Faça uma monografia perfeita!

Faça parte da nossa lista exclusiva de acadêmicos e receba atualizações, artigos e dicas imperdíveis para seu TCC.

Dúvidas de formatação do TCC? Baixe nosso E-book de formatação de trabalhos acadêmicos. Baixar AGORA!

Análise temática da produção científica em Comunicação no Brasil baseada em um sistema classificatório facetado

Autor Principal: Carlos Alberto Avila Araujo
Tipo: Teses/dissertações
Idioma: Português
Publicado em: 2005
Link Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/EARM-6ZGPL2
Saved in:
The objective is the construction of a faceted classification system for the quantitative themes of scientific production in the field of Communication.

For this purpose, general theoretical questions are initially discussed: science and the attempts at classification of scientific knowledge; aspects of the theory of classification, and, within it, of the theory of faceted classification; Communication as a scientific discipline.

Three methods were used for the construction of the faceted system: a faceted analysis with terms taken from documents of the field; a study of works and classifications of general and specific references in the field; an analysis of Communication theory manuals.

After this, the construction of the system begins, with the definitions of the facets and the foci.

The facets defined are: a model of communicative phenomenon; relational breadth or scope; means, supports, vehicles or media; subjects of messages exchanged by interlocutors; scientific disciplines with which Communication interfaces; professional training.

As a form of test, the system is applied to a set of 754 theses and dissertations, defended from 1992 to 1996 in the postgraduate programs in Communication in Brazil, comparing the results with two other studies that map themes using the same corpus, the study of Stumpf and Capparelli, published in 2000, ant that of Peruzzo, published in 2002.

The main results found are: a) The faceted system allows the identification of the percentage of different models of Communication and comparison between them.

The focus signification has the highest frequency (38.99%), followed by effects/functions (18.29%), culture (11.37%) and technique (9.99%); b) The real dimension of the studies on mass communication appears in the system, with 60.78%, to the extent that they are confronted with those that are not, like institutional communication (22.31%) and community communication (12.77%); c) The construction of specific facet for the media allows the identification of the most studied media, newspaper (15.47%) and book (14.66%) in the separate form of the terms journalism and literature, indicating their real presence in the studies and allowing a comparison with other media.

The three foci with the highest frequency, which follow, are: television (13.05%), face to face communication (whose inclusion was possible beginning with the faceted system, 8.03%) and film (5.62%); d) The identification of the subjects that are external to Communication but constitute subjects of the messages present in the communicative phenomena allow the comparison between terms that keep the same type of relation with the Communication field.

The highest frequencies are: processes and social groups (13.70%), education (8.36%), politics (7.40%), recreational and performative arts (including sports and radio and TV programming, 6.03%) and economics (including union questions, 5.62%); e) The faceted system allows also the frequencies related to the disciplines with which Communication interfaces, and their values, to be compared only among themselves.

The highest values found are: semiotics (28.46%), philosophy (11.26%), psychoanalysis (10.67%) and semiology (8.30%).

The terms of this group are not confused with those of the former group, since they maintain a different type of relation with Communication; f) There is a general view on the incidence of studies related to professional training, allow for studies on broadcasting, film and editing to be counted.

The focus journalism has the highest value (43.68%), followed by public relations (15.06%) and publicity and advertising (14.46%).

Finally, the set of results is analyzed, indicating the limits and possibilities of a faceted system for the quantitative thematic mapping of a scientific discipline.