Book review iii: 'Categories we live by'

In thinking about (with?) Hodges' model, I often feel there is a flip-flop nature to where exactly concepts sit; or more accurately the perspective (care/knowledge domain) from which they are viewed.

Murphy introduces dual-character concepts, 'which are things that have both a prototype (or rule) and an ideal.' p.30. and quotes from:

Knobe J, Prasada S, Newman GE. Dual character concepts and the normative dimension of conceptual representation. Cognition. 2013 May;127(2):242-57. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.005. Epub 2013 Mar 1. PMID: 23454798.

Do dual character concepts operate at varied levels, and in their association (semantic) proximity - relationship to other concepts? All this changing according to context.

Murphy explores the dual category nature of people who claim to be scientists, but are really following a hobbyhorse. That is not lost on me. Others, a baker is following scientific principles while not technically being a scientist p.31. The discussion on art - artists is also informative; turn the page, and that on RINOs - Republican In Name Only - is very timely! There are the problems that science itself can contribute. If you don't know your oxeye daisy from osedaxes you can find out here: fascinating. 

'Health' is dual category in a great many respects (and with a chapter to follow). Many have been and will continue to be discussed here:

• person :: service-centredness
• parity of esteem (mental - physical)
• confusion - dementia :: delirium (infection, dehydration)
• mental capacity :: best interests
• community care :: 'in care'
• clinical risk - positive risk taking
• healthcare :: social care

There's a need for careful deliberation too as does this apply to any situation in which there is a smell of  dichotomy: good, or bad?

Chapter 3 'Categories in the World and in the Head' helps straight away - declaring a false dichotomy. For me, it's worth revisiting natural categories, natural kinds and essential categories and psychological essentialism. Get these right and surely that's a useful toolkit, or more accurately - first aid kit?

I'm grateful for the placeholder essence (p.46) from:

Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.009

'Psychological essentialism should not be equated with the classical view that concepts are representations of classes of objects that have singly necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for membership. ... More generally, we propose that the knowledge representations people have for concepts may contain what might be called an essence placeholder. There are several possibilities for what is in such placeholder. In some cases, but by no means in all, it might be filled with beliefs about what properties are necessary and sufficient for the thing to be what it is. In other cases it might be filled with a more complex, and possibly more inchoate, "theory" of what makes the thing the thing that it is (see Murphy & Medin,1985). It might, additionally, contain the belief (or a representation of the belief) that there are people, experts, who really know what makes the thing the thing that it is, or scholars who are trying to figure out exactly what it is. Just as with theories, what the placeholder contains may change, but the placeholder remains.' pp.184-185.

Hodges' model provides four placeholders. In reading and watching videos on category theory, it appears there is a role for 'placeholders'. I realise the applications - contexts differ, but analogies are powerful too.

Regards, classification as an exercise in convenience, despite the emphasis upon evidence, how often even in clinical matters does it come down to convenience? More to follow on this.

I've never wanted Hodges' model to be a grab-bag for keywords, concepts - categories! So it helps ease that concern, in chapter 4 to see words and categories contrasted. I always wondered about the media's preoccupation with the Inuit and 'snow'. 'Salient' is here as expected in 'Language, Culture and Categories' and with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis p.53. And, of course, nursing and everything else relies on language p.57. Prof. Murphy's mention of children figuring out when it comes to language, and adults just how crazy it - the rules - can seem. While impossible, by definition, I had this thought of toddlers instigating a class action to get things put right. I like the way Murphy reaches across cultures for answers, highlighting the field of ethnobiology p.61. The appeal of this is exaggerated as it stretches across Hodges' model diametrically [sociology - sciences]. I'm still on the look out for models possessed of an 'otherness', that retain legitimacy, validity where and for whom they are employed. (There is much to debate there still.) The objective and subjective dimensions also loom large. I remember a meeting concerned with nursing terminology 1990s, with reflection on the terms used for injection across the UK. That in itself demonstrated wide regional variations that also give pause for thought.

More to follow, with Part 2 'case studies'.

Murphy, Gregory L. Categories we live by: how we classify everyone and everything. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2024.

Many thanks to MIT Press for the review copy.

See also:

Categories are destiny' Freud p.6. of 'Categories we live by'

Book review: 'Categories we live by' ii

Book review iv: 'Categories we live by'

v Book review: 'Categories we live by'

Book review: 'Categories we live by' ii

In that first post I felt a bit guilty getting bogged down in the introduction, and not really saying much about the book itself.

Well, Chapter 1 is the 'Introduction' so that is great, and as you may be I am swept up by what's between the covers. Speaking of which, this is an effective design, and green colour; especially for a northern reading in March - May.

The book is slim considering the topic, 164 pages, plus just over a page of notes, four and a half of references and an index. It is, I think a slightly larger format paperback but fits well in the hands for outdoors reading. The fonts and layout are clear.

Murphy's style is straightforward and readable. It is not technical, but includes terms such as classification, nomenclature, and domain [ ;-) ]. The division into two parts, lends itself to a wide readership, the second part providing case studies giving the book a pragmatic, practical emphasis. I'll post again about chapters 6 & 7 on Psychodiagnostic Categories; and Categories and Power respectively (brief, but a joy!).

Before moving on from the Intro, Murphy explains how the same category may be thought of in different ways at different times' and encourages us to be 'critical of our categories'. p.12. This stands out for me. Especially being suitably equipped to critique our categories as we use them.

Chapter 2 on The Classical Tradition, has a natural starting point; describing Aristotle (with his book Categories), essences, definitions with properties that are necessary and sufficient p.14-15.

'Necessity: If it's in the category, it has the features,
Sufficiency: If it has the features, it's in the category.' p.15.

I was prompted to reflect on relations and identities here. While I suggested the book is not technical, there is a important point about dictionaries and the definitions we seek there. We should remember that many members of the public would still rely on what is the classical way to create, confirm category membership: there must be a rule.

Wittgenstein follows pp.17-20, but I took note of:

'The problem is that necessity and sufficiency are in tension with each
other. As you make the list of properties longer and longer, it's more likely
to be sufficient but less likely to be necessary. Forming a list of features that
are both necessary and sufficient is usually impossible.' p.19.

I pencilled in (Eleanor) Rosch on p.13, and on page 21 her contribution to the destruction of the classical world is described; with other researchers. The book is well referenced, without being intrusive. Murphy provides specific pointers, suggesting further reading and skipping a chapter. Helpful, given how precious time is these days.

There is a critical invitation on page 13: 

'Want to start an argument with someone? Ask them whether a stove is a kitchen utensil or nursing is a science.'

I wonder if nursing theory colleagues in the United States and globally have already responded?

More to follow - surely!

Murphy, Gregory L. Categories we live by: how we classify everyone and everything. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2024.

Many thanks to MIT Press for the review copy.

Draft: Table 3 What about this one - should it stay or...?

 Table 3 Features of Hodges' model related to Threshold Concepts [TCs]

This is, I think, a more obvious element of a paper on Hodges' model and threshold concepts than Table 2 which has now been removed from the draft. Despite the inclination to relate the main features of one to the other at 5449 words it looks like this table will also be dropped. I'm not working to a word limit for a given journal, but 5-6000 words including references seems a more disciplined figure at this stage.

While I've just explained a rationale for it, the purpose of table 3 does not seem very clear within the paper. At 90 words the table is hardly lengthy, but it is the main text and ideas it relates too. Without fooling myself, I'm sure the draft is now much improved continuing to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were. Now I've placed the emphasis on explaining the example 'Deprivation of Liberty'. There is an interloper in the table: can you spot it?

Yes, that's it - Compound TCs [CTCs]. In this I'm questioning whether there are hybrid conceptual structures in Hodges' model? I'm proposing that 'Deprivation of Liberty' (must) be considered as a compound TC, for reasons (care requirements actually) of integrated, person-centered and holistic care. I also intend to argue that these are legacy issues (based on a 40 year career - practitioner research?) in terms of quality of care and quality of teaching / learning which also call for measurement. In addition to CTCs, I also see Hodges' model as a means to precontextualisation.

So, Table 3 thanks for hanging out with me: you will be revisited at some point, but for now it looks like your rows and columns are numbered!

Once again if needed this invaluable introduction and bibliography on threshold concepts may help with the meaning of the threshold concepts features.

Hodges' model Feature	TC Features and additional points
Care Domains	Liminality, Transformative, Troublesome, Irreversible, Integrative, Bounded, Discursive, Reconstititive Disciplinary and contextual way-finding and sign-posting precontextualisation
Health Career	Transformative, Reconstititive, Irreversible
H-M axis	Integrative, Reconstititive, subjective-objective, qualitative-quantitative Personal, Collective, 4Ps purposes, processes, policies, practises,  Effectiveness, Efficiency
I-G axis	Integrative, Reconstititive, Personal, Collective, 4Ps purposes, processes, policies, practises Equity, Efficacy, Equality
Hodges' model – as a whole	Holistic, Person and Student-centredness, Troublesome Idealisation, being person-centred, precontextualisation, transtheoretical
Compound TCs	Troublesome, Integrative, Discursive, Reconstititive, Liminality Situated learning, Person centredness, Reflection on experiences, Reflexivity

See also - Draft: Table 2 ... 

Hodges' model: Combined Care Feature Capture - Black Box + White Box?

Nursing is, in theory and practice, far removed from multimedia; which in turn has changed markedly from when the poster quoted below was published in 1999. 

Nursing is 'multi-media' in the sense of combining several data sources across several domains of knowledge and from a range of media.

[From a conference poster no longer available:]

"Feature Detectors 

Feature detectors are used to build a semantically rich index entry for the original multimedia object. They do this on two different levels:

1. Blackbox detectors are implemented in a programming language to access the raw multimedia data and to derive the desired features from it. Example: the web_header detector sends a HTTP HEAD request to the specified HTTP server and extracts the content type from the response.
2. Whitebox detectors consist of queries over the already collected feature values. Example: the page_type detector uses the content type to determine if an object is a page.

In the general case blackbox detectors will derive low-level feature data, e.g., the color distribution of an image. But they can also be used for more complex tasks, like finding a face in an image. The function of whitebox detectors is to relate low-level features to concepts, e.g., an image is a portrait because its color distribution classifies it as a photo and it contains exactly one face."

Hodges' model is situated and in healthcare context is everything. Behind a hospital clinic or ward door we might expect certain features to be found. Out in the community following a referral again certain features will be found. The features take on a personalised nature as key features confirming a diagnosis, problem or care issue are presented by the patient (client) or their carer. I'm not sure whether this is useful or not, but the domains of Hodges' model suggests quite a few boxes are required to tick the box that is holistic - integrated care.

And that does not take account of exactly where the knowledge resides; that is another test.

M., A. Schmidt, M. Kersten. Acoi: A System for Indexing Multimedia Objects. In International Workshop on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, November 1999. (n.b. The link in the poster is no longer valid.)

My original source:

ERCIM News No. 59 October 2004 Grammar Enables Effective Multimedia Search Queries. pp.63-64.