LGBTQIAP+, Archival Science and Archives in Brazilian scientific databases: a bibliographic survey and thematic analysis
This is an analysis of the scientific production related to Archival Science, Archives and the LGBTQIAP+ thematic in the following Brazilian scientific databases: Base de Dados Referencial de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação - BRAPCI, Base de Dados em Arquivística – BDA e Pesquisas Arq...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade de Brasília (UnB) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Ibero-americana de Ciência da Informação |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/53722 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/RICI/article/view/53722 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Produção científica Arquivologia LGBTQIAP+ Análise Temática Producción científica Archivología Análisis temático Scientific production Archival Science Thematic Analysis |
| Sumario: | This is an analysis of the scientific production related to Archival Science, Archives and the LGBTQIAP+ thematic in the following Brazilian scientific databases: Base de Dados Referencial de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação - BRAPCI, Base de Dados em Arquivística – BDA e Pesquisas Arquivísticas Brasileiras – PAB. Being the research basic, descriptive, qualitative and bibliographic. The methodology involved different approaches for the insertion of keywords in the searches. After excluding duplicates and out-of-scope papers, 17 papers published between 1998 and 2022 were analyzed. The thematic analysis resulted in three categories: explicitly questioning papers (n=5); papers not necessarily questioning (n=9); and archives as a source of research (n=9). The results show that there is a scarcity of research on the subject in archival science, and also highlight a certain balance between the categories, even with a lower presence of explicitly questioning papers |
|---|