I use Literary Theory: An Anthology edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (WorldCat link). It was one of my readers in grad school, so I had it on hand. It has sections for each of the major literary theories made up of works by the key theorists.

And yes, my database designer of an LIS prof used to just shake his head at “you humanities people.” “You never say what you mean,” he’d complain, “and your article titles are useless.” :-)

But I’d also argue that much of what passes for “typical” indexing and/or subject assignment is no less cloudy.

Some of it is certainly easier than others, but then methodology and approach would be the same.

I also agree that some of your fields do fall on the tougher end of the spectrum.

Thanks for replying, and with such a thoughtful answer.

By “not possible” I mean “not possible to do well, at least not in the disciplines with which I am most familiar.” Take literary theory (the area with which I’m most familiar). Almost no scholar will name his or her theoretical approach in a work of criticism, and most use approaches primarily based on one or another theory of reading but drawing on bits and pieces of other theories. To make matters even more complicated, part of the fun of lit theory is that it keeps shifting. People keep splitting theories, making new ones, re-naming old ones, blending several together, or (even more fun) deciding that while Scholar A *thinks* she’s a post-structuralist, she’s actually just a structuralist.

It’s the same reason we don’t index based on school of philosophical thought, or even schools of anthropological thought. Things shift, and it takes a great deal of disciplinary familiarity to see the distinctions. And I don’t think we can assume that disciplinary indexers would be able to make these distinctions. Even after graduate work in the field, I can’t do it with any real finesse, and I’d be petrified if assigned that task. I know I’d make matters worse rather than better.

So I guess what I’m saying is that we could certainly add fields for theoretical approach, but getting consistent and appropriate data into that field would be incredibly difficult.

But they most certainly could be indexed on method just as easily as on anything else. Sure, indexers might need a bit more knowledge of the field they are indexing but let’s hope (I know it’s only a hope) that they already have some decent subject knowledge. And if they have subject knowledge of a field where differentiating methodology can be critical then I would hope and assume they have that knowledge; at least to the level of the subject itself.

If you really did mean that it is not possible to index on methodology could you please discuss a bit on why you feel that way.

I have no doubt that identifying the methodology or theoretical approach can be difficult in some instances, but I’d also maintain that it is (in most cases) no harder than determining subject/aboutness/etc.

P.S. Not trying to critique. Just want to understand if you meant currently not possible or theoretically not possible in your disciplines, of which I admittedly have limited knowledge.