BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
289 of 300
Contributions of Motor Behavior to Physical Education: what has changed in the last 15
years?
GO TANI
1
1
University of São Paulo, School of Physical Education and Sport, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Correspondence to: Go Tani, University of São Paulo, School of Physical Education and Sport, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
email: gotani@usp.br
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v15i5.256
HIGHLIGHTS
• As BJMB shows, research on motor behavior
has increased considerably in the last 15 years
in Brazil.
• The discussion on the relationships between
motor behavior and physical education has not
advanced.
• Without clarifying these relationships the
relevance of motor behavior research to the
improvement of physical education continues to
be ambiguous.
ABBREVIATIONS
BJMB Brazilian Journal of Motor
Behavior
MB Motor Behavior
ML Motor Learning
PE Physical Education
TGMD Test of Gross Motor Development
SOCIBRACOM Brazilian Society of
Motor Behavior
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 03 08 2021
Accepted 04 10 2021
Published 01 12 2021
ABSTRACT
This article aimed to continue with the reflections on the relationship between Motor Behavior as a field of
investigation and Physical Education as an area of knowledge, seeking to analyze what changes have occurred
in the last 15 years, regarding the challenges and suggestions formulated in an article that I have published in the
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior’s first issue, in 2006. The analyzes carried out that were based on data
extracted from publications throughout this period allow us to conclude that the picture has not had significant
changes, particularly concerning the contribution of Motor Behavior researchers to a better definition of the
academic identity of Physical Education, which is necessary for the proper contextualization of researches
performed on motor behavior in the field. The results show the researchers' lack of interest in discussing more
macroscopic themes of epistemological nature, concentrating on the publication of articles to increase their
scientific productivity.
KEYWORDS: Motor Behavior | Physical Education | Basic Research | Applied Research | Epistemology
INTRODUCTION
The Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior (BJMB) completes 15 years of existence.
By itself, this is a great achievement. Everyone knows how difficult it is for a journal
representing a scientific society to keep regularity and periodicity in a developing country for
a long time. Just count how many journals with similar characteristics have achieved this
accomplishment in Brazil. In addition, this achievement takes on an even greater sense of
attainment when one realizes that the Journal has managed to climb increasingly higher
academic-scientific qualifications, which is evidenced by its acceptance by increasingly
demanding indexers. Evidently, these were not easy years, with moments of enormous
difficulties, when there was no clear goal over the horizon for the survival of the Journal.
For all that, it was with great honor that I received the invitation to participate in this
commemorative edition. In addition to the kindness that usually accompanies such an
invitation, I was surprised by the reason that I was receiving it. The invitation referred to an
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
290 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
article that I have published in the Journal’s first issue, in 2006; an article in which I reflected
on the relationship between Motor Behavior (MB) as a field of investigation and Physical
Education (PE) as an area of knowledge, launching challenges and research suggestions.
The invitation asked me to revisit the theme for an appreciation of any changes that have
taken place since then.
The relationship between MB and PE has been one of the main academic concerns
of my career. I did, in fact, publish three manuscripts aimed specifically to expose reflections
and discussions on this theme.
1-3
The underlying concern comes from the issue that
research on motor behavior can be carried out by researchers in different areas of
knowledge, for example, in Psychology, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Ergonomics,
Education, among others. However, do MB researchers seek answers to specific questions
within their original area of knowledge or to generic questions that could be pursued in any
of these areas without distinction? For example, do two MB laboratories, one located in a
PE department and another in Physiotherapy, investigate the same themes or themes linked
to their respective academic specificities? If their research is directed to specific themes, it
is worth analyzing the relationship between the research performed and the specificity of the
area of knowledge. If they are generic, it is worth asking: after all are researches contributing
to the improvement of which area of knowledge? Without an answer to this question, MB
could be considered a “homeless” field of investigation.
Obviously, in arguing on this issue, the BJMB’s mission is not being judged – the
Journal aims to publish articles on motor behavior (learning, control, and development)
regardless of their relationship with any specific area of knowledge. It is a Journal that
receives contributions from researchers with different academic backgrounds and working
in a several areas of knowledge. It is, therefore, essentially multidisciplinary. Evidently, the
Brazilian Society of Motor Behavior (SOCIBRACOM), of which BJMB is the representative
journal, has the same identity.
However, the researchers who publish in BJMB are linked to a certain area of
knowledge. Thus, it is expected that their academic interests are related to (if not constrained
by) their area’s interests. The big question is what are the characteristics of the knowledge
areas to which they belong. This shows the need for an epistemological reflection on the
subject, that is, to discuss the nature and structure of the area of knowledge. If the area of
knowledge is academic in nature (basic research), there would not exist, in principle, any
epistemological conflict concerning conducting research on motor behavior. However, if the
area of knowledge is of a professional nature (applied research), the problem arises as
research carried out within it is, supposedly, committed to solving problems that arise in the
professional intervention. In short, what kind of areas of knowledge are PE, Physiotherapy,
Occupational Therapy, among other areas to which researchers who publish in BJMB and
are members of SOCIBRACOM belong? What epistemological basis and status do these
areas have?
The purpose of this essay article is to further discuss the relationship between MB
and PE, seeking to analyze the changes that have taken place in these 15 years considering
the challenges posed and actions suggested in the previous article. In this sense, I apologize
in advance to the readers for the fact that I am bringing, in a commemorative issue of BJMB,
a somewhat “bitter” topic for discussion. Commemoration is usually related to celebrating
conquests and achievements. I am aware of this. However, it seems redundant to me to
reiterate the accomplishments of the Journal as, strictly speaking, one can simply look at the
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
291 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
published numbers of the Journal, which will reveal a significant qualitative improvement in
recent years. I’m not just referring to the regularity or periodicity of the Journal, but the quality
of the articles published. It is known that an important thermometer of the maturity stage of
a field of investigation is the quality of its representative journal. It is clear that Brazilian MB
researchers seek to publish their articles, primarily, in international journals of recognized
impact, but that is exactly why the achievement of a national journal, evaluated by the quality
of its publications, is something to be recognized, praised, and celebrated. There was, in
fact, a handover from the editors to improve the quality of the Journal, which deserves all
our recognition and consideration. However, it is widely known that reflecting on
achievements is an essential step to pave the way for the future.
SOME PREMISES OF REFLECTION
It is said that in an academic discussion it is important to make clear the background
from which the themes are critically approached. Thus, I think that initially presenting some
premises derived from this background, which were used in my previous articles, will
facilitate the understanding.
PE researchers involved with the study of the phenomenon of motor behavior may
think that discussing the relationship between MB and PE is a meaningless effort, as it is
enough that the knowledge produced is contributing to the advancement of science, that is,
demonstrates scientific merit. In fact, it makes no sense to carry out research that does not
result in advances in knowledge. However, in this case, probably the term science is being
used in a global sense based on the assumption that it is unique, and not a set formed by
specific areas of knowledge. This, of course, is not real, since science is made up of several
areas, each with its own identity. And research is done to advance knowledge in each of
these areas. In contemporary science, the different areas are merging to compose more
integrated areas of knowledge which is another matter, and only proves the existence of
areas.
Others may argue that this compartmentalized view of science, formed by distinct
areas of knowledge, is retrograde, as contemporary science is eminently interdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary. In other words, discussing the identity of each area is
a waste of time. However, it cannot be forgotten that interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, or
transdisciplinarity presupposes disciplines, which means that if there were no disciplines,
these qualifications would have no meaning. Furthermore, care must be taken in the use of
these terms to not confuse their use to characterize different things. For example, using
them to express the modus operandi of science to tackle complex problems in society, the
constitution of professional teams involved in this endeavor or the characteristic of the
curriculum of professional preparation courses, which are eminently multi or interdisciplinary,
is a thing; another is its use in an epistemological reflection on areas of knowledge, i.e, in
understanding the nature and structure of the knowledge they produce.
Science is not free from preconceptions. For example, there is a false idea that an
area of knowledge of a professional nature is less scientific than an academic one.
2,3
More
than that, some researchers consider only the basic or pure sciences as science, thus not
recognizing the existence of the applied sciences. In this case, it is worth asking: Are not
Medicine, Engineering, and Business Administration sciences? Still, is Medicine less
scientific than Physiology? Is Engineering less than Physics? Is Business Administration
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
292 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
less than Economics? Implicit in this view of science is a criterion of scientificity that is not
consistent with a contemporary view, which is admittedly multiple.
On the other hand, because applied research is oriented towards the search for
solutions to practical problems in real life, many researchers consider it more socially
committed and, thus, more relevant than basic research which deserve to be prioritized by
society.
2,3
The rationale behind this point of view is that, in a world where humanity faces so
many fundamental survival problems, uncommitted basic research to solve these problems
would be a luxury that should be given less priority. This is, clearly, an ideological stance
that disregards the fact that basic research provides the raw material in terms of knowledge
that is used as a starting point for conducting applied research. In the defense of applied
research, it is often forgotten that being linked to the solution of practical problems in the real
world does not necessarily mean that all these problems are relevant or noble.
Basic science researchers, in turn, have the understanding that basic research
ultimately contributes to the cultural enrichment of humanity and this, in itself, fully justifies
its realization.
2,3
Thus, basic research would make it possible to satisfy men’s eternal
curiosity to know himself, such as the world one lives in and the universe in which one is
inserted, or to answer fundamental questions such as the origin of life, the universe, and the
mind. The effort on basic sciences would contribute to expanding the cultural heritage of
humanity, regardless of the question of applicability of knowledge in a solution or if it tackles
practical problems in society.
In reality, the relationship between basic and applied research is one of interaction
and not one of unilateral dependence of the second in regard to the first. There is no doubt
that applied research is in some ways an extension of basic research. Nonetheless, it is
necessary to recognize the feedback role that applied research has to basic research – not
only providing new insights but also supplying parameters for controlling its quality
2,3
.
Furthermore, in this interaction, the temporal issue for the transformation of basic research
into applied research also needs to be considered. There is a tendency to attribute to applied
research the merit of solving immediate or pressing problems in society. However, good
applied research often comes from the knowledge produced by basic research carried out a
long time ago, so the merit needs to be shared.
Care must also be taken in understanding the relationship between basic and
applied research concerning the relevance of applied knowledge to solve concrete problems
in the society. If the knowledge produced by basic research is not directly applicable to
problem-solving, this does not automatically mean that the applied ones are. Applied
knowledge also has limitations. They are often too specific and therefore difficult to
generalize. In other words, they apply to particular situations, probably similar to those in
which the applied knowledge was originally produced.
2,3
Finally, there is a need to reflect on the social relevance of scientific research. There
is a demand from society about the purpose served by the scientific knowledge produced.
This has placed a question mark in basic research that has knowledge as its endpoint and
does not result in applied research that can produce knowledge to solve important problems
in society. In other words, from the point of view of social relevance, there is a criticism that
half of science is being carried out, evidenced, for example, by the few researches that result
in patents
4
. It is clear that there is a danger of transforming science into an essentially
utilitarian and marketing activity, valuing only instrumental knowledge of the practical
application. On the other hand, not looking at society’s pressing problems deserves
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
293 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
rethinking. Over the past two years, we have been living a unique situation that exemplifies
the issue: the mobilization of science from all over the globe for the production of a vaccine
against Covid-19 in a record time. An achievement that in normal times took more than a
decade was accomplished in less than a year, starting with basic research on the genetic
mapping of the virus. If we think of other humanitarian tragedies that persist, such as hunger,
poor sanitation conditions, contagious diseases, illiteracy, among several others, that punish
a significant part of humanity, the question that arises is, given the remarkable growth in the
volume of knowledge produced, why is research to meet these fundamental needs not
carried out with the same priority and speed? There is an argument that the solution to these
problems is not of a scientific nature, but a political decision. Yes, there is no doubt about
that; however, it is necessary to question whether it is possible and desirable to take political
decisions without solid scientific knowledge.
I think that many PE researchers involved with the investigation of motor behavior
carry out studies without being interested or involved in these discussions of epistemological
nature. I conjecture that many, naively, believe that by contributing to the understanding of
the phenomenon, they will automatically be contributing to the improvement of knowledge
in the area. In my view, the lack of interest or ignorance of these epistemological issues may,
despite all the efforts undertaken and the quality of the work produced in scientific terms,
lead the researcher to be questioned about his effective contribution to the advancement of
PE.
2,3
THE TRAJECTORY OF REFLECTIONS TO THE PRESENT
In the first article of the three previously mentioned, "Contributions of motor learning
to physical education: a critical analysis" published in the Revista Paulista de Educação
Física in 1992, the conclusion was that the knowledge produced by Motor Learning (ML)
can be useful in the solution of practical problems that arise in PE, but a more careful
analysis showed that they were not causing effective changes in professional interventions.
Of course, this conclusion could be extended to other fields of investigation that make up
MB. It is interesting to note that PE, at that time, particularly in the US, was going through a
great internal dispute regarding its academic identity, favoring reflections on the contribution
of research performed in each of its sub-areas of investigation. American researchers from
ML also considered the issue
5-8
and reached similar conclusions.
Several causes of this failure were pointed out in the 1992 article. I highlighted,
among them, the fact that researches were directed to the investigation of the mechanisms
involved in motor learning and not to the testing of conditions and ways to improve
performance, that is, the applied research. The other was the use of excessively simple
laboratory tasks, which decreased the ecological validity of the studies. That is, studies were
performed with artificially elaborated laboratory tasks that often did not reflect what was
happening in reality. The motor tasks used were designed to meet the study’s convenience;
in other words, to facilitate the testing of its hypotheses, so that they had no ecological
meaning in themselves. The third cause was the fact that ML studies were done mainly with
adult participants who, in most cases, already knew how to meet the requirements of the
experimental situations, and learning was limited to a more refined control of the task. Bluntly,
“learning” involved little learning, so the amount of practice was limited to a number of
attempts well below what is normally required in acquiring motor skills in a real situation.
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
294 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
From a methodological point of view, these causes had, in essence, a common
ground: the adoption of the reductionist paradigm. This is based on analytical procedures
that imply the simplification of the object of study. To ensure the reliability of the results, the
investigations rigorously controlled the variables – which in itself is not a problem. However,
this led to a lack of correspondence between the results obtained and the real situation,
compromising the ecological validity of the results.
Based on these thoughts, some suggestions for future studies were presented. First,
to review the search for the simple linear cause-effect relationship of variables, to investigate
the pattern of interaction of independent variables and their effects on dependent variables
using valid and diversified performance measures in which the principle of complementarity
could be observed. Second, clearly distinguish the characteristics, strengths, and limitations
of basic and applied research. The basic research that is undertaken to explain how motor
learning takes place involves clarifying the underlying mechanisms and processes and the
factors that affect them. In turn, when studying how these mechanisms and processes can
be worked on to achieve more efficient learning, applied research should be conducted
aiming at solving practical problems in professional intervention. Finally, it was suggested to
extend the research to a new field of investigation, called Teaching-Learning of Motor Skills.
Simply, to perform studies integrating and synthesizing knowledge in which the central
concern is the experimental verification of the applicability of principles and hypotheses
derived from basic research in ML in a real teaching-learning situation.
In the second study entitled "Motor learning in the context of physical education and
sports science: dilemmas, conflicts and challenges", published in 2001 (almost 10 years
after the first article), an attempt was made to address ML properly inserted in the context
of a specific area of knowledge called PE discussing their contributions and challenges faced
for their development. It started from the premise that the possible contributions and
challenges of ML depended on the identity attributed to PE as an area of knowledge. If PE
was understood as an area of knowledge of an academic nature, contributions and
challenges of ML would only be about the academic-scientific merit of its productions. On
the other hand, if PE was understood as an area of knowledge of professional nature, the
reflection on the contribution of ML would involve an analysis of its implications for an
effective improvement in the professional practice of PE. It is worth noting that in this line of
thought if PE was replaced by any other area of knowledge (e.g., Physiotherapy or
Occupational Therapy), the same conclusions would be valid.
It is clear that the possible relations between ML and PE brought the researchers in
front of an important decision-making process regarding the type of research to be carried
out and the issues to be pursued. Given this scenario, some actions were suggested to face
the challenges. The first consisted of a deep consideration on the academic identity of PE
that all researchers should do, to enable the proper contextualization of ML as one of its
sub-areas of studies such as, for example, Exercise Physiology, Biomechanics, and Sport
Psychology. The second was to reiterate the need and relevance of conducting research in
Teaching-Learning of Motor Skills. The third was, if the understanding was that PE is an
area of knowledge of a professional nature, to promote and encourage research involving
integrated participation of academics (researchers) and professionals (teachers), aiming to
synthesize academic and practical knowledge in conducting applied research, bringing
theory and practice, academy and professional intervention, or the university and the society
together. Finally, the fourth suggestion concerned intensifying the interaction with the
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
295 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Pedagogy of Movement research field; performing research that, based on basic knowledge
about motor learning, seeks to develop more efficient methods of teaching motor skills.
Then, in 2006, I published in the BJMB the third article, entitled “Motor behavior and
its relationship with physical education” – which resulted in the invitation for this article. There,
I sought, based on the content discussed in the two previous articles, to continue the
discussions and reflections on the relationship between MB and PE. More precisely the
problems, challenges, and research perspectives faced when the referred field of
investigation is properly inserted in the context of an area of knowledge called PE.
The feasibility of reflecting on the relation between MB and PE is based on the
existence of a clearly defined academic identity for both. Certainly, at the time, MB’s area
had its identity, but PE was still looking for a better definition.
9-14
Thus, a description of the
characteristics of the MB as a field of investigation was initially presented and then a brief
incursion into the epistemological foundations of PE was made. As PE hardly discussed its
academic identity, expecting it to first define that identity so that MB researchers could
outline their research concerns was not a productive strategy. Even so, the relation between
MB and PE was analyzed taking into account the two possibilities of the identity of PE – as
an area of knowledge of academic and professional nature. The reflection was concluded
with an important call for MB researchers to effectively participate in the better definition of
PE’s academic identity, in order to better contextualize their research.
RESULTS OF THIS REFLECTION
Evidently, care must be taken in generalizing the results presented below. It may be
that BJMB is not an appropriate journal to reflect on the relationship between MB and PE,
precisely because it has a multidisciplinary nature. In other words, the results and inferences
would be more pertinent if publications in other PE-specific journals were analyzed. However,
BJMB is the journal in focus, so the reflections need to be linked to the studies published in
it. Another caution refers to the depth of analysis. In essay articles, a detailed analysis of the
data is usually not carried out, observing strict methodological criteria and specific statistical
treatments, but rather a more descriptive analysis aiming only at pointing out trends.
In these 15 years of existence, BJMB has published 22 issues with various articles
and 17 issues with content referring to events (annals). In the 22 issues, 90 articles were
published. Of these, considering titles and abstracts, only 3 (3.4%) focused on discussions
about MB as a field of investigation. Not coincidentally, the three articles were published in
their first issue. Four review articles and 11 articles were found focusing on the discussion
of a specific topic related to MB, which can be considered as opinion articles (16.6%). The
remaining 72 articles can be considered as being original, dealing with different themes of
MB (80%).
Regarding the motor tasks analyzed in the 72 articles, 28 studies were performed
with laboratory tasks, even considering the proximity to the real world and degrees of
freedom involved (38.8%). In other 25 studies, the tasks used can be classified as from the
“real world” but analyzed in the laboratory (34.7%). In 11 studies, the tasks used can be
considered from the “real world”, and analyzed using specific tests such as the Test of Gross
Motor Development - second edition (TGMD - 2) and other test batteries in specific
populations (15.2%). Finally, in only 8 articles, the tasks used were actually from the “real
world”, and analyzed and investigated in real contexts (11.1%). In general, the use of motor
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
296 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
tasks elaborated in the laboratory and with the performance of few attempts is still
accentuated, compared to the number of attempts required in the learning of motor skills in
the “real world”. Perhaps this prevails based on two assumptions: the learning principles are
the same for both simple and complex tasks and the learning principles are the same for the
various levels of practice.
1,7
But these assumptions still await further studies to reach more
consistent conclusions.
With regard to basic and applied research, whose analysis was made difficult by
reading only the titles and abstracts, there was a slight increase in applied research
compared to the existing panorama in MB in the 1980s and 1990s in different journals, a
result shown in the first discussed article on the subject1. However, basic research continues
to be the majority in scientific production, and a more intentional and effective incursion in
the realization of applied research is not perceived.
A result that stands out is that few MB researchers have been interested, at least
concerning publications, in the epistemological reflections between MB and its areas of
knowledge. As the three articles were present in the inaugural issue of the journal, it remains
as a hope that the present volume will have some articles aimed at this discussion. If not, it
will reinforce the perception that MB researchers are definitely not interested in this
discussion. I recognize that my perspectives are not optimistic at all and this has to do with
some facts and trends that I am going to report.
In fact, this phenomenon of disinterest in broader themes of its fields of investigation,
its area of knowledge, or even science as a whole is generically observed in PE.
4,11,15-17
As
mentioned, the existence of a clear identity of the area of knowledge to which it belongs is
an essential condition to better contextualize the research carried out in MB. Therefore, the
lack of interest in this subject reveals a worrying fact, namely, that researchers are
concerned only with the tree of their investigative interests and not with the forest in which
this tree is inserted. This disinterest perpetuates the existing ambiguity regarding PE’s
academic and professional identity. Furthermore, as many of the authors of articles
published by the BJMB are advisors in graduate programs, their lack of interest ends up
constituting an element that leads their mentees to follow the same path. Thus, when these
mentees complete their doctorate and become advisors in graduate programs, they end up
becoming multipliers of this ambiguity.
One of the reasons why researchers only focus on their research projects, perhaps
a line of research, is related to the productivism installed in contemporary science.
17-19
It is
necessary to publish many and very quickly in increasingly reputable journals, and this leads
researchers to focus only on research that results in publications, regardless of whether the
journals belong to their area of knowledge or even if the investigated topic is related to the
specificity of the area of knowledge to which they belong. Naturally, if this is the criterion,
one will research with more chances of achieving this objective, which results in basic,
experimental, and quantitative research using consolidated methodologies from the natural
sciences with a focus on the reliability of results (strict control of variables), without concern
for its ecological validity. Applied research, as it is widely known, is guided by another logic.
For these researchers, what matters is the academic-scientific status. Because they
know that according to the state of the art, it is this status that opens the doors of research
agencies to obtain scholarships, research funding to participate in scientific events, and
exchange programs. It is also what the university values, leading them to engage with more
interest and dedication to research over and above other functions such as teaching,
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Tani
2021
VOL.15
N.5
297 of 300
Special issue:
15 years of Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
extension, and administration. In reality, there is nothing bad in the pursuit of academic-
scientific status, especially in areas of knowledge in search of consolidation such as PE. On
the contrary, it is a necessity.
11,20,21
The problem is with the purpose this search is made, as
the status must be related to the identity of the area where the researcher belongs. In other
words, consolidation must be sought to build a body of knowledge that gives it academic-
scientific legitimacy.
When this type of productivist thinking prevails among researchers working in
Graduate Studies, there is a tendency to transform the training of new researchers into a
process aimed at preparing research technicians. These are very competent in the
preparation of articles, but unprepared to pursuit academic carrier, meeting demands that
are multifactorial and multifaceted.
17
This productivism has bonuses and burdens. In general, it can be said that MB
researchers experience euphoria or anguish as their academic careers unfold. Euphoria is
experienced by those who have successfully embarked on the productivist movement.
Evidently, as the day has only 24 hours, it is not possible to be productive in all four main
functions of the university: teaching, research, extension, and administration. This requires
the establishment of priorities for involvement, which should happen without failing to deliver
in other functions the minimum that the job requires (justifying the salary). Unfortunately, this
is often questionable in the current context of the university where research productivity is
in fact the only one to be recognized and valued. In any case, the bonuses resulting from
this prioritization in research are enormous because they generate rewards that make
researchers even more productive so that the distance in relation to those who set other
priorities increases more and more.
For different reasons, the anguish is felt by researchers who have not joined this
productivist research movement, e.g., for having established priorities in other domains, by
vocation, choice, difficulty, or strength of circumstances. The price (burden) that is paid for
this is also enormous, especially concerning the pressure exerted by the necessary scientific
productivity to maintain, in a postgraduate program, the status of an accredited advisor. The
more prestigious the program, the higher the productivity bar. I think the situation is
becoming unsustainable, with inevitable dropouts of researchers. This situation of
disadvantage in relation to dedication in areas other than research will only be corrected, in
my view, when the university values effectively other activities with the same dimension and
magnitude. For example, implementing productivity grants, incentives, and concrete rewards
for teaching, extension, and administration activities.
17
SOCIBRACOM needs to be tuned in to follow the developments in the careers of its
members and to take a stand if eventually there is a significant increase in researchers
negatively affected by this productivist culture. And BJMB is an appropriate vehicle for this
positioning. Two basic functions have been commonly attributed to scientific journals. The
first is to enable communication between peers in a scientific community. That is, to bring
together researchers who study and investigate certain objects, phenomena, events, and
themes. The second is to disseminate the knowledge produced by this community.
18
Therefore, it is in society’s greatest interest for the number of researchers to grow more and
more and for the journal to be a driver of this increase. In this context, BJMB is faced with a
key question regarding the establishment of its editorial policy: should its goal be to
contribute to the advancement of science, to the academic-scientific consolidation of the
areas to which its researchers belong, or to the improvement of professional intervention in