Comments on: On classifications and typologies (1)

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:24:05 +0000

Thanks for your answer. I agree about the lax use of the terms you cited. I think that each would be more useful if people adhered to more rigorous definitions, but people are as they are. The terms I cited are less used by the layperson and so tend to be used in a more rigorous way.
Categorisation is a fundamental tool of human cognition and I think the concern I have here is that it is not a faulty idea. Rather, that considered use by those that need such tools to express themselves accurately, are not groundless in their belief of the value of those tools. I find it interesting to speculate on the origins of such semantic tools. Are they innate, or developmental inevitabilities, or the consequences of unavoidable social exhortations? Whichever, these ‘type’ tools are systemic in our thoughts and one must take seriously any credible claim they are faulty. Can I assume that where we have standardisation of definitions and accordingly stringent use, that you are not claiming a deeper problem?

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:35:20 +0000

@ Gary:

Thanks. Taxonomy implies a hierarchy or natural order of some kind; whereas classifications, categorisations and typologies are simply groups based on shared characteristics or traits. I would also expect a taxonomy, say, of the animal kingdom, to be exhaustive and less interpretative than a typology, classification or categorisation.

That interpretation is required in categorisations/ classifications/ typologies may be seen as a shortcoming but whether interpretation is ‘poor’ or not would depend on the context. Additionally, In business contexts, many of these and other terms are often used quite loosely which I think is not helpful. What do you think?

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:49:37 +0000

Thank you for your answer Shefaly. Can I paraphrase it as ‘the shortcomings of typologies are: poor construction and/or poor interpretation’. If so, could I infer that if the idea of a typology has a fault, it is that it is too weakly defined and that more formalised ideas like categorisation or taxonomy should be employed more often?

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:54:41 +0000

@ Gary: Thanks for your note and your question. I mention a few examples of the ‘potential for abuse’ in the post.

Typologies may not always be internally valid or consistent. An example would be ‘generational generalisations’. A typology may also not always be exhaustively descriptive of the population in consideration. One could argue if such exhaustiveness is even required. Perhaps not, if the aims of creating the typology are clear. e.g. A luxury goods company can probably afford to ignore the C1C2D1 socio-economic classification and their brand preferences, because they are not the target segment for the company.

@ Vivek: Yes, it is. I have edited it out. Thanks.

By: Vivek Khadpekar

Vivek Khadpekar — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:42:37 +0000

@Shefaly:

Talking of “-ologies”, isn’t “universal consensus” a bit of a tautology?