Opinions on the structure

A draft taxonomy is presented to stimulate debate

http://sedentarybehaviourclassification.net/working-docs/proposed-draft-taxonomy/

Choices for structure are limited: flat, hierarchical,faceted or networked. This is detailed in the working documents

Researchers are asked to leave comment below or via the form

Posted in Working documents
9 Comments » for Opinions on the structure
  1. Dr Samuel Nyman says:

    From reading the working document, it appears you want me to say faceted (or maybe networked), but as a starting point I found hierarchical was better for helping unpick the different aspects of sedentary behaviour (i.e. to do the classifications). Maybe hierarchical could be used to begin with, and then after explore ways of visually representing the classifications.

  2. Ellen Freiberger says:

    faceted (but faceted for my opinion it means related to different domains e.g. as defined int he ICF) otherwise it would be hierachical.

  3. Juliet Little says:

    Networked

  4. Dr Helen Hawley says:

    Potentially I agree, faceted may work well although I am a bit concerned about how complex it will get, especially with the lifecourse approach. I think that the structure would be difficult to make hierachical as it is difficult to prioritise one type of movement over another.

  5. Prof Tim Olds says:

    hierarchical (and faceted)

  6. Bronwyn Clark says:

    I like the faceted structure. As researchers we are often interested in certain facets and not others. Measures can therefore be tailored or suited to certain facets. However, I think purpose could be divided into broad domains (e.g. work, travel, leisure) with sub-categories like (TV, computer, reading, socialising). I’m not sure if this works best as a hierachy within purpose or as two different facets – broad purpose and specific purpose

  7. Eduardo Ferriolli says:

    I believe that the faceted structure may become very complex and difficult to visualize depending on the interest and area of the researcher. Maybe a mixed hierarchical/faceted structure (maybe as suggested by Bronwyn Clark, starting from broad domains and moving to sub-categories – that could be, then, characterized in a faceted structure) would work best.

  8. Mark Tremblay says:

    I think the hierachical structure would be most conceptually accpetable while accommodating surveilance structures. This does not preclude faceted elements at various hierarchical levels.

Leave a Reply