Criteria for Research Productivity Grants in Brazil Applied to Civil Engineering: Reflections on Gender Differences and the Current Context.

IF 1.1 4区 综合性期刊 Q3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias Pub Date : 2025-03-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/0001-3765202520240562
Lilian R DE Rezende, Verônica T F Castelo Branco, Kamilla V Savasini, Marta P DA Luz, Michéle D T Casagrande, Liseane P Thives, Lêda C F L Lucena, Liedi L B Bernucci
{"title":"Criteria for Research Productivity Grants in Brazil Applied to Civil Engineering: Reflections on Gender Differences and the Current Context.","authors":"Lilian R DE Rezende, Verônica T F Castelo Branco, Kamilla V Savasini, Marta P DA Luz, Michéle D T Casagrande, Liseane P Thives, Lêda C F L Lucena, Liedi L B Bernucci","doi":"10.1590/0001-3765202520240562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article addresses gender issues in the context of the professor's productivity grants (PQ) distribution applied to Civil Engineering. It contributes with reflections on the advancement of knowledge and gender equality through the inclusion of integrity and holistic aspects. A quantitative and descriptive data analysis of public documents revealed that the number of women civil engineers is considerable, and that female professors engaged in postgraduate are capable of competing for scholarships. Nevertheless, less than 20% of PQ scholarships are awarded to female civil engineers, and the current scenario point to a gender disparity in terms of approval PQ demands. Moreover, despite the majority having already reached the pinnacle of their academic careers, only one has been designated at the highest level, and none have attained the rank of Senior. These findings can indicate segregation, structural barriers, lack of support and policies that encourage access to the highest levels of scholarships, possible subjectivity in the judgment that lead to the lack of impartiality and discrimination, and other factors that may still be understood as gender discrimination. Thus, the PQ criteria can be reviewed in light of the Brazilian National Care Policy, Sustainable Development Goal 5, and gender mainstreaming.</p>","PeriodicalId":7776,"journal":{"name":"Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias","volume":"97 1","pages":"e20240562"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202520240562","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article addresses gender issues in the context of the professor's productivity grants (PQ) distribution applied to Civil Engineering. It contributes with reflections on the advancement of knowledge and gender equality through the inclusion of integrity and holistic aspects. A quantitative and descriptive data analysis of public documents revealed that the number of women civil engineers is considerable, and that female professors engaged in postgraduate are capable of competing for scholarships. Nevertheless, less than 20% of PQ scholarships are awarded to female civil engineers, and the current scenario point to a gender disparity in terms of approval PQ demands. Moreover, despite the majority having already reached the pinnacle of their academic careers, only one has been designated at the highest level, and none have attained the rank of Senior. These findings can indicate segregation, structural barriers, lack of support and policies that encourage access to the highest levels of scholarships, possible subjectivity in the judgment that lead to the lack of impartiality and discrimination, and other factors that may still be understood as gender discrimination. Thus, the PQ criteria can be reviewed in light of the Brazilian National Care Policy, Sustainable Development Goal 5, and gender mainstreaming.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
347
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Academy of Sciences (BAS) publishes its journal, Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (AABC, in its Brazilianportuguese acronym ), every 3 months, being the oldest journal in Brazil with conkinuous distribukion, daking back to 1929. This scienkihic journal aims to publish the advances in scienkihic research from both Brazilian and foreigner scienkists, who work in the main research centers in the whole world, always looking for excellence. Essenkially a mulkidisciplinary journal, the AABC cover, with both reviews and original researches, the diverse areas represented in the Academy, such as Biology, Physics, Biomedical Sciences, Chemistry, Agrarian Sciences, Engineering, Mathemakics, Social, Health and Earth Sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信