Excelência na ciência: uma reflexão crítica afirmativa
Palavras-chave:
Desenvolvimento Profissional, Meritocracia, Mulheres, InterdisciplinaridadeResumo
A excelência na ciência é definida como um processo neutro para a seleção e o reconhecimento das teorias e pesquisas mais valiosas. Este princípio está baseado na metrização da vida acadêmica através do uso de critérios universais que apoiam o jogo justo [fair play] e a igualdade de oportunidades. No entanto, as teorias feministas têm reclamado que a organização da ciência baseada na excelência nunca é neutra nem objetiva. A meritocracia reproduz as desigualdades de todas as estruturas sociais, particularmente daquelas relacionadas com os estereótipos de gênero e com as barreiras na avaliação de carreiras de pesquisa e nos resultados da pesquisa. Neste artigo, propomos que a excelência no conhecimento só ocorre quando o gênero e a ciência são criados processualmente.Downloads
Referências
ABIR-AM, Pnina G.; OUTRAM, Dorinda. Uneasy careers and intimate lives. Women in Science, 1789-1979. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1989.
ADDIS, Elisabetta. Gender in the publication process: Evidence, explanations, and excellence. In: EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Gender and Excellence in the making. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for Research, 2004. p. 93-100. (Science and Society).
ADKINS, Lisa; LURY, Celia. Introduction: What is the empirical? European Journal of Social Theory, v. 12, n. 1, p. 5-20, 2009.
ADLER, Nancy J. Women do not want international careers: and other myths about international management. Organizational Dynamics, n. 13, p. 66-79, 1984.
ASBERG, Cecilia et al. Post-humanities is a feminist issue. NORA: The Nordic Journal of Women and Feminist Studies, v. 19, p. 4, p. 213-216, 2011.
AUGUST, Louise; WALTMAN, Jean. Culture, climate and contribution. Career satisfaction among female faculty. Research in Higher Education, v. 45, n. 2, p. 177-192, 2004.
BAGILHOLE, Barbara; GOODE, Jane. The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers: a feminist investigation. European Journal of Women’s Studies, v. 8, n. 2, p. 161-180, 2001.
BARAD, Karen. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University, 2007.
BARAD, Karen. Diffracting diffraction: cutting together-apart. Parallax, v. 20, n. 3, p. 168-187, 2014.
BRAIDOTTI, Rosi. Transpositions. Cambridge & Malden: Polity, 2006.
BUTLER, Judith. Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge, 1990.
CODE, Lorraine. Feminist epistemology and the politics of knowledge: questions of marginality? In: EVANS, Mary et al. (Ed.). The SAGE handbook in feminist theory. London: Sage, 2014. p. 9-25.
DAVIS, Katy. Intersectionality as buzzword: a sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, v. 9, n. 1, p. 67-85, 2008.
DEEM, Rosemary. Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, v. 37, n. 1, p. 7-20, 2001.
DEEM, Rosemary. Leading and managing contemporary UK universities: do excellence and meritocracy still prevail over diversity? Higher Education Policy, v. 22, n. 1, p. 3-17, Mar. 2009.
DE LANDA, Manuel. A new philosophy of society: assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum, 2006.
ETZKOWITZ, Henry; KEMELGOR, Carol; BRIAN, Uzzi. Athena unbound: the advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission, 2011. (COM (2011) 808) EVANS, Mary. Editorial response. European Journal of Women’s Studies, v. 13, n. 1, p. 309-313, 2006.
FASSA, Farinaz. Excellence and gender. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, v. 34, n. 1, p. 37-54, 2015.
FAULKNER, Wendy. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies, v. 1, n. 3, p. 169-189, 2009.
FELS, Anna. Do women lack ambition? Harvard Business Review, p. 1-11, April, 2004.
FORSTER, Nick. Another ‘glass ceiling’? The experience of women professionals and managers on international assignments. Gender, Work and Organization, v. 6, n. 2, p. 79-90, 1999.
FOUCAULT, Michel. Discipline and punishment: the birth of prison. London: Penguin, 1976.
FRIEDMAN, Robert M. The politics of excellence: behind the Nobel Prize in Science. New York: W.H. Freeman, 2001.
GONZÁLEZ, Ana M.; VERGÉS, Núria. International mobility of women in S&T careers: shaping plans for personal and professional purposes. Gender, Place and Culture, v. 20, n. 5, p. 613-629, 2013.
GRIFFIN, Gabrielle. Tackling gender bias in the measurement of scientific excellence: combating disciplinary containment. In: EUROPEAN COMISSION REPORT. Gender and excellence in the making. Luxembourg: Office of the European Union, 2004. p. 127-135.
HARAWAY, Dona. Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books, 1991.
HARDING, Sandra. The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986.
HEILMAN, Madeline E.; CHEN, Julie J. Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 90, n. 3, p. 431-441, May 2005.
HEMMINGS, Clare. Why stories matter: the political grammar of feminist theory. Durham: Duke University, 2011.
KAISER, Birgit; THIELE, Kathrin. Diffraction: onto-epistemology, quantum physics and the critical humanities. Parallax, v. 20, n. 3, p. 165–167, 2014.
KANTER, Rosabeth M. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
KANTER, Rosabeth M. Utopian Communities. Sociological Inquiry, v. 43, n. 3-4, p. 263-290, 1973.
KELLY, Aidan; BURROWS, Roger. Measuring the value of sociology? Some notes on performative metricization in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review, v. 59, n. 2, p. 130-150, 2011.
KREFTING, Linda A. Intertwined discourses of merit and gender: evidence from academic employment in the USA. Gender, Work and Organization, v. 10, n. 2, p. 260-278, 2003.
KUHN, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
LAKATOS, Irme. The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1978. (Philosophical Papers, v. 1).
LEE, Lisa; FAULKNER, Wendy; ALEMANY, Carme. Turning good policies into good practice: why is it so difficult? International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, v. 2, n. 1, p. 89-99, 2010.
LONG, J. Scott; FOX, Mary F. Scientific careers: universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 21, p. 45-71, 1995.
LONGINO, Helen E. Science as social knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
LORENZ-MEYER, Dagmar. Locating excellence and enacting locality. Science, Technology & Human Values, v. 37, n. 2, p. 241-263, 2012.
MERTON, Robert K. The Matthew effect in science. Science, v. 159, n. 3810, p. 56-63, 1968.
MOSCOWITZ, David; JETT, Terri; CARNEY, Terri; LEECH, Tamara; SAVAGE, Ann. Diversity in times of austerity: documenting resistance in the academy. Journal of Gender Studies, v. 23, n. 3, p. 233-246, 2014.
MOSS-RACUSIN; Corinne A.; DOVIDIOB, John F.; BRESCOLLC, Victoria L.; GRAHAMA, Mark J.; HANDELSMAN, Jo. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, v. 109, n. 41, p. 16474-16479, Oct. 2012.
NIELSEN, Mathias. Gender inequality and research performance: moving beyond individualmeritocratic explanations of academic advancement. Journal Studies in Higher Education, v. 41, n. 11, p. 2044-2060, 2015.
PARK, IN-Uck; PEACEY, Mike W.; MUNAFÒ, Marcus R. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature, n. 4, December 2013.
POWELL, Gary; MAINIERO, Lisa. Crosscurrents in the river of time: conceptualizing the complexities of women’s careers. Journal of Management, v. 18, n. 2, p. 215-237, 1992.
REES, Teresa. The gendered construction of scientific excellence. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, v. 36, n. 2, p. 133-145, 2011.
ROSSITER, Margaret W. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, v. 23, n. 2, p. 325-341, 1993.
SCHIEBINGER, Londa. Has feminism changed science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
SCHIEBINGER, Londa; SCHRAUDNER, Martina. Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, v. 36, n. 2, p. 154-167, 2011.
SCULLY, Maureen A. Confronting errors in the meritocracy. Organization Commentaries, v. 9, n. 3, p. 396-401, 2002.
SEALY, Ruth. Changing perceptions of meritocracy in senior women’s careers. Gender in Management: An International Journal, v. 25, n. 3, p. 184–197, 2010.
SNOW, Charles Percy. The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
SPIVAK, Gayatri. Can the subaltern speak? In: NELSON, C.; GROSSBER, L. (Ed.). Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1988. p. 271-313.
SPONGBERG, Mary. Feminist publishing in a cold climate? Australian Feminist Studies and the new ERA of research. Feminist Review, v. 95, p. 99-110, 2010.
THIELE, Kathrin. Ethos of diffraction: new paradigms for a (post)humanist ethics. Parallax, v. 20, n. 3, p. 202-216, 2014.
TICKNER, Ann. On the frontlines or sidelines of knowledge and power? Feminist practices of responsible scholarship. International Studies Review, v. 8, n. 3, p. 383-395, 2006.
TROW, Martin; CLARK, Paul. Managerialism and the academic profession: quality and control. London: Open University; Quality Support Centre, 1994. (Higher Education Report, n. 2)
VAN DEN BRINK, Marieke; BENSCHOP, Yvonne. Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organisation, v. 19, n. 4, p. 507-524, 2011.
VAN DEN BRINK, Marieke; STOBBE, Lineke. Doing gender in academic education: the paradox of visibility. Gender, Work and Organisation, v. 16, n. 4, p. 451-524, 2009.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2017 Cadernos de Pesquisa
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
a. Autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
b. Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
c. Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho on-line (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre).
