Garantia acadêmica e sua aplicação em sistemas de organização do conhecimento: um estudo de caso
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resumo
A Garantia Acadêmica (GA) como justificativa a ser utilizada para selecionar termos destinados à representação temática do conteúdo de documentos em Sistemas de Organização do Conhecimento (SOC) como tesauros, listas, sistemas de classificação, tem sido considerada na Organização do Conhecimento (OC) sob diferentes denominações há décadas. Pretende-se estudar um caso da realidade a partir de uma abordagem terminológica que permita fornecer considerações para estabelecer bases mais firmes para caracterizar o GA, especialmente quando há divergências entre autores que são finalmente expressas na documentação a ser indexada e classificada. É explorada uma possível metodologia de análise, focada em um caso onde se estabelece a divergência entre o pensamento científico e o religioso: a teoria da evolução de Charles Darwin e o criacionismo, representados em diferentes SOC. Concluindo, propõe-se que o GA é um dos menos estudados na literatura de OC, e embora possua literatura escassa e descontínua, é possível mostrar uma aproximação ao seu conceito. O estudo mostra que as diretrizes teóricas para aplicação da GA necessitam de maior desenvolvimento, mesmo considerando a possibilidade de combiná-la com outras garantias. Da mesma forma, destaca a necessidade de atender à dissidência e formas de garantir a sua representação temática.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0.
Referências
Barité, M. (2018). Literary warrant. Knowledge organization, 45(6), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-6-517 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-6-517
Barité, M. (2019). Towards a general conception of warrants: first notes. Knowledge organization, 46(8), 647-655. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2019-8-647 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2019-8-647
Barité, M. & Rauch, M. (2020). Cultural warrant: old and new sights from knowledge organization. En M. Lykke, T. Svarre, M. Skov & D. Martínez-Ávila (Eds.), Knowledge organization at the interface: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark (pp. 31-40). Ergon. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956507762-31 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956507762-31
Beghtol, C. (1986). Semantic validity: concepts of warrant in bibliographic classification systems. Library resources & technical services, 30(2), 109-123.
Blackford, R. (2000). Stephen Jay Gould on science and religion. Quadrant, 44(4), 8-14.
Bleckmann, C. A. (2006). Evolution and creationism in science: 1880–2000. BioScience,56(2), 151-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:EACIS]2.0.CO;2
Bliss, H. E. (1929). The organization of knowledge and the system of the sciences. Henry Evelyn Book Language.
Bliss, H. E. (1939). The organization of knowledge in libraries and the subject approach to books. Wilson.
Bliss, H. E. (1940-1953). A bibliographic classification, extended by systematic auxiliary schedules for composite specification. H. W. Wilson.
Bullard, J. (2017). Warrant as a means to study classification system design. Journal of documentation, 73(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0074 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0074
Campbell, D. G. (2008). Derrida, logocentrism, and the concept of warrant on the semantic web. En C. Arsenault & J. T. Tennis (Eds.), Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montréal, Canada (pp. 222-228). Ergon.
Colombo, S. (2022). Bias as a means to identify cultural warrant: an approach from cultural representation. En M. Lykke, T. Svarre, D. Haynes, M. Skov, M. Thellefsen & D. Martínez-Ávila (Eds.), Knowledge organization across disciplines, domains, services, and technologies: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International ISKO Conference, 6-8 July 2022, Aalborg, Denmark (pp. 63-72). Ergon. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956509568-63 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956509568-63
Colombo, S. & Barité, M. (2015). Tres enfoques de Bias en organización del conocimiento: Bias Neutro, Bias Negativo y Bias Positivo. Brazilian journal of information science, 9(2), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.36311/1981-1640.2015.v9n2.02.p9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36311/1981-1640.2015.v9n2.02.p9
Dawkins, R. (1997). Is science a religion? Humanist, 57(1), 26-29.
De Sales, R. & Pires, T. B. (2017). The classification of Harris: influences of Bacon and Hegel in the universe of library classification. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, (6), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v6i1.15230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v6i1.15230
Dewey, M. (2017a). Sistema de Clasificación Decimal Dewey e índice relativo (22da ed., Vol. 1). Rojas Eberhard.
Dewey, M. (2017b). Sistema de Clasificación Decimal Dewey e índice relativo (22da ed., Vol. 2). Rojas Eberhard.
Gnoli, C. (2008). Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization. Knowledge organization, 35(2-3), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-137
Hjørland, B. (2009). Concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519-1536. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21082
Hulme, E. W. (1911). Principles of book classification. Library Association Record, (13), 444-449.
Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work: a case study of bridging archaelogical work and virtual reality based knowledge Organisation. Åbo Akademi University Press.
Lancaster, F. W. (1977). Vocabulary control in information retrieval systems. Advances in librarianship, (7), 1-40.
Lee, J. M. (1976). E. Wyndham Hulme: a reconsideration. En W. B. Rayward (Ed.), The variety of librarianship: essays in honour of John Wallace Metcalfe. Library Association of Australia.
Mai, J. E. (2011). Folksonomies and the new order: Authority in the digital disorder. Knowledge organization, 38(2), 114-122. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2011-2-114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2011-2-114
Marks, J. (2012). Why be against Darwin? Creationism, racism and the roots of anthropology. American journal of physical anthropology, 149(S55), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22163
Martínez-Ávila, D. & Budd, J. M. (2017). Epistemic warrant for categorizational activities and the development of controlled vocabularies. Journal of documentation, 73(4), 700-715. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2016-0129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2016-0129
Mills, J. (2004). Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval. Library trends, 52(3), 541-570.
Mitchell, J. S. (Ed.). (2011). Dewey Decimal Classification and the relative index devised by Melvil Dewey (23rd ed.). OCLC.
Numbers, R. L. (2010). Scientific creationism and intelligent design. The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, 1(1), 127-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521885386.007
Petr, J. L. (1983). Creationism versus evolutionism in economics: societal consequences of economic doctrine. Journal of economic issues, 17(2), 475-483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1983.11504131
Rafferty, P. (2001). The representation of knowledge in library classification schemes. Knowledge organization, 28(4), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2001-4-180
Richardson, E. C. (1901). Classification: theoretical and practical. Scribner.
Rosso, P. P. & Álvarez, J. (2018). Guía de campo: aves de las costas y los mares de Chile. Universidad Católica. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkjb47g
San Segundo, R. (1996). Sistemas de organización del conocimiento: la organización del conocimiento en las bibliotecas españolas. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Svanberg, M. (1996). Classification, warrants and principles. Swedish library research, 2(3), 66-75.
Svenonius, E. (2003). Design of controlled vocabularies. En M. A. Drake (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (2nd ed., pp. 822-838). Dekker.
Tennis, J. (2005). Experientialist epistemology and classification Theory: embodied and dimensional classification. Knowledge organization, 32(2), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2005-2-79