Produção intelectual em saúde coletiva: epistemologia e evidências de diferentes tradições

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the differences in the patterns of Brazilian scientifi c production, published in journals that concentrate the largest production from Brazilian postgraduate programs in the area of collective health. METHODS:Based on the distinction between paradigmatic and nonparadigmatic science proposed by Kuhn, the publication of articles in the main collective health journals, related to the respective sub-areas and number of authors per article, was evaluated in the three-year period between 2004 and 2006. Data were collected from the LILACS database and independently categorized by authors into the traditional sub-areas of collective health. RESULTS:Multiple-authored articles were much more frequent among those categorized into the sub-area of epidemiology, whereas single-authored articles were more frequent in the areas of social sciences and humanities in health. In addition, there was a difference in the frequency of publication of these types of articles in various journals, with the total number of articles on epidemiology being higher than the sum of all articles from the other two sub-areas. CONCLUSIONS:The different patterns of authorship found have important implications for the processes that evaluate programs and researchers. This cannot be dismissed, otherwise the long-term sustainability of the multidisciplinary profi le, which has characterized collective health in Brazil throughout three decades, will be threatened.

Análise de políticas, políticas de saúde e a Saúde Coletiva

“…Os maiores conflitos se dão em torno dos critérios de classificação dos periódicos e seu índice de impacto, pois é a partir daí que se estabelece uma hierarquia entre periódicos, pesquisadores e programas. No caso da Saúde Coletiva, de caráter multidisciplinar, as várias disciplinas que a compõem têm diferentes tradições de pesquisa, de processos de produção de conhecimento e de padrões de autoria (LUZ, 2005;LOYOLA, 2008;CAMARGO, 2010;COSTA, 2012). A expansão da pós-graduação acirrou a competição por status, espaços editoriais, poder institucional e financiamento, principalmente entre as ciências médicas e a epidemiologia, por um lado, e as ciências sociais e humanas e o planejamento, por outro.…”

Subcampos e espaços na Saúde Coletiva: fronteiras e integração

“…Na mesma direção, Camargo analisou as diferenças na produção do conhecimento entre a Epidemiologia e as CHSS apoiado na ideia do paradigma de Kuhn. Para esse autor, as Ciências Humanas teriam múltiplos paradigmas, resultando em características estruturais da produção científica distintas daquelas da Epidemiologia, com repercussões na avaliação de pesquisadores e programas de Pós-Graduação 32 . A ênfase nas disputas internas entre disciplinas também foi discutida por Loyola e Iriart mediante a especificidade das subáreas compreendidas como subcampos da Saúde Coletiva no sentido de Bourdieu 33,34 Essas diversas abordagens têm trazido contribuições importantes para a compreensão acerca das dificuldades da integração entre as áreas, objetivo de elevado consenso, defendido e buscado nos planos político e acadêmico.…”

Capitais científicos em saúde coletiva: proposta de análise inspirada nas fontes utilizadas na obra Homo academicus

“…There is, however, an unquestionable hegemony of epidemiology in educational spaces. This is reflected in the higher number of EPI researchers teaching in graduate programs (Iriart et al, 2015); greater offer of EPI courses in graduate programs (Minayo, 2010;Nunes et al, 2010); greater output of EPI scientific articles (Camargo Junior et al, 2010); the distribution of distinction and prestige symbols to epidemiologists, such as the productivity grants of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (Barata;Goldbaum, 2003); as well as in the expressive participation of epidemiologists in the editor bodies of national scientific journals (Loyola, 2008). In regards to the political sphere, one can also point to the outstanding participation of epidemiologists in agencies for the promotion and regulation of the state's scientific policies, in CNPq's advisory committees, in the field's coordination, and in the evaluation committees of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes) (Loyola, 2008).…”

“…In the past two decades, several phenomena have allowed for an undeniable accumulation of scientific capital by actors of the epidemiology subfield. Examples are the primacy of scientific articles over other academic products, the greater appreciation of biomedical journals due to their high bibliometric impacts, the greater connectivity between authors in collaborative networks for the authorship of articles, and the greater appreciation for the internationalization of publications (Camargo Junior et al, 2010;Luz, 2009). This essay's frame of reference lies in PH's scientific component, i.e., the relationships according to which its scientific capital is produced and distributed.…”