Excelencia en la cienciauma reflexión crítica afirmativa

  1. González Ramos, Ana M.
  2. Revelles Benavente, Beatriz
Revista:
Cadernos de Pesquisa

ISSN: 0100-1574,  1980-5314

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 47

Número: 166

Páginas: 1372-1394

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1590/198053144233 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Cadernos de Pesquisa

Resumen

La excelencia en la ciencia es definida como un proceso neutro para la selección y el reconocimiento de las teorías e investigaciones más valiosas. Este principio está basado en la metrización de la vida académica a través del empleo de criterios universales que apoyan el juego justo y la igualdad de oportunidades. Sin embargo, las teorías feministas han reclamado que la organización de la ciencia basada en la excelencia nunca es neutral ni objetiva. La meritocracia reproduce las desigualdades de todas las estructuras sociales, particularmente aquellas relacionadas con los estereotipos de género y las barreras en la evaluación de las carreras de investigación y los resultados de investigación. En este artículo, proponemos que la excelencia en el conocimiento es producido sólo cuándo el género y la ciencia se crean procesualmente.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet