10 Subjects and disciplines: Modes of formation of subjects

Dr M P Satija

Structure:

1.Definition, Nature and Properties of Knowledge

1.1 Characteristics of knowledge

1.1.1 Knowledge generation and use

1.2  Importance of knowledge studies for librarians

2. Growth of Knowledge 2.1 Natural Growth

2.1.1Knowledge is fragmentary

2.2  Planned Growth

2.3  Induced Growth

3.  Modes of Subjects’ Growth

3.1    Three Modes

3.1.1  Specialization Trends

3.1.1.0 Fission

3.1.1.1 Dissection

3.1.1.2 Denudation

3.1.2 Lamination

3.2    Inter-disciplinary Growth

3.2.1 Loose Assemblage

3.2.2 Fusion

3.3 Multidisciplinary Growth

3.3.1 Distillation

3.3.2 Partial Comprehensions / Agglomerates

3.3.3 Subject Bundles

3.4   Some New Modes

3.4.1 Procreation

3.4.2 Self-Procreated:

3.4.3 nalogical mode

3.4.4 Instrument Based Subjects

3.4.5  Annexation Mode

4.  Relevance and Use

5. Summary

6. Glossary

7.  References

8. Test questions

1 Definition, Nature and Properties of Knowledge

Knowledge is defined as sum-total of ideas conserved by the society. It is manifested in sciences, arts, literature, fiction and facts, religion and myth, expressed feelings and experiences. In other words, the society is the conservator of knowledge. There can not be any knowledge without a knower. The knowledge is knower dependent. Man is the creator and consumer of knowledge. Knowledge is created to solve problems facing mankind and leads to new systems, products, services, values and ultimately the outlook.

1.1 Characteristics of knowledge:

All assorted chunks of knowledge can be unified into a single big whole. There is unity in knowledge says J. H. Shera(1903-1981). In other words, the entire body of knowledge is a system having its definite characteristics:

• Knowledge is not independent. It does not exist a priori. It is dependent upon the knower, the man. It is subjective, and resides in the mind.
• It is conserved by human society. Thus it is social in character.
• Knowledge is never complete. It is fragmentary. It is dynamic, multidimensional and changing. It changes with time and society. With time, its quantity increases and quality improves.
• Thus it is inexhaustible, i.e. never ending. In other words it is infinite
• Technology, social advancements and knowledge creation are mutually dependent
• Knowledge originates from the environment, both physical and social. Man is the knower. The Nature, including society, is the ultimate source of knowledge. Our sense organs are raw tools to perceive knowledge.

1.1.1 Knowledge generation and use:

Information is generated when the knower interacts with the nature through the sense organs. Information thus intercepted/perceived is integrated with the previously conserved knowledge for its use and validation. Thus knowledge is socio-biological in nature. Society is the producer and consumer of knowledge, while knowledge is the prime mover of society. Thus society and knowledge are locked in mutual influence on one another. It is not possible to isolate the one way influence. Knowledge grows as society grows; whereas society changes, develops and progresses as new knowledge is generated. It is the society which decides which kind of knowledge it is going to have; in which direction and in how much quantity; and determines the value scales for the different categories of knowledge. Therefore, thrust areas in research to develop new knowledge will depend on the values and priorities of society. It means society controls knowledge in its creation, storage and communication.

1.2 Importance of knowledge studies for librarians:

Knowledge is both recorded and oral. (Tribal and illiterate societies still orally preserve their knowledge). Librarians deal only with recorded knowledge i.e. documents. Knowledge is stock in trade of the librarians and information professionals. Therefore, quite obviously the study of the knowledge, its characteristics and structure is important to we librarians. Study of the nature of knowledge is as important to the library and information professionals as is the study of anatomy important to surgeons, says Jesse Shera(1903-1981). Hence as librarians we need to know the sources, nature and structure of knowledge. Only then we will be able to collect, organize, disseminate and preserve it effectively.

2 Growth of Knowledge

Every system and entity in this universe is growing and changing. Universe of knowledge is a system; and like every system it grows. Growth of knowledge is both additive, as in humanities, and cumulative, as in sciences. S.R. Ranganathan’s Fifth Law of library science, viz. Library is a growing organism, is a simple bibliothecal manifestation of this inviolable law of growth of knowledge. Kevin McGarry aptly equates this growth to biological growth. Today this growth rate is unprecedented and alarming. We are obviously witnessing an information deluge – though it is not easy to quantify the volume of knowledge or its speed of growth. However, as measured through the quantity of literature, scientific literature grows annually at the rate of 5 to 15% and thus doubles between 5 to 15 years, writes a Director of Chemical Abstract Service. But in the days of digital information revolution, the growth is rather out of bound. Eric Schmidt Chairman, Google Inc., has estimated that between the beginning of time and 2003 the humanity had generated five exabytes of data. This amount of data is now being produced daily and by 2015 it will rise to one zettabyte In some areas of soft sciences, such as humanities, knowledge growth is slow, so is the rate of obsolescence. We however see a palpable growth of knowledge in all areas of human thought, and endeavours and in all its manifestations. The growth may be of three types:

Paul Weiss and S.R. Ranganathan liken knowledge growth to the growth and development of living organism so does Kevin McGarry. Thus knowledge grows without any conscious efforts, as in a forest, provided the environment is not inimical. In every age and society there are curious and restless souls engaged of their own in knowledge creation. This continuous growth makes knowledge a system in a dynamic continuum. Every system needs information feed for its stability and development. This is true even of homeostasis stage. It means knowledge needs further knowledge for preservation and dissemination of the existing stock of knowledge – thus adding more to the existing stock. Hence, it grows of its own. Another factor for growth of knowledge is the innate curiosity, urge to be held in high esteem, and spirit of adventure and exploration in human beings. Next to food, shelter and security what man wants is to know the unknown. This quest is known to drive humans to life risking adventures to explore the deep secrets of raw Nature. It is a motivating force to generate and store knowledge. Weiss (1960) is apt to say that “key agent in the growth of knowledge has always been the human mind, imaginative, critical and integrative…”.

2.1.1 Knowledge is fragmentary

Another natural reason for growth is inherent in the fragmentary nature of knowledge. By nature, knowledge is never complete or final. It is an inexhaustible resource. For example, any research inquiry is always open ended. This is too obvious from the fact that every worth while piece of research raises more questions than it answers. Ironically advancing knowledge holds a mirror to some areas of our ignorance. Hence, knowledge is always incomplete, whatsoever may be added to its huge and inestimable repertoire. It is always moving towards its ever advancing frontiers. Hence, it has infinitely innate capacity to grow forever and ever This growth is both quantitative and qualitative. Qualitative growth leads to refinement and precision or corrects our existing world view. It also fills known gaps in our knowledge. Quantitative growth opens new frontiers and advances its boundaries in all directions.

2.2     Planned Growth

Knowledge is a reliable resource for economic and social development. No society, no nation can achieve success in economic, cultural, technological and educational welfare activities if the production and consumption of knowledge is not up to a certain optimum level. Since the Industrial Revolution knowledge based innovations are prized by every society for leading ultimately to economic growth. Latter further fuels new social and political ideas for welfare, dignity of life and individual justice to mankind. Every new piece of knowledge translates into wealth creation to enrich life on this planet and brings all social benefits. Knowledge is required to make life secure and ensure peace on this planet. “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed” aptly said our philosopher President Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (1888-1975). It is essentially the true capital of economy. Knowledge production, as a major economic sector, is now a reality. Alvin Toffler is apt to say that “Information has become perhaps the world’s fastest growing and most important business”. Therefore, there are planned and organized national and international efforts for its growth and to created National Information Infrastructure (NII). India’s National Knowledge Commission (2005-2008) is a shining example of national plans for development and harnessing knowledge for overall social development. Therefore, research is public-financed for new ideas, both basic and applied. Population pressure, rising standard of living and quickly eroding natural resources to sustain economic growth make it imperative to supplement the natural resources by artificial ones, and explore new kinds of natural but renewable resources. This gives rise to an abundant growth in cultivated knowledge. Indeed the growth of knowledge is exponential, and needs to be so. Within a decade, the number of universities in India has increased three fold, and colleges many more.

2.3       Induced Growth

Induced growth of knowledge lies half way between the natural and planned methods. Knowledge is not a commodity in the sense it is decimated by consumption. We can eat our knowledge cake and multiply it too at the same time. In fact, more we consume and share, more it grows and multiplies. Gaining or communicating knowledge further facilitates the growth of knowledge. Fritz Machlup equates knowledge dissemination to its growth. Widespread education, social awareness, more leisure time, wonderful advances in information and educational technology, super fast means of communication, generous financial support from the governments, organized and relay research, increase in number and variety of information media, growth in library and information services are some of the congenial factors which induce the growth of knowledge. Barbarian pressure on the academicians to “publish or perish”, personal rivalries and corporate wars for priority claims, are some other such factors. Post World War II Cold War, especially since the launch of Sputnik, has generated lot of research based knowledge in defense and social welfare among nations and their political blocks across the Atlantic. Close interaction between scholars, specialization trends, team work and interdisciplinary studies are conducive to the growth of knowledge. In fact all these are – both the cause and effect of the continued growth of knowledge.

3. Modes of Knowledge Growth

Knowledge is essentially a cerebral construct though social in character; and only the socially available or the public knowledge is knowledge ipso facto. Factors and means to procreate knowledge are numerous and varied. Nature is the ultimate source, and human being is the only agent to unearth knowledge. Non-human creatures do not have this creative facility. Research is one process to increase the fund of knowledge. Intuition, imagination and apperception are transcendental ways to conceive knowledge, whereas experimental, survey, and speculative methods are available to all. Studies on the nature of knowledge have given rise to a body of knowledge called social epistemology science of knowledge.

In spite of the increased importance of epistemological studies in philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, sociology, economics, education, genetics, linguistics, research methodology, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and of course the library and information science surprisingly there have been very few studies on the mode of topology of growth of subjects. “We do not take enough notice of what contemporary philosophers and scientists have to say about the nature of knowledge”, aptly warned D. J. Foskett (1918-2004). Knowledge is librarians’ stock-in-trade, and study of its nature is of as much important to us as the study of anatomy to a surgeon. Its implications in information management are all pervasive and too numerous. In Library and Information Science (LIS) discipline, S.R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) is a pioneer in the studies on the modes of knowledge growth and subjects. In the year 1948 Ranganathan got introduced to a paper “Development and structure of the universe of subjects” in the postgraduate library science curriculum of the University of Delhi, though his announced book on the subject was never published. However, he had an abiding interest in the field and always obtained fresh results (Kemp 1976, 11, Ranganathan 1968). The work has been continued by his schoolmen at the Documentation Research and Training Centre at Bangalore (Neelameghan 1973a, Neelameghan 1973b, Gopinath and Seetharama 1979) and elsewhere (Puranik, 1952, Vickery, 1952, Jyothirmai, et al, 1996). Late Dean Jesse H. Shera (1903-1982) lauds this as Ranganathan’s everlasting “intellectual contribution to the underlying philosophy of librarianship”.

3.1     Three Modes

All the specific modes Ranganathan discovered and a few more for the growth of knowledge can summarily be discussed under three general modes: Growth by specialization, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary growth. In fact Ranganathan studied growth of knowledge not qua knowledge but in form of subjects and especially the main classes. He defines main class as the first division of the entire mass of knowledge into manageable block of interrelated and coherent ideas for study and communication. He further warns, “Generally speaking a main class cannot be represented either as a subclass of another or as a combination of two or more of the main classes”. Ranganathan categorized all the subjects in the universe of knowledge into three categories namely, Basic, Compound and Complex. Main classes are basic subjects postulated in a classification system. Compound subjects, virtually infinite in number, are basic subjects with a focus such as agriculture of wheat, or rural sociology. Complex subjects are two phased subjects such as psychology for nurses. However, he divides main classes which he terms them as Basic Subjects (BS) into the following categories: Primary (BS) and Non-primary (BS).

Figure 1: Schema for primary and non-primary Basic Subjects with examples 3.1.1 Specialization Trends

In the Beginning was the Chaos. When too much growth and vast expansions make a subject unwieldy then the only way left to study and perpetuate it is by fragmentation. In many disciplines of knowledge there is an increasing tendency to specialize; to know more and more about less and less. “Fragmentation and specialization are two faces of the same coin” A specialist is one who knows more and more about less and less till he knows everything about a minuscule part. McGarry aptly writes “Societies cannot afford to work on the principle that everybody can do anything. The basis for efficiency lies in planned specialization of function, so management experts tell us. This principle is the same whether it is in industrial management or in the world of learning. ‘Medicine’ reflects this specialization function to even greater extent, and the same theory pervades social planning. The common welfare is seemed where each person performs a specialized service for benefit of others, and in turn can rely on their specialized services.” Division of labour in the society is a simple outcome of expansion and sophistication. Specialists emerge, as if spontaneously, when a community becomes large. For example, every large religion fragments into sects, and a large community into ideological or regional groups. Similarly, in academic fields a narrower area is made the focus of sharp and intensive studies. Today scientists are no more scientists but physicists, chemists, biologists and so on. This trend does not stop here, still narrower or super specialization has become the order of the day. One hardly knows a physicist today except as nuclear physicist, theoretical physicist, and plasma physicist and the like. Generalists are so rare that they have become specialists in themselves. Such fissiparous tendencies in every discipline have acquired obsessive dimensions. This rather perverse specialization as deemed by some, though not conducive to the balanced growth, nevertheless, yields bumper crops of knowledge which is relevant to the social needs. Specialization is the ‘in’ thing in this populous and sophisticated society and the universe of knowledge. Specialists are proud people. “Specialization is celebrated as mark of competence” says Dogan. Specializations may have the following modes of emergence:

3.1.1.0   Fission

As the term from nuclear physics suggests, it is successive ceaseless breaking of the subject into smaller fragments as in a nuclear chain reaction. It happens through the following two ways depending upon the time taken and the relative size to which the fragments are broken.

3.1.1.1 Dissection

One time splitting of a subject into an immediate array of its subordinate fragments of equal ranks is called dissection. Cutting a whole bread into slices (of more and less equal thickness) is dissection. Division of physics into its traditional branches such as properties of matter, heat, light, sound, electricity is an example of dissection. Division of the earth into its constituent seven continents is another example of dissection, so is the political division of a country in to its provinces. Generated divisions have a common genus, are mutually exclusive, exhaustive of the genus and equally ranked. In simple words, all segments form an array of cognate classes/entities. Dissection process is horizontal and instantaneous in action.

3.1.1.2 Denudation

Literally denude means to make bare. Long drawn and repeated dissection of a single entity becomes denudation. It is stripping a subject, like pealing an onion, of its successive layers to reach the bottom of the bottomless. Sciences, physical sciences, chemistry, organic chemistry, aromatic compounds, benzenoids, benzene and so on illustrate the denudation at work. It works vertically downwards and generates a chain of entities in successive subordination. Its action is prolonged. Extension of the subject decreases while its intension increases in the process.

It may be noted that both dissection and denudation are relative terms differing only in degree. Denudation is dissection applied repeatedly on one entity. Therefore, denudation includes dissection. This process is at work especially since the scientific revolution of 17th century when all experimental sciences were termed by a common term “Natural Philosophy”, and once all social sciences were called sociology.

3.1.2 Lamination

Main class is large, diffused but somewhat coherent area of knowledge. When its area of study is limited by specifying topics, it becomes a compound subject, from a basic subject. Lamination is the process of placing one or more isolates on the parent basic subject. It is to qualify a main class with a one or more topic. English language, linguistic grammar, and English grammar are three examples of laminated subjects from the main class linguistics. These have been obtained by placing the laminae of “English”, “grammar”, and “English grammar” respectively on the basic subject “Linguistics”. These are termed as compound subjects in Ranganathan’s terminology. Number of laminae placed on a subject could be as large as feasible. Number of such laminae is a direct measure of the specialization of that topic. Laminated or compound subjects are most populous in this universe of subjects –virtually these are infinite. A faceted classification such as the CC, UDC or BC-2 makes the structure of a compound subject quite clear. In an enumerative classification like the DDC compound subjects can neither take many laminae nor their structure is visible. In fact it is another kind of specialization -by qualifying and specifying a fissioned subject.

3.2       Inter-disciplinary Growth

The trend of specialization got so perverse that the scholars became isolated and distant from one another. Subjects became too jargon ridden to be easily communicated to other scholars. Scholars became ignorant of one another’s work in the same broader field. McGarry argues “This tendency, though it makes for greater efficiency, can lead to communication problem, to individual researchers loosing sense of the ‘whole’. In practical terms it can lead to costly duplication of efforts. It can even lead to duplication of efforts within the same profession...”. “However there is a clear concern that the fragmentation of the disciplines is failing to serve society in the face of a complex of global problem and conflicting initiatives.”

This trend has happily been counter-balanced by inter-disciplinary studies, set in especially after the last World War. Team and relay research, close cooperation among scholars, availability of subject consultants, have led the scholars to join hands for inter-disciplinary studies. Cross-breeding has yielded such subjects as chemical physics, biophysics or social Darwinism. Knowledge advances through the juxtaposition of subjects. It has been aptly said that subjects criss-cross in boundaries and neat demarcations are now gone. There is inter- and cross breeding to produce new species of subjects. Then there are subjects like “Physical Education” which feed on the other subjects in the environment. Inter-disciplinary subjects may be defined as a subject of interest to scholars from different disciplines or vice-versa. Ranganathan isolated the following modes of their formation.

3.2.1 Loose Assemblage

Loose assemblage is combination of two or more subjects or their parts in a sort of temporary, casual or incidental ways involving any relation viz, influencing, comparison, biased, difference, tool, or any undefined one. These subjects are from different disciplines. For example, ‘statistics for librarians’, ‘psychology for nurses’, or ‘influence of computers on library operations’ are some such subjects taken at random. In such cases a subject is studied in light of the other and here their encounter or assemblage is temporary, ad hoc or loose, and reversible. Inevitably these subjects are of inter-disciplinary interest. We can have limitless number of subjects by this process. Subjects formed by loose assemblage are termed as complex subjects by Ranganathan. Each constituent of a complex subject is termed as a phase. Phase relation is counted among Ranganathan’s brilliant devices for subject analysis and depth classification of inter-disciplinary subjects. Some of its methods such as the tool and bias phase have been borrowed by other systems such as the DDC, BSO and BC-2.

3.2.2 Fusion

Fusion is an advanced stage of loose assemblage. When loose assemblage solidifies into a permanent relation and the different constituents are irreversibly joined to form an entirely new subject with its own special isolates and literary warrant, it is called a fused subject or a subject born by fusion. Here the friendship or live-in relation of loose assemblage is upgraded to marriage or permanent bonding. Fused subjects transcend complex classes to become basic subjects. Chemical physics, Biophysics biochemistry, geopolitics are a few random examples of homogeneous and irreversibly combined complex classes – called fused main subjects. Fusion as a mode of formation of subjects was isolated as recently as 1968, though the phenomenon is much older (Ranganathan 1962). In fact, earlier loose assemblage included fusion. Later in 1968 the loose assemblage and fusion were viewed as two different modes of formations.

During the last year of his life in association with colleagues at the Documentation Research and Training Centre at Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru (established in 1962), Ranganathan isolated three more modes of formation of subjects. These are all multidisciplinary in nature in accordance with the latest trends in research. Area or mission oriented or marginalised social groups, such as women, dalits tribals and areas like family studies, early childhood studies being the latest fashion in research are a major cause for the outbreak of such subjects which are mostly of applied nature. Team work and interaction of pure and applied research also give birth to such subjects. These modes are as described below:

3.3.1 Distillation

When relatively not so fully developed a technique finds applications in different disciplines and as a result it gets more developed and accumulates a body of its own literature “distilled” out of its different applications. When such a technique acquires sufficient literature then it gets the status of a new main class in itself, and it is termed as distilled main (basic) class. Such main classes are slow in formation. Museology, management science, career-ology, archeology, seminar technique and research methodology are some of the examples of distilled main classes in the Colon Classification. These are new entries to the array of main classes. These are born multidisciplinary in the sense that such subjects have been nurtured on the experience of different disciplines or they inherit the genes of different subjects to make a new organism which is mostly applied in nature.

3.3.2 Partial Comprehensions / Agglomerates

Out of courtesy to tradition, and many a time out of necessity, some basic subjects coordinate in rank have appeared arrayed together. These are neither loosely assembled nor fused. So in their intra-relations these are inert subjects. Plant sciences (botany, agriculture, horticulture, forestry) mathematical and physical sciences, humanities, religion and philosophy, religion and ethics, geography and history are some examples of partially comprehensive subjects. Usually the constituents of a partially comprehensive class are consecutive main classes held under an umbrella. These are also of generic nature, e.g., social sciences, life sciences. In the Colon classification these are now existing at many hierarchical levels. Agglomerates may be viewed as bringing together of fissioned subjects. This phenomenon is already viewed by Kedrove who writes “The integration of sciences is today effected to an ever greater degree through their further differentiation”. “What is now partial comprehension might have been a main subject in the very early days, before fission advanced sufficiently”, says Ranganathan Such subjects are usually embodied in periodical publications, and encyclopaedias. Partial comprehensive subjects are also termed as agglomerates in new terminology, (CC-7, section 42j). Partially comprehensive subjects do not have their direct isolates. Though their subdivisions in the form of main classes are there like in a ‘bunch of bananas’ held together by some commonality; they are only good neighbours having a common distant forefather.

3.3.3 Subject Bundles/Clusters

As per Ranganathan and Gopinath, the subject bundles comprehend subjects drawn from different disciplines pursued by a team of different specialists. The Gulbenkian Commission accepting the emergence and social relevance of such subjects has now recommended: “The expansion of institutions, within or allied to the universities, which would bring together scholars for a year’s work in common around specific urgent themes. They already exist, of course, but in far too limited a number. One possible model is the ZiF (Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung) (Centre for Interdisciplinary Research) at Bielefeld University in Germany, which has done this since the 1970s”.

Such subjects are related. They either find application in other subject, or work in unison with each other towards a common goal. They are not inert to one another. Usually these are area or mission oriented studies; and usually such subjects are of applied nature. These may be in the form of a project undertaken by a widely based research team. These projects fall in the domain of “big” science. Every expert or the group has a demarcated area of work at the initial stages. Some of the subject bundles enumerated in the CC-7 are: surface science, social science, material science, earth science, hydro science, ocean science, deep sea science, atmosphere science, defence science (Ranganathan 1987). Tennessee Valley Project, Antarctic expeditions, Gandhiana, Indology, Sinology, Middle East studies are some practical examples of subject bundles. These are also called subject clusters. These subjects are beginning to have their literary warrant. One actual publication cited by Ranganathan and Gopinath in the CC-7(1987) is: Indian Ocean expedition: Recent progress in surface sciences. 1964 For such mission oriented subjects Whitley uses the term fragmented adhocracies which are polycentric in administration. These subjects are weakly bound. “Research is rather divergent and …limited in its interconnectedness”. Professionalization of social sciences has also given a fillip to such studies. Ranganathan erroneously thinks that partial comprehensions and subject bundles are the fruits of new developments in book production (Ranganathan 1969, 204). In other words he thinks such subjects have been procreated more by the publishers than the researchers and educationists. In our view, it cannot be so. It is the research trends or social needs which exercise formative influence on the publishing industry, and not the vice-versa. Research trends are catapulted by social needs. For example, subject bundles have come into being because of social necessity and availability of huge funds. Publishers only follow the lead given by author, editors and researchers.

3.4     Some New Modes

Some more modes of formation of subjects have been identified since Ranganathan. These are mostly transdisciplinary.

3.4.1 Procreation

If knowledge grows organically then some of it might be procreated by copulation of two subjects. One such subject is “Linguistics” which is a knowledge field of recent and rapid growth says McGarry. He further writes “Claiming descent from a union of philosophy and philology, it became a widely taught subject in the early 1960s. Its claimed territory is the scientific study of human language and this claim was supported by the increasing need to investigate language and communication in relation to human needs and human behaviour… A group of brilliant theoreticians created a new and broader picture for students and scholars. The discipline soon began to diversify and fuse with other disciplines. The results are specialist studies such as psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and neuro-linguistics” (1993, 146).

3.4.2 Self-Procreated:

Furthering the analogy of knowledge bio-organism some organism like the bi-sexuals are self-procreated. Applied mathematics, Applied physics, Applied Optics, Applied Chemistry, Human biology are a few of numerous such subjects being taught as independent disciplines. Though every knowledge is applied, yet every mature knowledge is theoretical. Indeed a theory is the most applied knowledge. These subjects are not applied in the sense of technology, as applied chemistry is not chemical technology. Nuclear physics and nuclear engineering are two different subjects.

3.4.3 Analogical mode

Some subjects find parallels in other disciplines. For example, Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species and survival of the fittest found echoes in social institutions and processes. Society, its organs and institutions evolve, grow and even mutate into other forms. Such studies are aptly described by the term Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism has been used to illuminate and explicate many social phenomena and problems.

Social physics, social entropy, political dynamics and sociobiology are some of the examples of such subjects.

3.4.4 Instrument Based Subjects

Some subjects are based on a machine and have grown into full disciplines by gathering subjects around a machine or device. An example is Microscopy or Microbiology which has risen from the Microscope. But the most outstanding example is of the all pervasive discipline of Computer Science and engineering, and of late mobile based applications. It has encompassed and influenced every strata of society. Such subjects are growing and even fragmenting, for example, Internet studies or social media are emerging as independent subjects.

3.4.5 Annexation Mode

Geography is a good example of all subject areas that grow by accretion or colonization…it has annexed many loosely defended positions in the social and human sciences, writes McGarry. This imperialist tendency of geography is visible in its branches such as commercial geography, medical geography, political geography and many more. Take another example of Physical education, including sports and aerobics, which draws its sustenance from physical, bio and social sciences. Knowledge and research methods from the hard sciences and mathematics have strongly influenced developments in exercise physiology, kinaesthetic and sport biomechanics. Physiology, sociology, history and philosophy formed the foundation for development of exercise physiology kinematics, sport psychology, motor learning. Sport sociology, sport history and sport philosophy have obviously drawn from social sciences and humanities. The rehabilitation sciences particularly physio-therapy have exercised an indelible influence on sport medicine and adapted physical activity. In sport management the influence of business management, law, communication and marketing is evident.

4. Relevance and Use

J C Binwal aptly writes “Modes of formation of subjects represent a typology of relations and act as guiding ideas in recognizing and formulating relations among concepts constituting a subject” Implications of such studies for hospitality in library classification have been explained and elaborated by S. Husain (1989). Clare Beghtol has reported some attempts to revise major library classification systems to accommodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately to reorient classification research towards pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge. Importance of such studies to the LIS community in general cannot be gainsaid for its own sake. Knowledge is librarian’s stock in trade. A good shepherd knows his sheep and its breed.

Figure. 2: A schematic diagram of the modes of knowledge growth

5. Summary

Ranganathan and McGarry mostly discovered above modes by impliedly empirical studies based on the published literature. Ranganthan was more speculative and intuitive. It may be easily visualised from the emergence of recent academic subjects that these modes of growth are not exclusive or working singularly. There may be two modes at work simultaneously. Take the new subject of early childhood studies where fission and agglomeration are together at work. Specialization with cooperation across the disciplines seems the present trend as exhibited by the recently completed

Genome project. Recombination of specialties across disciplinary borders is viewed by Dogan Obviously such results are never final. Subjects will continue to be fragmented, aligned and re-aligned in different ways. The more we understand the nature of knowledge more may be the modes that can be visualized. This ‘so various, so beautiful, and ever new’ universe of knowledge will continue to throw forth new subjects formed by yet unforeseen modes. Internet with its vast content and memory is showing new forms of subjects – which are beyond the scope of this attempt. The report of the Gulbenkian Commission (Open the Social Sciences) clearly mentions “We are at a point when it [existing disciplinary structure] has been questioned and when competing studies are trying to come into existence.” This is what was envisioned long back by the invincible T S Eliot (1888-1965) in his poem East Coker II (1944):

The knowledge imposes a pattern, and falsifies,

For the pattern is new in every moment

And every moment is a new and shocking

Valuation of all we have been.

6. Glossary

Complex subjects: Two faced subjects such as “psychology for nurses”. These are formed by loose-assemblage mode of formation. Earlier fused subjects were also seen as complex subjects. Now, fused subjects are mostly basic subjects.

Discipline: A broader area or compartment of the universe of knowledge whose subjects have similar objects to study or are prone to a common research methodology.

Information: Data or signals intercepted by the sense organs from the environment and processed by the brain into meaning: something communicated or obtained through reading and observation.

Knowledge: Sum total of ideas conserved by the human societies. It is generated through discoveries, inventions, experimentation, observation, imagination and speculations. It is recorded in print and electronic media and is manifested in all cultural objects and concepts.

Main class: The first order array of the universe of knowledge: a coherent area of subjects for study and research. Ranganathan prefers the term basic subject.

Specialization: Intensive knowledge and skills about a narrow area of knowledge.

Subect: A topic or theme of any depth or breadth for study or research.

7. References

• Al-Hawamdeh,   Suliman.    2005.    Knowledge   management:   cultivating  knowledge professionals. Oxford, UK: Chandos, pp. 1-15.
• Baker, Dale B. 1979. Communication or chaos. Science 169 (2947) : 739-42.
• Beghtol,  Clare.  1998.  “Knowledge  domains:  Multidisciplinarity  and  bibliographic classification systems” Knowledge org. 25(1-2) : 1-12.
• Bhattacharya, Nikhil .2012. “The evolution of knowledge in the university” The Information Society, 28: 208-227.
• Binwal, J.C. 1992. “Ranganathan and the universe of knowledge” Knowledge Org. (Then Int. Classif.) 19 (4): 195-200.
• Cornforth, Maurice. 1955. The theory of knowledge. Calcutta: National Book Agency. Dogan, M.2001. “Specialization and recombination of specialties in social sciences” In: International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences/ Ed. by N.J. Smelster and P.B. Balters. London: Pergamon-Elsevier, pp.14851-14855. Eliot,T.S. 1944. The four quartets. London: Faber.
• Foskett, D.J. 1980. System theory and relevance to documentary classification.
• International Classification 7.
• Gopinath, M. A. and Seetharama, S. 1979. Interdisciplinary subjects and their classification. In Neelameghan, A. ed. Ordering systems for global information networks. Bangalore: FIDICR and Sarada Ranganathan Endowment, pp. 121-35.
• Husain, S. 1989. A theoretical basis for the accommodation of new subjects in colon classification. 7th ed. International Classification 16: 82-8.
• Hjørland, Birger .2013. “Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization” Information Processing and Management 49:1313-1325.
• Jyothirmayi, S. and Humayoon Kabir, S .1996. “Basic subjects in Colon Classification from editions one to seven : a critical study” Library Science/ Documentation 33, Paper A : 1-28.
• Kedrov, Bonifati M. “Concerning the Synthesis of the Science” Int. Classif. 1(1) 1974 : 3-11.
• Kemp, D. A. 1976. The nature of knowledge. London: Clive Bingley.
• Machlup, F. 1979. Stock and flows of knowledge. Kyklos 32 : 400-11.
• Machlup, F. 1962. The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University.
• McGarry, Kevin. 1993. The changing context of information. 2nd ed. London: LA Publishing.
• Moran, Joe. 2007. Interdisclipnarity. London: Routledge, pp. 1-18.
• Neelameghan, A. 1973a. Basic subjects and their arrangements. Library Science with a Slant to Documentation 10 : 207-21.
• Neelameghan, A. 1973b. Primary basic subjects by fission. Library Science with a Slant to Documentation 10 : 162-63.
• Puranik, K. D. 1952. Field of knowledge and its repercussion on classification. Abgila 2 :19-23.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1963. Five laws of library science. 2nd ed. Bombay: Asia.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to library classification. 3rd ed., assisted by M.A.Gopinath. Bombay: Asia.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1968. Basic subjects and their kinds. Library Science with a Slant to Documentation 5 : 97-134.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1962. Application to India. In J. H. Shera Sociological foundations of librarianship. Bombay: Asia.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1969. Colon Classification, 7th ed.: a purview (1971). Library Science with a Slant to Documentation 6 (3) : 193-242.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1972. Impact of growth in the universe of subjects on classification. In FID/CR report 12 Ranganathan Memorial Issue. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Documentation.
• Ranganathan, S. R. 1987. Colon classification. 7th ed., revised and edited by M. A. Gopinath. Bangalore: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment.
• Satija, M. P. 1984. On quantifying knowledge. Herald of Library Science 23 : 23-30. Satija, M. P. 2011. A guide to the theory and practice of Colon Classification. New Delhi: Ess Ess.
• Satija, M.P. 2013. “Information: Nature, Importance and Function” Annals of Lib. & Info. Studies 60:128-133.
• Shera, J. H. 1962. Sociological foundations of librarianship. Bombay: Asia.
• Swanson, Don R. 1980. The role of libraries in the growth of knowledge. Chicago : The University of Chicago.
• Toffler, Alvin. 1980. The third wave. New York: William Morrow.
• Vickery, B. C. 1952. The changing structure of knowledge. Annals of Library Science 1 :137-47.
• Wallerstein, I., et. al 1997. Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on Restructuring the Social Sciences. New Delhi: Vistar Publications. xiii, 105p.
• Weiss, Paul. 1960. Knowledge: a growth process. Science 131 (3415) : 1716-9.
• Whitley, Richard .1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 319 p.
• Wuest, Deborah A. and Bucher, Charles A. 2006. Foundations of Physical Education, Exercise science and sport. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Learn More:

Module LIS/KOP – C/7: Subjects and Disciplines

1. Do you know

• Knowledge and information are composed of the same stuff.
• Knowledge and information are two different entities having different properties.
• Knowledge and information are mutually dependant.
• Ranganathan is pioneer in the study of the growth of subjects.

2.Points to remember

• Knowledge is defined as sum total of ideas conserved by the individual or Society filtered through its moral, ethical and intellectual systems.
• Knowledge is a social and cerebral construct, and does not exist in nature.
• Knowledge is always fragmentary and always keeps growing endlessly.
• In the information society knowledge is the most valuable resource, which is the substitute of all other resources.
• A subject is a small coherent and defined area of knowledge which can be comprehended by a normal specialist in that subject.
• Modes of growth of knowledge have profound impact on our library classification systems.