[Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric Scheid
>  
> On 1/6/03 9:03 AM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau at compuserve.com>
> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > First, the concept of sorting. Sorting is about order. But IAs use
> > card sort for its grouping effect. Thus, I said IAs use an
> > ordering tool for grouping purpose.
>  
> Do you mean 'order' as in 'chaos', or as in 'sequence'? 

I mean sequence.


> By what you've written so far I'm assuming the latter. I'd agree
> with the former, but not necessarily the latter. Grouping, without
> internal sequencing, can be an end in itself,

It is not about the order(sequence) of items within a group.

It is about the order(sequence) of groups.


> and the dictionary shows that that is a commonly accepted meaning of
> the word.
> 
> > The issue is about the method. In this case, the method involves
> > examining one item at a time and then placing it at a certain
> > location depending on some criteria.
>  
> On the contrary, I'd say the IA Card Sort methodology is a process
> of discovering just what those locations are.

There is no contradiction. In the process of "discovering" the
locations, a person applies some criteria. 


> At the beginning of a card sort there are *no* "certain locations".

I am not sure what you meant by "no certain locations".


[...]
> > When order is not observed, there is no sorting.
> 
> If you mean sequence, then you are denying one dictionary meaning of
> the word "sort".

How so?


> If instead you mean that after the process there is still only chaos
> to be observed, then I'd agree. But you don't mean that, do you?

No, I don't.


> 
> I do fully appreciate your point that grouping is often used as an
> intermediary step towards sorting into sequences.

That is for the next level sorting, i.e. sorting the items within a
group. But before that you need to sort the groups.


> Who hasn't sorted a deck of cards by first grouping them into their
> suits, and then followed up with the sequencing.
> 
> >> My dictionary has two definitions for "sorting". The first is
> >> "placing things in categories according to shared attributes",
> > 
> > As I had pointed out earlier, grouping is a technique for sorting.
> > To sort manually, people often use that technique. Thus, when they
> > say they are sorting things, they often mean "placing things in
> > categories according to shared attributes".
> 
> Substituting the definition in question for the word "sorting"
> you've said "grouping is a technique for placing things in
> categories according to shared attributes".

The statement "grouping is a technique for sorting" does not mean
"sorting" is equated to "grouping is a technique for". Thus, your
substitution is invalid.


Boniface