Conceptualizing the Knowledge of Traditional and Indigenous Communities Using Informetrics Approaches

2020 ◽  
pp. 362-388
Author(s):  
Patrick Ngulube ◽  
Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Indigenous Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Extant Literature ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Humanities And Social Sciences

Interest in indigenous knowledge is growing because of its potential to promote and sustain development activities. Inspite of the recognition of the significance of indigenous knowledge there is limited agreement on its definition and conceptualization. There are competing ways of defining it and various ways of labeling it. In view of the varying appropriation of meanings to the concept of the knowledge of traditional and indigenous communities, this chapter starts by dealing with definitions attached to the knowledge of traditional and indigenous communities before turning to establishing what might be the suitable label for that knowledge using informetrics techniques. An investigation of 17 labels used to refer to the knowledge of traditional and indigenous communities that were conveniently chosen from the extant literature revealed that indigenous knowledge is the label that is gaining more currency than any other in the arts, humanities, and social sciences subject categories.

scholarly journals Public engagement by researchers of different disciplines in Singapore: A qualitative comparison of macro- and meso-level concerns

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley S. Ho ◽  
Jiemin Looi ◽  
Yan Wah Leung ◽  
Tong Jee Goh
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Qualitative Comparison ◽  
Meso Level ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Managerial Implications ◽  
Humanities And Social Sciences

Guided by neo-institutional theory, this study compares how researchers from science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines differ from researchers from the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields in terms of how macro- and meso-level concerns shaped their willingness to conduct public engagement. Focus group discussions conducted among researchers based in Singapore revealed that science, technology, engineering, and math and arts, humanities, and social sciences researchers held different macro-level concerns. Particularly, science, technology, engineering, and math researchers raised more concerns about media misrepresentation, while arts, humanities, and social sciences researchers were more concerned about receiving political repercussions and public backlash. With regard to meso-level considerations, researchers from all disciplines cited similar institutional constraints for public engagement; however they possessed varying public engagement competencies and held differing perceptions of their social duty to engage the public. Hence, researchers of different disciplines desired different kinds of media training. Policy and managerial implications as well as directions for future research were provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document