The Representation Racks

The KerBabel Representation Rack (or KRR for short) is a tool that characterises the Pertinence of an Indicator concept by an index situated at an intersection point of four axes of classification.  This is a circumstantial classification that relates directly to the evaluation problem at hand.  (By contrast, the KerBabel Indicator Kiosk, or KIK, offers a “generic” framework for the cataloguing of signals.)

In economics language, we can say that the KRR classification axes relate to the contexts of production (or offer) of knowledge propositions, and of use of (or societal demand for) the knowledge propositions.  In the frame of the KerBabel Deliberation Matrix, we can think of the stakeholders as the users (or consumers) of knowledge propositions, exploiting them to make declarative judgements about what matters (and why) for each object under scrutiny.  In this regard, the KRR classification system incorporates, for the characterisation of the Contexts of Use or “Social Demand”:

• The typology of Objects to be Compared.
• The typology of Quality/Performance Issues identified as relevant for the evaluation exercise.

This means that the KRR structure incorporates two of the three axes defining a Deliberation Matrix.  But it does not incorporate the axis of Stakeholders in the deliberation.  

[This leaves it open that the classification adopted for the Knowledge Carriers (on the ‘Production’ side) may differ from the classification adopted along the multi-actor axis for the Stakeholders in a deliberation exercise.  Of course, these two classifications will often overlap (and for particular situations might be proposed as identical); but, the method allows us to express, in complementary ways, the two faces of the Extended Peer Community as “producers” and “users” of knowledge propositions.]

Pushing further the idea of a “knowledge marketplace”, we can enlarge our considerations of pertinence to the “production side”.  On the Production or “Social Supply” side, the KRR axes relate to:

• The different classes of Knowledge Carriers (for example, different domains of scientific analysis, but also different domains of societal expertise, wisdom, and opinion).
• The spectrum of Conceptual Frames which are sourced or mobilised by the Knowledge Carriers, and which thus characterise the production of knowledge propositions.

Reasoning from the Production or “Supply” side, one can imagine that a knowledge proposition (e.g., data set, model variable, or other information category or concept) is put forward by a specific class of Knowledge Carrier, grounded in a specific Conceptual Frame, and suggested as pertinent for the comparison of Objects relative to this or that Performance/Quality Issue.

Reasoning from the User or “Social Demand” side, one can imagine that a knowledge proposition (e.g., data set, model variable, or other information category or concept) is retained, in anticipation of a deliberative evaluation exercise, as pertinent for the comparison of Objects relative to this or that Performance/Quality Issue, and that this leads back to the specification of the origins of this knowledge proposition by its localisation with a specific class of Knowledge Carrier and grounded in a specific Conceptual Frame.

Summing up, we have five structuring axes, two of which are present in both the KRR for Signal classification and the Deliberation Matrix, two of which are only in the KRR, and one of which relates uniquely to the Deliberation Matrix.  In order to build a deliberation problem, we need to specify the categories along each of these 5 axes.  

WHAT should we set out to evaluate?  

What are the Objects to compare?  

What are the different Conceptual Frames from which Indicators and Arguments are drawn?  

What are the relevant Quality considerations [the WHY? dimension]?  

WHO is, or should be engaged in the evaluation exercises, either as contributors of knowledge propositions, or as stakeholders expressing a judgement about values and risks?  In other words, how should we set out the two complementary typologies of Actors making up the Extended Peer community, considered on the one hand as users of knowledge propositions [that is, as Stakeholders participating in the deliberation exercise], and, on the other hand, as producers of knowledge propositions [that is, as Knowledge Carriers]?