Like the itchy label in my shirt, there's something which has been niggling away at the back of my mind, ever since I started being exposed to 'academic fields', and boundaries between 'subjects' (probably as a young child). I'm sure others have expressed it much better, and, ironically, it probably has a name itself, and a whole discipline devoted to studying it. It's this: The set of things/ideas/concepts/relationships/solutions/sets that have been named/defined is much, much, much smaller than the set of actual things/ideas/concepts/relationships/solutions/sets.
And yet without a name or definition for what you're researching, you'll find it difficult to research it, or at least to tell anyone what you're doing. The set of things we can comprehend researching is thus limited to what we've already defined.
How do we ever advance, then? Are we not just forever sub-dividing the same limited field with which we're already familiar? Or am I missing something? Is this a kind of (obvious) generalisation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
Relating it to my current research, as I ought to, the problems of choice architecture, defaults, framing, designed-in perceived affordances and so on are clearly special cases of the idea: the decision options people perceive as available to them can be, and are, used strategically to limit what decisions people make and how they understand things (e.g. Orwell's Newspeak). But whether it's done deliberately or not, the problem exists anyway.