The concepts of domain, discourse community and epistemic community
affinities and specificities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36311/1981-1640.2022.v16.e02138Palabras clave:
Information Science, Domain, Discourse Community, Epistemic CommunityResumen
The characteristics or properties that underlie the concept of community are present in several social groups which have some similarity in their distinctive features and they act as a core to the construction of the concepts of Domain, Discourse Community and Epistemic Community, which are fundamental to the research in several fields of knowledge. Considering the conceptual triangle – Domain, Discourse Community, and Epistemic Community - this study aims to examine theoretical and methodological aspects related to them by investigating their characterizing features and, consequently, their main distinctions and similarities, especially regarding the universe of Information Science. Thus, the aim of this essay is to contribute to the deepening of the theoretical understanding of the concepts covered, reflecting on their compatibilities, as well as the characteristics that distinguish and specify them. It was possible to see that these concepts have similarities to each other, such as their contexts arising from the need to understand sociological aspects of science; the mutual understanding among its members about the specialized languages and theoretical bases used; the analysis based on tacit documents, duly expressed and recorded. These aspects of similarities demonstrate that these concepts can be understood as belonging to the same set, and inserted in the overarching area of Sociology of Science. Even so, these concepts have their characterizing features, which distinguish their analysis objectives and also their peculiar scientific biases.
Descargas
Referencias
Adler, Emanuel. “The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control”. International Organization, vol. 46, no. 1, 1992, pp. 101-145.
Adler, Emanuel, and Haas, Peter M. “Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program”. International Organization, vol. 46, n. 1, 1992, pp. 367-390.
Ahlgren, Per, et al. “Geographical distance in bibliometric relations within epistemic communities”. Scientometrics, vol. 95, 2013, pp. 771-784.
Amorim, Igor S., and Café, Lígia A. “The concepts of discourse community, domain and language in hjørlandiana domain analysis”. Anais do XVII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação: Inovação e inclusão social: questões contemporâneas da informação: Salvador, 2016.
Bizzell, Patricia. “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing”. PRE/TEXT, 1982a, pp. 213-243.
Bizzell, Patricia. “College composition: Initiation into the academic discourse Community". Curriculum Inquiry, vol. 12, 1982b, pp. 191-207.
Bufrem, Leilah Santiago, and Freitas, Juliana Lazzarotto. “Interdomínios na literatura periódica científica da Ciência da Informação”. DataGramaZero, vol. 16, no. 3, 2015.
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis. Security integration in Europe: how knowledge-based networks are transforming the European Union. University of Michigan Press, 2011.
Evangelista, Isadora Victorino. Comunidades epistêmicas no campo da ética em organização e representação do conhecimento: uma análise de literatura da área, 2021. UNESP, PhD dissertation.
Flowerdew, John. “Discourse Community, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, and the Nonnative-English-Speaking Scholar”. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 127-15, 2000.
Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves. “Aspectos éticos em Organização e Representação do Conhecimento (ORC): uma reflexão preliminar”. Políticas de memória e informação: reflexos na organização do conhecimento. Edited by Maria Nélida González de Gómez and Evelyn Goyannes Dill Orrico. EDUFRN, 2006.
Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves, et al. “Epistemic communities in knowledge organization: an analysis of research trends in the Knowledge Organization Journal”. International Society for Knowledge Organization – Chapter United Kingdon, Londres, 2015.
Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves. “Análise de domínio como perspectiva metodológica em Organização da Informação”. Ciência da Informação, vol. 41 no. 1, 2014, pp.13-21.
Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves, and Tognoli, Natália B. “Provenance as a domain analysis approach in archival knowledge organization”. Knowledge Organization, vol. 42, no. 8, 2015, pp. 562-569.
Grácio, Maria Cláudia Cabrini. Análises relacionais de citação para a identificação de domínios científicos. Oficina Universitária, 2020.
Haas, Peter. M. “Epistemic communities and international policy coordination”. International Organization, vol. 46, no. 1, 1992, pp. 01-35.
Håkanson, Lars. “The firm as an epistemic community: the knowledge-based view revisited”. Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 19, no. 06, 2010.
Hennemann, Stefan, et al. “The myth of global science collaboration—Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities”. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 6, 2012, pp. 217-225.
Hjørland, Birger. “Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative”. Journal of Documentation, vol. 58, no. 4, 2002, pp. 422-462.
Hjørland, Birger. “Domain analysis”. Knowledge Organization, vol. 44, no. 06, 2017, pp. 436-464.
Hjørland, Birger, and Albrechtsen, Hanne. “Toward a new horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 6, no. 6, 1995, pp. 400-425.
Hjørland, Birger, and Hartel, J. “Afterword: ontological, epistemological and sociological dimensions of domains”. Knowledge Organization, vol. 30, no. 3-4, 2003, pp. 239-245.
Kelly-Kleese, Christine. “UCLA Community College Review: Community College Scholarship and Discourse”. Community College Review, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 52-68, 2004.
Mai, Jens-Erik. “Analysis in indexing: Document and domain centered approaches”. Information processing and management, vol. 41, 2005, pp. 599-611.
Meyer, Morgan, and Molyneux-Hodgson, Susan. “Introduction: the dynamics of epistemic communities”. Sociological Research Online, vol. 15, no. 2, 2010.
Oliveira, Ely Francina Tannuri de, and Grácio, Maria Cláudia Cabrini. “Studies of Author Cocitation Analysis: A Bibliometric Approach for Domain Analysis”. Iris, vol. 2, no. 1, 2013, pp. 12-23.
Pogner, Karl-Heinz. “Discourse communities and communities of practice: on the social context of text and knowledge production in the workplace”. EGOS Colloquium, 2005, pp. 01-21.
Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”. Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, no. 1, 1986, pp. 34-47.
Roth, Camille, and Bourgine, Paul. “Lattice-based dynamic and overlapping taxonomies: The case of epistemic communities”. Scientometrics, vol. 69, no. 2, 2006, pp. 429-447.
Smiraglia, Richard P. “Domain coherence within Knowledge Organization: people, interacting theoretically, across geopolitical and cultural boundaries”. Proceedings of the 39th Annual CAIS/ACSI Conference: Canada, University of New Brunswick, 2011, http://www.cais-acsi.ca/conferences.htm. Accessed 22 Oct 2021.
Smiraglia, Richard P. “Epistemology of domain analysis”. Cultural frames of knowledge. Edited by R. P. Smiraglia, and H. L Lee. Ergon, 2012, pp. 111-124.
Smiraglia, Richard P. Domain analysis for knowledge organization: Tools for ontology extraction. Chandos Publishing, 2015.
Swales, John M. “The Concept of Discourse Community”. In Swales, Jhon M. Genre analysis: english in academic and research settings. Cambridge, 1990, pp. 21-32.
Swales, John M. “The Concept of Discourse Community: Some Recent Personal History”. Compositium Forum, vol. 37, 2017, http://compositionforum.com/issue/37/swales-retrospective.php. Accessed 22 April 2021.
Thellefsen, Torkild L., and Thellefsen, Martin M. “Pragmatic semiotics and knowledge organization”. Knowledge Organization, vol. 31, no. 3, 2004, pp. 177-187.
Zhou, Ning, et al. “Study on Methods of Knowledge Domain Visualization”. Proceedings of International Conference on Innovation Management, 2009, pp. 15-18.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Isadora Victorino Evangelista, Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, José Augusto Chaves Guimarães
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Al someter un artículo, los autores conservan los derechos de autor del artículo, otorgando todos los derechos para el Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends para publicar el texto.
El(los) autor(es) acuerdan que el artículo, si se acepta editorialmente para su publicación, tendrá licencia bajo Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa /4.0).
Los lectores/usuarios son libres para:
- Compartir - copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato.
- Adaptar - remezclar, transformar y construir sobre el material para cualquier propósito, incluso comercialmente.
El licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades mientras siga los términos de la licencia. Bajo los siguientes términos:
- Atribución: debe otorgar el crédito apropiado, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia e indicar si se realizaron cambios. Puede hacerlo de manera razonable, pero de ninguna manera que sugiera que el licenciante lo respalda en su uso.
Compartir igual: si remezcla, transforma o desarrolla el material, debe distribuir sus contribuciones bajo la misma licencia que el original.
Sin restricciones adicionales: no puede aplicar términos legales o medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otros de hacer cualquier cosa que la licencia permita.
Avisos:
- No tiene que cumplir con la licencia para elementos del material de dominio público o cuando su uso esté permitido por una excepción o limitación aplicable.
- No se otorgan garantías. Es posible que la licencia no le otorgue todos los permisos necesarios para su uso previsto. Por ejemplo, otros derechos como publicidad, privacidad o derechos morales pueden limitar la forma en que usa el material.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
