The Three Achilles' Heels of Brazilian Political Science* André Marenco Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil This article intends to analyze the institutionalization of political science in Brazil through the expansion of the graduate system and evaluation process, which promoted research and scientific evaluations of institutions with Master`s and doctoral degree programs by an assessment model based on peer reviews and the rating of scientific production. The focus here is on Political Science in comparison with its neighboring disciplines, Sociology and Anthropology. We attempt to consider the timing of the process of academic institutionalization of Political Science, as well as its consequences for the consolidation of the field nowadays. Keywords: Political science, postgraduate system, scientific production, international collaboration. T he origin and formation of the social sciences in Brazil has been the object of deep and rigorous investigations that have brought to light the conditions that marked the work of the founding fathers of social and political thought in Brazil. In this regard, Miceli (1995) emphasises the importance of the creation of academic institutions in São Paulo for the autonomy of the pioneering generations of social scientists, in contrast with the smaller differentiation between social scientists and the political elites of Brazil's other states. Forjaz (1997) highlights the role played in the genesis of Political Science in Brazil by a generation established in Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. (*) http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-38212014000100019 The replication dataset can be found in bpsr.org.br/files/arquivos/Banco_Dados_Marenco.html. 3 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 The Three Achilles' Heels of Brazilian Political Science Trindade (2007; 2012) renders this scenario more complex with his more nuanced diagnosis, revealing the great regional diversity in the processes of formation of the social sciences in Brazil, as well as the importance that international circulation had for professionalising researchers and for the constitution of groups geared towards academic research in different institutional and regional contexts. In addition, Lamounier (1982) identifies the two bases that constituted Political Science in Brazil: a tradition of political thought forged between the 1920s and 1960s and the professionalisation that came as a result of the expansion of the academic system in the 1960s and 1970s. The aim of this article is not to revisit the founding elements of the social sciences in Brazil – a process that has been well documented and analytically unravelled –, but to explore its inflexion, starting from its gradual institutionalisation, particularly after the end of the 1960s. Our intention is to isolate the main expression of this process of institutionalisation – the expansion of the postgraduate system, which brought research and scientific reflection into institutions focused on training masters and doctors and strongly oriented by an assessment model based on peer judgement and the rating of scientific production. The focus here is on Political Science in comparison with its neighbouring disciplines, Sociology and Anthropology. We attempt to consider the timing of the process of academic institutionalisation of Political Science, as well as its consequences for the consolidation of the field nowadays. In the first section, we attempt to retrace the sequence of institutionalisation in the three fields based on an examination of how PhD courses and the training of doctors in Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology were formed. In the second section, we map the Political Science postgraduate programmes – considering the areas and thematic lines present in institutions currently in existence –, as a procedure for assessing their concentration (or diversity) and expansion, as well as the consolidation of a model for evaluating scientific production. Lastly, the text deals with the international impact of the scientific production by the Brazilian Political Science community. The information on the postgraduate programmes was extracted from the database of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 4 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 André Marenco (Capes – Brazilian Federal Agency for the Improvement of Higher Education)1, which, in its turn, is updated every year by the Capes Report, containing information presented by the programmes on their activities during that period. Any discrepancies between the information made available by Capes, the postgraduate programmes and those published in the Lattes Platform (CV database) are attributable to the information provided by the programmes. In order to maintain standardisation, unless otherwise stated, the data from Capes were utilised – the same ones that are used for assessing Brazil's postgraduate system. The institutionalisation of Political Science in Brazil: slow but sure To Bulcourf and Vasquez (2004), the institutionalisation of an academic discipline is identified when it differentiates itself from other fields and academic disciplines, producing its own professional skills. As a result of the conformation of a specific professional community, the constitution of shared criteria of professional evaluation and recruitment, followed by the appearance of scientific associations, should be expected. In this sense, shared parameters for assessing merit and academic organisations seem to be the main symptoms of a discipline's institutionalisation. Of a similar ilk is the demarcation suggested by Pérez-Linãn (2010), for whom high institutionalisation can be recognised by regular, peer reviewed academic publications, professional recognition based on productivity – rather than on teaching or positions assumed in public debate –, low endogeny, high qualification requirements for entering a post and exclusive dedication in order to keep it. Conversely, low or precarious institutionalisation is recognisable when the profession is poorly structured, there is no requirement for exclusive dedication to a post, the academic training is in neighbouring disciplines such as Law, History or Sociology, publications are intermittent and there is no peer-review system, criteria of professional recognition are based on belonging to the "right" circles, there is dilettantism and low specialisation as seen in a wide range of teaching activities and research projects, and a tendency for an essayistic treatment of objects rather than a search for and treatment of empirical evidence. 1 See http://conteudoweb.capes.gov.br/conteudoweb/CadernoAvaliacaoServlet. 5 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 The Three Achilles' Heels of Brazilian Political Science Finally, Leite and Codato (2013) associate institutionalisation with discipline autonomy by distinguishing the two dimensions through which this autonomy operates: firstly, (i) an institutional autonomy, marked by an expansion of the postgraduate system through Master's and Doctoral programmes, a rise in "disciplinary" periodicals (as opposed to more general ones) and the creation of scientific associations, such as in the case of the Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP – Brazilian Association of Political Science). Parallel to that, (ii) a theoretical-methodological autonomy, entailing a "development of theories, methods and approaches that are particular to it", or, in other words, "that deal with politics as a self-regulating universe", making it "irreducible to other disciplines" (LEITE and CODATO, 2013, p. 01). Using these notions as a parameter, here we consider disciplinary institutionalisation as a process resulting from two factors: (i) an expansion of the indicators of professionalisation, involving the material bases necessary for academic activity and training professionals involved in research at universities and professional associations, creating a distance from dilettante amateurism; (ii) the consolidation of an institutional assessment system based on peer judgement, as a criterion for constituting academic hierarchies and allocating resources and incentives to academic and research activity. The main driving force behind this process of institutionalisation of Brazilian Political Science has probably been the assessment of the postgraduate system carried out by Capes since 1976, which considers two aspects: 1) the accreditation of new courses and (2) a triennial evaluation of the performance of all institutions that make up the postgraduate system. Two criticisms have been made of the inductive effect on the institutionalisation of the Brazilian postgraduate system caused by the Capes assessment. The first is that the rules of the institutional assessment might be an incentive to "productivism". By prioritising quantitative indicators, such as the number of published articles, citations or impact factor, the Capes institutional assessment could end up encouraging quantity of scientific production over quality or originality, as well as the use of subterfuges in order to artificially increase these indicators – such as self-citation, cross referencing or replicating the same piece (BIANCHI, 2014). A second criticism points out that academic institutionalisation 6 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 André Marenco could go hand in hand with a reduction in the creation of relevant knowledge and a homogenisation of scientific production. As it stimulates quantity and prioritises the publication of papers in scientific journals over books, the result could be a disciplinary institutionalisation that produces ultra-specialised results of limited scope, to the detriment of long-term research and the construction of "great theories" and inclusive explanations (BRANDÃO, 2007). A significant part of these criticisms can be attributed to a lack of information about the parameters traditionally employed in the process of academic assessment responsible for disciplinary institutionalisation. If "institutionalisation" can be understood as the constitution of a field with its own rules, values and hierarchies, the institutionalisation of Political Science as a discipline means that the values that determine its recognition and professional status do not result from the approval of entities such as "public opinion" (in the shape of social popularity) or from a deference typical of other social categories – such as Law, Journalism or Literature and their valuing of rhetoric, proselytism or essayism. Rather, they derive from codes and parameters pertaining to a treatment of "politics as science" (BARRY, 1996; SARTORI, 1984; SKINNER, 1978; VON BEYME, 1996). Contrary to what the critics say, it is precisely quality that the institutional assessment of the postgraduate system values, minimising the importance of the quantity of scientific production. This is evident in the creation of the Qualis system, responsible for rating the quality of scientific publications based on criteria pertaining to each field of study, but with peer recognition in common. Peer recognition is expressed by the impact factor, calculated by the number of citations (that is, the importance that academic peers attribute to a certain author's contribution), the rigour and selectivity in the peer review procedures adopted by each periodical for accepting articles, or even more subjective criteria such as the importance attributed to a journal in a certain disciplinary field. For evaluating the institutional performance of Brazilian postgraduate degrees, the production of few articles published in periodicals classified as being in the upper categories of the Qualis system (and therefore with a greater potential for citation, rigour in accepting work or recognition in the disciplinary community) is more valued than a great quantity published in periodicals classified as being in the lower categories. 7 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 The Three Achilles' Heels of Brazilian Political Science In this way, quality – gauged by different procedures for measuring the judgement and recognition of peers – takes unequivocal precedence over the amount of scientific publications in the academic assessment and institutionalisation2. The assumption that greater academic institutionalisation should go hand in hand with theoretical and methodological homogenisation seems equally devoid of evidence. Based on a comparison between journals ranked in the upper Qualis/Capes categories and between different analytical schools and thematic areas, Leite and Codato (2013) concluded that: We have three extremes. In one of them, there is Lua Nova, closer to political theory, concept analysis and history of ideas (TP-HI). In another, Opinião Pública, closer to values, attitudes, participation and politics (VAP-P). In the last one, the Brazilian Political Science Review, closer to the performance of political institutions (DIP). In addition, there seem to be two other clear positions: Dados also shows a pull towards DIP, and the Revista de Sociologia e Política and the Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais (to a lesser degree) are closer to the State, society and government policies area (ES-PG)3. These two periodical make up the centre (LEITE and CODATO, 2013, p.19). The scenario presented by Leite and Codato (2013) suggests that institutionalisation and theoretical and methodological pluralism co-exist side by side. That is, the creation of a values hierarchy for the scientific periodicals of the area of Political Science did not signify the hegemony of one analytical school, but, on the contrary, ensured that there was space in the higher classification categories for publications of a neo-institutionalist, behaviourist, political sociology, normative theory or Marxist nature, among others. Finally, a relevant question regarding "productivism" is the importance attributed by the institutional assessment to the process of internationalisation of scientific production. Here, the question directly concerns the parameters of quality expected from activities of knowledge production and academic research. Indicators that the expected requirements of quality, as well as of originality, 2 See the Document of the Area of Political Science and International Relations at http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacaotrienal/Docs_de_area/CI% C3%AAncia_Pol%C3%ADtica_doc_area_e_comiss%C3%A3o_21out.pdf. 3 Abbreviations of the Portuguese terms for the themes of the Area of Political Science used by the Qualis/Capes system (translator's note). 8 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 André Marenco relevance and creativity were attained can be identified when the results of academic research have repercussions, are recognised and used in the form of citations – not only within Brazil's disciplinary community, but increasingly among international peers. The second question concerns the relationship between institutionalisation and the production of specialised knowledge and knowledge of "medium reach", in contrast with the great interpretative models by the previous generation of Brazilian "social thought". Arguing in favour of a progressive/cumulative interpretation of the history of Political Science, Almond (1996, p. 51) suggests that the development of notions such as "justice" and "democracy" could not have happened without the contributions of Plato and Aristotle. However, he recalls that today's knowledge of theories of justice cannot fail to consider the refinement and rigour included in treatments such as those by Walzer and Rawls, in the same way that Dahl and the neo-institutionalists furthered our knowledge on the "nuts and bolts" of today's democratic institutions. In this sense, it seems pointless to stretch the gap between the generation of the "interpreters" and that of the "professionals", centred on an institutionalised postgraduate system. If a concept such as "bureaucratic stratum" was vital to bring the State back into the focus of analyses on Brazil's social and political formation, recent contributions from postgraduate laboratories allowed knowledge on how Brazil is governed to be furthered, thus generating important information on intergovernmental relations, the makeup of governmental bureaucracies, the formation of public policy agendas, federalism, the voting decision and party organisation. In the light of criticisms such as those outlined by Carvalho (1980, p.38) and Schwartzman (1982, p. 60) of the notion of "bureaucratic stratum", would it be credible to state that the knowledge generated in the last four decades of institutionalised postgraduate programmes has added little to an understanding of the agents and mechanisms that configure the institutional dynamics of Brazilian politics? Professionalisation and institutional spaces for research An initial step for analysing disciplinary institutionalisation is to consider the chronological differences between the founding of different scientific 9 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 The Three Achilles' Heels of Brazilian Political Science associations. In Political Science, the establishing of scientific associations is part of a trajectory of growing disciplinary specialisation and autonomy, with a demarcation of the field in relation to Philosophy, Law and, later, Sociology (ALMOND, 1996; DOGAN, 1996; GOODIN, 2009; GOODIN and KLINGEMANN, 1996). Thus, outside of Brazil, there was no time lag between the creation of Political Science associations and those of the other traditional areas of the social sciences. In the United States, the founding of the American Anthropological Association (1902), the American Political Science Association (1903) and, shortly after, the American Sociological Association (1905) was virtually simultaneous. In France, even in a context of slow dissociation between Political Science and Sociology (FAVRE, 1985; FAVRE and LEGAVRE, 1998; GRAWITZ and LECA, 1985), the Association Française de Science Politique was created as early as 1949, before the Societé Française de Sociologie (1962) and its successor, the Association Française de Sociologie, created only in 2002. Although the founding of the Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Político in 1982 was late compared to that of the Sociedad Argentina de Antropología (1936), it still happened much earlier than that of the Asociación Argentina de Sociología, whose creation dates only from 20094. In Chile, the Asociación Chilena de Ciencia Política originated in 1966, with a hiatus after the authoritarian regime was implemented, resuming in 1983. In contrast, the 8th Chilean Sociology Congress, in 2014, was held by the Sociology Network of Chilean Universities (Red de Sociología de las Universidades Chilenas), given the lack of a professional association for the discipline. As for the international associations of these disciplines, there was some synchrony between them: both the International Political Science Association (IPSA) and the International Sociological Association (ISA) were created in 1949. Rather suggestively, there was a hiatus in Brazil that separated, on one side, the founding of the Sociology and Anthropology associations and, on the other, those of political scientists. While the Sociedade Brasileira de Sociologia was created in 1948, holding its first congress six years later, in 1954, and the Associação Brasileira de Antropologia dates from 1955, having held its first congress two years previously, three decades elapsed before the Associação 4 See Estatutos, Asociación Argentina de Sociología at http://aasociologia.globered.com/categoria.asp?idcat=47. 10 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 André Marenco Brasileira de Ciência Política came into existence in 1986, and yet another decade before it held its first congress in 1996, on the premises of Cândido Mendes University. Although scientific associations are important for constituting a disciplinary community and setting common research agendas, the strongest driving force for the professionalisation of academic work is probably the expansion of academic institutions, which is also a platform for the institutionalisation of each area of knowledge. Assessment systems, researcher training, professional recruitment and infrastructure for scientific research are some of the by-products of the academic system, responsible for promoting treatment models for political objects different from the essayism and dilettantism seen in political commentators, journalists, jurists, etc. One of the paradoxes of the Brazilian authoritarian regime was that not only did it not destroy higher education as the military did in countries such as Argentina but, on the contrary, it expanded it, especially the postgraduate system and agencies of scientific and technological development (TRINDADE, 2007). However, Political Science arrived late at Brazilian universities. According to a survey carried out by Tavares de Almeida (2005), by 2003 there were only five Political Science undergraduate courses in the country, compared to a total of 64 Social Sciences and 43 International Relations courses in the same year. Although social sciences courses are usually a sort of a cluster of Anthropology, Political Science and Sociology, the same study by Tavares de Almeida revealed that the presence of Political Science in this context is a rather modest one: in 39% of the Social Sciences bachelor's degrees there was not a single Political Science subject. 44% had up to eight subjects, and only in 17% of them did Tavares de Almeida identify a more significant presence, with an offer of more than eight subjects. There have been significant changes in the last decade – especially after the Reuni Programme of expansion of federal universities –, with an increase in the number of International Relations undergraduate courses, and more recently, Public Policy courses (PIRES et al., 2014). USP, UFRGS and UFABC were some of the higher education institutions that started offering these undergraduate degrees. According to the Higher Education Census, in 2011 there were 179 undergraduate courses aimed at training students in Public Management or Public 11 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38 The Three Achilles' Heels of Brazilian Political Science Policy. Out of all of them, 82 (46%) were in Public Management, 46 (26%) were in Public Administration, 16 (9%) were in Public Security Management, 15 (8%) in the area of Health, 13 (7%) in the area of Social Management, 5 (3%) in Public Policy Management and two (1%) in Public Policy. Out of the total number of courses, 101 (56%) were technical and 67 (37%) were bachelor's degrees, with 105 (59%) created in the last year. Although this scenario has shown some improvement in the last decade, in a great many number of cases these degrees were led by professionals from areas such as History, Law and Business Management, reproducing the marginal presence of political scientists in the training of human resources in Brazilian universities. A more nuanced panorama of the development of Political Science in Brazil can be seen when we shift the focus of observation to postgraduate programmes. The dynamics of postgraduate courses is a more adequate measure of the behaviour of scientific communities, whether because (a) at this level, the processes of specialisation and differentiation have been previously set off by the creation of programmes from each one of the social sciences areas; (b) because of their very nature, which is more closely linked to scientific investigation and the training of researchers, or lastly; (c) because the causality between the expansion of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees does not necessarily mean that a rise in undergraduate degrees is a condition for a rise in demand for MA and PhD courses, but rather, the offer generated by the training of masters, and especially doctors, feeds a demand for professional inclusion from the centre to the periphery of the system, pressing for greater differentiation, specialisation and the creation of new postgraduate programmes. Political Science postgraduate degrees in Brazil had their founding moment in 1969, with the creation of the Master's in Political Science at UFMG5 5 List of Brazilian Higher Education Institutions: CEBELA – Brazilian Centre for Latin American Studies, FUFPI – Federal University of Piauí Federation, IUPERJ – University Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro, IESP – Institute of Social and Political Studies, PUC-MG – Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, PUC-RJ – Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, UCAM – Cândido Mendes University, UEM – State University of Maringá, UEPB – State University of Paraíba, UERJ-RI – State University of Rio de Janeiro – International Relations, UFABC – University of the ABC Region, UFF-CP – University of the State of Rio de Janeiro – Political Science, UFF-EE – University of the State of Rio de Janeiro – School of Engineering, UFG – Federal University of Goiás, UFMG – Federal University of Minas Gerais, UFPA – Federal University of Pará, UFPE – Federal University of 12 (2014) 8 (3) 3 – 38