to see. Unless we are electricians or building inspectors, we rarely think about the myriad of databases, standards, and instruction manuals subtending our reading lamps, much less about the politics of the electric grid that they tap into. And so on, as many layers of technology accrue and expand over space and time. Systems of classification (and of standardization) form a juncture of social organization, moral order, and layers of technical integration. Each subsystem inherits, increasingly as it scales up, the inertia of the installed base of systems that have come before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructures are never transparent for everyone, and their workability as they scale up becomes increasingly complex. Through due methodological attention to the architecture and use of these systems, we can achieve a deeper understanding of how it is that individuals and communities meet infrastructure. We know that this means, at the least, an understanding of infrastructure that includes these points: |
|
|
|
|
|