It's an element of all disciplines and, more charitably, one aimed at achieving two functions. One is to say "this is a paper from someone embedded in the discipline and who speaks the same vocabulary as you". The other is to say "and this is intended to expound on a subject parallel to X (or following on from X, as the case may be)"
You can argue that this class of jargon is exclusionary or not. Agre, at UCLA, for example took the position that jargon was inherently a tool of dividing up groups into "in and out" (ironically he himself, with an MIT PhD, was very much in the in group).
I tend to consider jargon just a tool like any other, typically valuable because you can save a lot of time and gain clarity by saying "O(n^2)" or "trie" and assume your reader understands it.
You can argue that this class of jargon is exclusionary or not. Agre, at UCLA, for example took the position that jargon was inherently a tool of dividing up groups into "in and out" (ironically he himself, with an MIT PhD, was very much in the in group).
I tend to consider jargon just a tool like any other, typically valuable because you can save a lot of time and gain clarity by saying "O(n^2)" or "trie" and assume your reader understands it.