Search

The term “social epistemology” (SE) was first used by the library and information scientist Jesse Shera in 1951, but soon the term became muddled, and it did not become influential at that time. Later, it became known as the name for two different traditions outside library and information science, one led by Alvin Goldman and based on analytic philosophy, and the other led by Steve Fuller and related to science policy. It seems, however, problematic just to associate the term with these two schools, which, in different ways, are found not to represent genuine approaches to SE. SE is an alternative to individualist epistemologies and, as such, has roots back to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, and Charles Peirce, among others. In the twentieth century, the concept became influential in the wake of Thomas Kuhn’s historicist view and in pragmatic, hermeneutic, critical, and feminist views (but mostly not by using the term SE). In these contexts, it represents an alternative to “positivism.”[1] Shera’s 1951 use of the term SE is found to represent the best vision for SE, although it could not be properly concretized before alternatives to positivism were developed in 1962., The term “social epistemology” (SE) was first used by the library and information scientist Jesse Shera in 1951, but soon the term became muddled, and it did not become influential at that time. Later, it became known as the name for two different traditions outside library and information science, one led by Alvin Goldman and based on analytic philosophy, and the other led by Steve Fuller and related to science policy. It seems, however, problematic just to associate the term with these two schools, which, in different ways, are found not to represent genuine approaches to SE. SE is an alternative to individualist epistemologies and, as such, has roots back to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, and Charles Peirce, among others. In the twentieth century, the concept became influential in the wake of Thomas Kuhn’s historicist view and in pragmatic, hermeneutic, critical, and feminist views (but mostly not by using the term SE). In these contexts, it represents an alternative to “positivism.”[1] Shera’s 1951 use of the term SE is found to represent the best vision for SE, although it could not be properly concretized before alternatives to positivism were developed in 1962.

This paper delves into the complexities and theoretical underpinnings of knowledge organization systems (KOS), focusing on domain analysis and facet analysis as methodologies, such as improving the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The study repeats a former critique of the LCSH and argues for the incorporation of facet and domain analysis to enhance its utility and academic rigor. Facet analysis, although well-established, is critiqued for its rationalist philosophy and lack of empirical grounding. Domain analysis is presented as a complementary approach that addresses these gaps by considering empirical, historical, philosophical, and pragmatic issues. To any given system, the paper emphasizes that KO systems are not neutral; they reflect underlying theoretical paradigms that must be understood for effective classification. The study concludes by advocating for interdisciplinary research and broader cooperation among knowledge organization professionals, philosophers, and subject specialists to develop more robust and academically rigorous KOS.

This study examines the concept of “description” and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, bibliographical description, and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control". Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and of retrieving documents that are represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control, is a pragmatic philosophy aiming of optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests., Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, “bibliographical description,” and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson’s distinction between “exploitative control” and “descriptive control.” Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

Purpose: This article examines the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), which is the most used subject heading system in the world and an instance of a controlled vocabulary (CV). Design/methodology/approach: The method used to examine the system is based on both authors’ subject knowledge in the field of information science (IS) and the subfield of knowledge organization (KO). Core concepts in this domain were examined (1) by checking if they are present or not in the system; (2) if not, by determining whether LCSH contains alternative terms useful for searching documents about the missing concept, by examining books indexed by the Library of Congress (LC); (3) by identifying the semantic relations between subject headings. Findings: The results demonstrate fundamental problems in the logical consistency of the representation of IS and KO in LCSH. Practical implications: The implications for CVs in general are discussed. Originality: No previous study has used our method to examine LCSH’s coverage of IS., Purpose: This article examines the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), which is the most used subject heading system in the world and an instance of a controlled vocabulary (CV). Design/methodology/approach: The method used to examine the system is based on both authors’ subject knowledge in the field of information science (IS) and the subfield of knowledge organization (KO). Core concepts in this domain were examined (1) by checking if they are present or not in the system; (2) if not, by determining whether LCSH contains alternative terms useful for searching documents about the missing concept, by examining books indexed by the Library of Congress (LC); (3) by identifying the semantic relations between subject headings. Findings: The results demonstrate fundamental problems in the logical consistency of the representation of IS and KO in LCSH. Practical implications: The implications for CVs in general are discussed. Originality: No previous study has used our method to examine LCSH’s coverage of IS.

This article introduces the field of terminology, which often considers the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster as its founder in the 1930s, although important principles go back in time, in particular to 18th and 19th century botanists, zoologists and chemists. The contributions of Wüster are presented, as well as the alternative theories, with their criticism of Wüster's position, which came to influence the field after 1990. The article further suggests that domain-analytic studies based on epistemological studies of knowledge domains seems to have been overlooked. The relations between terminology and knowledge organization are addressed, and a closer cooperation between the two fields is called for., This article introduces the field of terminology, which often considers the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster as its founder in the 1930s, although important principles go back in time, in particular to 18th and 19th century botanists, zoologists and chemists. The contributions of Wüster are presented, as well as the alternative theories, with their criticism of Wüster’s position, which came to influence the field after 1990. The article further suggests that domain-analytic studies based on epistemological studies of knowledge domains seems to have been overlooked. The relations between terminology and knowledge organization are addressed, and closer cooperation between the two fields is called for.

This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggest way forwards in the teaching of knowledge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 focuses on teaching practical, applied and professional KO in which the focus is on learning about specific knowledge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowledge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowledge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author’s view of KO., This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggest way forwards in the teaching of knowledge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 focuses on teaching practical, applied and professional KO in which the focus is on learning about specific knowledge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowledge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowledge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author’s view of KO.

In this third part of the trilogy[0] about “science”, Section 6 presents further developments in the conceptualization of science. It has been claimed that science has recently changed in profound ways and the concept of “epochal breaks” has been used about these developments. The article presents and discuss many of these new concepts, including “triple helix”, “postacademic science”, “mode 2 research”, “technoscience”, “postmodern science”, “citizen science” and the little older “big science”. It is hard to form a clear conclusion about these developments, but most of these conceptions seems based on the increasing commercialization of science. In a way this is connected to the pragmatic philosophy of science but seems to have failed to address the question of how science can continue to penetrate ever deeper to understand the world, and not just reflect the more immediate social and commercial interests. Section 7 is the general conclusion of the trilogy. It states that the many pieces of fragmented knowledge about science from many different fields and perspectives which have been presented need to work together in a much more integrated way. Concerning information science, knowledge organization and related fields that means these fields need to understand themselves as a member of the science studies in its broad meaning. All activities concerning science, from producing over mediating (retrieving, publishing, digitalizing, curating, translating, organizing, teaching etc.) to use must realize the socio-cultural and paradigmatic conflicts, which are necessarily involved in such activities., In this third part of the trilogy about “science”, Section 6 presents further developments in the conceptualization of science. It has been claimed that science has recently changed in profound ways and the concept of “epochal breaks” has been used about these developments. The article presents and discuss many of these new concepts, including “triple helix”, “postacademic science”, “mode 2 research”, “technoscience”, “postmodern science”, “citizen science” and the little older “big science”. It is hard to form a clear conclusion about these developments, but most of these conceptions seems based on the increasing commercialization of science. In a way this is connected to the pragmatic philosophy of science but seems to have failed to address the question of how science can continue to penetrate ever deeper to understand the world, and not just reflect the more immediate social and commercial interests. Section 7 is the general conclusion of the trilogy. It states that the many pieces of fragmented knowledge about science from many different fields and perspectives which have been presented need to work together in a much more integrated way. Concerning information science, knowledge organization and related fields that means these fields need to understand themselves as a member of the science studies in its broad meaning. All activities concerning science, from producing over mediating (retrieving, publishing, digitalizing, curating, translating, organizing, teaching etc.) to use must realize the socio-cultural and paradigmatic conflicts, which are necessarily involved in such activities.

Libraries, archives, and museums (LAM) have existed since Antiquity in many different sizes and forms, and these institutions are not always easy to define and to separate from each other. Since the turn of the millennium, LAM has frequently been used as an acronym for these institutions, indicating an increasing interest to consider them together, partly motivated by a perceived ongoing convergence between them. This article describes and discusses this issue from ancient times to the present with the focus on convergence and conceptual issues, with emphasis on the practices, debates, and research over the two last decades. Distribution of documents via the Internet has been a catalyst for renewed interest in the relations between the LAMs, where increased use of digital resources is claimed to blur the traditional borders between the institutions (labelled digital convergence). In the first decade after the millennium, the research agenda was marked a limited focus on digital point of access portals for cultural heritage. Thereafter, the research agenda broadened. In addition to digital convergence, other kinds of convergence are a nascent topic for research, focusing on physical mergers, collaboration, shared professional practice, proximity in government agencies and an increasing dependency on common external trends, etc. LAM has also increasingly been the name for new educational programs and university departments, thus pointing towards LAM as a concept used about an emerging discipline or interdisciplinary field. There have formerly been attempts to construe a research field, which include these three kinds of institutions, and the notion LAM is more extended term than the study of these institutions, because each of them has developed research fields with a broader focus., Libraries, archives, and museums (LAM) have existed since Antiquity in many different sizes and forms, and these institutions are not always easy to define and to separate from each other. Since the turn of the millennium, LAM has frequently been used as an acronym for these institutions, indicating an increasing interest to consider them together, partly motivated by a perceived ongoing convergence between them. This article describes and discusses this issue from ancient times to the present with the focus on convergence and conceptual issues, with emphasis on the practices, debates, and research over the two last decades. Distribution of documents via the Internet has been a catalyst for renewed interest in the relations between the LAMs, where increased use of digital resources is claimed to blur the traditional borders between the institutions (labelled “digital convergence”). In the first decade after the millennium, the research agenda was marked by a limited focus on digital point of access portals for cultural heritage. Thereafter, the research agenda broadened. In addition to digital convergence, other kinds of convergence are a nascent topic for research, focusing on physical mergers, collaboration, shared professional practice, proximity in government agencies and an increasing dependency on common external trends, etc. LAM has also increasingly been the name for new educational programs and university departments, thus pointing towards LAM as a concept used about an emerging discipline or interdisciplinary field. There have formerly been attempts to construe a research field, which include these three kinds of institutions, and the notion LAM is more extended term than the study of these institutions, because each of them has developed research fields with a broader focus.

This second part of the trilogy[0] about science, focus on the various fields studying science studies (“science studies”, “metasciences” or “sciences of science”). Section 4 focus on the major fields (philosophy of science, history of science and sociology of science) but it also includes the minor fields scientometrics, psychology of science, information science, terminology studies and genre studies. Section 5 is about the fields of scholarly communication and knowledge organization. The main idea is that all the presented fields are important allies to information science with knowledge organization, and that information science should understand itself as a kind of science studies., This second part of the trilogy about science, focus on the various fields studying science studies (“science studies”, “metasciences” or “sciences of science”). Section 4 focus on the major fields (philosophy of science, history of science and sociology of science) but it also includes the minor fields scientometrics, psychology of science, information science, terminology studies and genre studies. Section 5 is about the fields of scholarly communication and knowledge organization. The main idea is that all the presented fields are important allies to information science with knowledge organization, and that information science should understand itself as a kind of science studies.

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

This article presents and discusses different kinds of data documents, including data sets, data studies, data papers and data journals. It provides descriptive and bibliometric data on different kinds of data documents and discusses the theoretical and philosophical problems by classifying documents according to the DIKW model (data documents, information documents, knowledge documents and wisdom documents). Data documents are, on the one hand, an established category today, even with its own data citation index (DCI). On the other hand data documents have blurred boundaries in relation to other kinds of documents and seem sometimes to be understood from the problematic philosophical assumption that a datum can be understood as “a single, fixed truth, valid for everyone, everywhere, at all times”, This article presents and discusses different kinds of data documents, including data sets, data studies, data papers and data journals. It provides descriptive and bibliometric data on different kinds of data documents and discusses the theoretical and philosophical problems by classifying documents according to the DIKW model (data documents, information documents, knowledge documents and wisdom documents). Data documents are, on the one hand, an established category today, even with its own data citation index (DCI). On the other hand data documents have blurred boundaries in relation to other kinds of documents and seem sometimes to be understood from the problematic philosophical assumption that a datum can be understood as “a single, fixed truth, valid for everyone, everywhere, at all times” [1].

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge Organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and repre-senting documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important dif-ference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example “match” techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflects (or aims at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore re-quires access to the adequate subject knowledge, which, however, is often characterized by disa-greements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as “paradigms”. No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO., Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, “match” techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as “paradigms”. No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept “science”. Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms “knowledge” and “philosophy”. Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowledge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowledge based on “the scientific method”; (3) science as representing fallible knowledge based on “the scientific method”; (4) science without a belief in “the scientific method” as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of “paradigm” and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowledge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowledge organization in the study of science and suggests how “science” should be understood as an object of research in these fields., This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept “science”. Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms “knowledge” and “philosophy”. Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowledge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowledge based on “the scientific method”; (3) science as representing fallible knowledge based on “the scientific method”; (4) science without a belief in “the scientific method” as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of “paradigm” and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowledge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowledge organization in the study of science and suggests how “science” should be understood as an object of research in these fields.

This article discusses the different meanings of keyword and related terms such as key phrase, descriptor, index term, subject heading, tag and n-gram and suggests definitions of each of these terms. It further illustrates a classification of keywords, based on how they are produced or who is the actor generating them and present comparison between author-assigned keywords, indexer-assigned keywords and reader-assigned keywords as well as the automatic generation of keywords. The article also considers the functions of keywords including the use of keywords for generating bibliographic indexes. The theoretical view informing the article is that the assignment of a keyword to a text, picture or other document involves an interpretation of the document and an evaluation of the document’s potentials for users. This perspective is important for both manually assigned keywords and for automated generation and is opposed to a strong tendency to consider a set of keywords as ideally presenting one best representation of a document for all requests., This article discusses the different meanings of ‘keyword’ and related terms such as ‘keyphrase', ‘descriptor’, ‘index term’, ‘subject heading’, ‘tag’ and ‘n-gram’ and suggests definitions of each of these terms. It further illustrates a classification of keywords, based on how they are produced or who is the actor generating them and present comparison between author-assigned keywords, indexer-assigned keywords and reader-assigned keywords as well as the automatic generation of keywords. The article also considers the functions of keywords including the use of keywords for generating bibliographic indexes. The theoretical view informing the article is that the assignment of a keyword to a text, picture or other document involves an interpretation of the document and an evaluation of the document’s potentials for users. This perspective is important for both manually assigned keywords and for automated generation and is opposed to a strong tendency to consider a set of keywords as ideally presenting one best representation of a document for all requests.

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by information scientist Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard’s Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points, recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized., A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by information scientist Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard’s Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points, recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

Diese Dissertation beschäftigt sich mit einer systematischen Organisation der epistemologischen Dimension des menschlichen Wissens in Bezug auf Perspektiven und Methoden. Insbesondere wird untersucht inwieweit das bekannte Organisationsprinzip der integrativen Ebenen, das eine Hierarchie zunehmender Komplexität und Integration beschreibt, geeignet ist für eine grundlegende Klassifikation von Perspektiven bzw. epistemischen Bezugsrahmen. Die zentrale These dieser Dissertation geht davon aus, dass eine angemessene Analyse solcher epistemischen Kontexte in der Lage sein sollte, unterschiedliche oder gar konfligierende Bezugsrahmen anhand von kontextübergreifenden Standards und Kriterien vergleichen und bewerten zu können. Diese Aufgabe erfordert theoretische und methodologische Grundlagen, welche die Beschränkungen eines radikalen Kontextualismus vermeiden, insbesondere die ihm innewohnende Gefahr einer Fragmentierung des Wissens aufgrund der angeblichen Inkommensurabilität epistemischer Kontexte. Basierend auf Jürgen Habermas‘ Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns und seiner Methodologie des hermeneutischen Rekonstruktionismus, wird argumentiert, dass epistemischer Pluralismus nicht zwangsläufig zu epistemischem Relativismus führen muss und dass eine systematische Organisation der Perspektivenvielfalt von bereits existierenden Modellen zur kognitiven Entwicklung profitieren kann, wie sie etwa in der Psychologie oder den Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften rekonstruiert werden. Der vorgestellte Ansatz versteht sich als ein Beitrag zur multi-perspektivischen Wissensorganisation, der sowohl neue analytische Werkzeuge für kulturvergleichende Betrachtungen von Wissensorganisationssystemen bereitstellt als auch neue Organisationsprinzipien vorstellt für eine Kontexterschließung, die dazu beitragen kann die Ausdrucksstärke bereits vorhandener Dokumentationssprachen zu erhöhen. Zudem enthält der Anhang eine umfangreiche Zusammenstellung von Modellen integrativer Wissensebenen., This dissertation is concerned with a systematic organization of the epistemological dimension of human knowledge in terms of viewpoints and methods. In particular, it will be explored to what extent the well-known organizing principle of integrative levels that presents a developmental hierarchy of complexity and integration can be applied for a basic classification of viewpoints or epistemic outlooks. The central thesis pursued in this investigation is that an adequate analysis of such epistemic contexts requires tools that allow to compare and evaluate divergent or even conflicting frames of reference according to context-transcending standards and criteria. This task demands a theoretical and methodological foundation that avoids the limitation of radical contextualism and its inherent threat of a fragmentation of knowledge due to the alleged incommensurability of the underlying frames of reference. Based on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and his methodology of hermeneutic reconstructionism, it will be argued that epistemic pluralism does not necessarily imply epistemic relativism and that a systematic organization of the multiplicity of perspectives can benefit from already existing models of cognitive development as reconstructed in research fields like psychology, social sciences, and humanities. The proposed cognitive-developmental approach to knowledge organization aims to contribute to a multi-perspective knowledge organization by offering both analytical tools for cross-cultural comparisons of knowledge organization systems (e.g., Seven Epitomes and Dewey Decimal Classification) and organizing principles for context representation that help to improve the expressiveness of existing documentary languages (e.g., Integrative Levels Classification). Additionally, the appendix includes an extensive compilation of conceptions and models of Integrative Levels of Knowing from a broad multidisciplinary field.