The Design for Diversity Learning Toolkit
☰
  • What Is This?
  • Using the Toolkit
    • Overview
    • For Practitioners
    • For Teachers
    • Finding Full Text
  •   Case Studies
  •   Study Paths
  •   Topic
    • Algorithmic Bias
    • Collecting Materials
    • Curation and Remix
    • Intellectual and Cultural Property
    • Metadata and Nomenclature
    • Process and Partnerships
    • Technical Design
    • User Experience
  • Community of Focus
    • African American and Black Communities
    • Asian American Communities
    • Indigenous Communities
    • Latinx Communities
    • LGBTQ Communities
    • People with Disabilities
    • Women
  • Format
    • Case Study
    • Community of Practice
    • Model Project
    • Reading or Video
    • Study Path
  •   About Design for Diversity
    • Project Team
    • Contact
  • Home
  • Any Format
  • Reading or Video
  • Prototype Theory: An Alternative Concept Theory for Categorizing Sex and Gender? / Melodie J. Fox
Reading or Video 

Prototype Theory: An Alternative Concept Theory for Categorizing Sex and Gender? / Melodie J. Fox

Algorithmic Bias Metadata and Nomenclature Technical Design
 
Published  August 17, 2018  

This article explores prototype theory as an alternative to classical theories of classification. This article points to other, more fine-grained methods for classification than traditional systems with rigid boundaries and hierarchies. While this article does not delve into the technical systems needed to implement prototype theory, it is a very useful foundation for discussions on how such a technical system could be designed.

“Classical theories of classification and concepts, originating in ancient Greek logic, have been criticized by classificationists, feminists, and scholars of marginalized groups because of the rigidity of conceptual boundaries and hierarchical structure. Despite this criticism, the principles of classical theory still underlie major library classification schemes. Rosch’s prototype theory, originating from cognitive psychology, uses Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance” as a basis for conceptual definition. Rather than requiring all necessary and sufficient conditions, prototype theory requires possession of some but not all common qualities for membership in a category. This paper explores prototype theory to determine whether it captures the fluidity of gender to avoid essentialism and accommodate transgender and queer identities. Ultimately, prototype theory constitutes a desirable conceptual framework for gender because it permits commonality without essentialism, difference without eliminating similarity. However, the instability of prototypical definitions would be difficult to implement in a practical environment and could still be manipulated to subordinate. Therefore, at best, prototype theory could complement more stable concept theories by incorporating contextual difference.”

1341761 TKZ6RKRS items 1 chicago-author-date default asc https://des4div.library.northeastern.edu/wp-content/plugins/zotpress/
Fox, Melodie J. 2011. “Prototype Theory: An Alternative Concept Theory for Categorizing Sex and Gender?” NASKO 3 (1): 151–59. https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v3i1.12799.
Published  August 17, 2018  

Post navigation

Previous Post« Previous How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm / Mattu Larson and Angwin Kirchner
Next Post Imagining: Creating Spaces for Indigenous Ontologies / Marisa Elena Duarte and Miranda Belarde-LewisNext »
Narrow Down
  • By Topic

  • By Community of Focus

  • By Format

Get Help
  • Read an introduction to the Toolkit including definitions for formats and topics
  • Use the Toolkit in the classroom or workplace
  • Find full text of books or journals used in the Toolkit
Participate
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Join our email list
  • Review the Toolkit website and tell us what you think
Creative Commons License
Unless otherwise indicated, content on Design for Diversity (2016-2019) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 
  This project is made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services [LG-73-16-0126-16]. The views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
×Close