Technical and artistic production by brazilian postgraduate courses with emphasis on Social Sciences and Humanities




Funding, Social, Economic, Political, Business


Understanding production types helps define the impact of different knowledge areas. Informa-tion from the Sucupira postgraduate database was taken. Cluster and correspondence analyses were conducted to determine the behavior of different areas. Social Sciences (SS), Humanities (H), Letters, Literature & Arts (LLA) were responsible for almost all productions, except for those in scientific journals and events. All areas have a high interaction with the business sector. SS, H, and LLA showed more work for governments (local, state, or federal), which funded products such as computer/mobile apps, books, and chapters. Funding related to art and culture is varied. Demand for maps came from SEEG (System for Estimates of Emissions and Removal of Greenhouse Gases) and WRI (World Resources Institute). The technical, artistic, and cultural sectors cannot be excluded from the evaluation, as they are part of knowledge and have a political and socioeconomic impact.


Não há dados estatísticos.


AIELLO, Emilia; et al. Effective strategies that enhance the social impact of social sciences and humanities research. Evidence & Policy: a Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, v. 17, n. 1, p. 131-146, 2021.

ALTMAN, David. Where is knowledge generated? On the productivity and impact of political science departments in Latin America. European Political Science, v. 11, n. 1, p. 71-87, 2012.

AQUINO, Simone; CORTESE, Tatiana Tucunduva Philippi; SHIBAO, Fábio Ytoshi. Technical production of professional masters in management: analysis of the disclosure of technical reports between the years 2013 to 2017. Revista de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade, v. 8, n. 1, p. 188-205, 2019.

ARCHAMBAULT, Eric; LARIVIÈRE, Vincent. Los límites de la bibliometría en el análisis de la literatura en ciencias sociales y humanidades. In: LACLETTE, Juan Pedro; ZÚÑIGA-BELLO, PatrIcia; ESPINOSA, Cristina Puga (Eds.). Informe sobre las ciencias sociales en el mundo. Las brechas del conocimiento. Cidade do México: UNESCO; Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, 2011, p. 263-267.

BAETA NEVES, Abilio Afonso. Pós-Graduação no Brasil. International Journal Of Business Marketing, v. 5, n. 2, p. 23-29, 2020.

BAETA NEVES Abilio Afonso; McMANUS Concepta. Revisão por pares em agências de fomento: agradecimento à Professora Sonia Ranincheski. Revista Debates, v. 14, n. 2, p. 14-22, 2020.

BASTOW, Simon; DUNLEAVY, Patrick; TINKLER, Jane. The impact of the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2014.

BELFIORE, Eleonora; BENNETT, Oliver. Researching the social impact of the arts: literature, fiction and the novel. International Journal of Cultural Policy, v. 15, n. 1, p. 17-33, 2009.

BENNEWORTH, Paul; JONGBLOED, Ben. Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, v. 59, n. 5, p. 567-588, 2010.

BRASIL. Lei de Incentivo a Cultura. [s./d.]. Disponível em: Acesso em: 22 maio 2023.

BUENO, Priscilla Veiga. Sistema de avaliação nos programas de pós-graduação das instituições de ensino superior: metodologia e prática. Revista Eletrônica de Administração & Ciências Contábeis (Opet), n. 11, p. 1-9, 2015.

CAPES. Dados abertos CAPES. [s./d.]. Disponível em: Acesso em: 22 maio 2023.

CHEN, Kuang-hua; et al. Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, v. 102, n. 1, p. 97-112, 2015.

COOKE, Rachel; ROSENTHAL, Danielle. Students use more books after library instruction: an analysis of undergraduate paper citations. College & Research Libraries, v. 72, n. 4, p. 332-343, 2011.

DAVIES, Sarah; et al. Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact do dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biology, n. 6, p. 1-15, 2021.

DAVYT, Amilcar; VELHO, Léa. A avaliação da ciência e a revisão por pares: passado e presente. Como será o futuro? História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos, v. 7, n. 1, p. [s.I.], 2000.

DEMERITT, David. Harnessing science and securing societal impacts from publicly funded research: reflections on UK science policy. Environment and Planning A, v. 42, n. 3, p. 515-523, 2010.

DERRICK, Gemma; SAMUEL, Gabrielle. The evaluation scale: exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels. Minerva, n. 54, p. 75-97, 2016.

DONOVAN, Claire. State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 175-179, 2011.

DONOVAN, Claire; HANNEY, Stephan. The “payback framework” explained. Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 181-183, 2011.

DURHAM, Eunice. Higher Education in Brazil: public and private. In: BROCK, Brock; SCHWARTZMAN, Simon (Eds.). The challenges of education in Brazil. Oxford: Triangle Journals, 2004, p. 147-178.

ESKO, Terhi; TUUNAINEN, Juha; MIETTINEN, Reijo. Social impact and forms of interaction between university research and society in humanities and social sciences. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, v. 49, n. 1, p. 17-46, 2012.

ESTEVES, Ana Maria; FRANKS, Daniel; VANCLAY, Frank. Social impact assessment: state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, v. 30, n. 1, p. 34-42, 2012.

FELT, Ulrike. Within, across and beyond: reconsidering the role of social sciences and humanities in Europe. Science as Culture, v. 23, n. 3, p. 384-396, 2014.

GREENWALD, Anthony; KREIGER, Linda Hamilton. Implicit bias: scientific foundations. California Law Review, v. 94, n. 4, p. 945-967, 2006.

GUENA, Aldo; MARTIN, Ben. University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva, n. 41, p. 277-304, 2003.

HENSHALL, Chris. The impact of payback research: developing and using evidence in policy. Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 257-258, 2011.

HOLBROOK, James Britt; BARR, Kelli; BROWN, Keith Wayne. Research impact: we need negative metrics too. Nature, n. 497, p. 439, 2013.

JONGBLOED, Ben Jongbloed; ENDERS, Jürgen; SALERNO, Carlo. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, v. 56, n. 3, p. 303-324, 2008.

KENYON, Tim. Defining and measuring research impact in the humanities, social sciences and creative arts in the digital age. Knowledge Organization, v. 41, n. 3, p. 249-257, 2014.

KLAUTZER, Lisa; et al. Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: the application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme. Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 201-209, 2011.

LOPES, G. R. et al. Ranking Strategy for Graduate Programs Evaluation. In: International Conference on Information Technology and Applications. Annals… Wuhan: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2011, p. 59-64.

MARANHÃO, Tatiana. Produção interdisciplinar de conhecimento científico no Brasil: temas ambientais. Sociedade e Estado, v. 25, n. 3, p. 561-580, 2010.

MARENCO, André. The three Achilles’ heels of Brazilian political science. Brazilian Political Science Review, v. 8, n. 3, p. 3-38, 2014.

MARTIN, Ben. The research excellence framework and the impact agenda: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 247-254, 2011.

McMANUS, Concepta; BAETA NEVES, Abilio Afonso, Production profiles in Brazilian Science, with special attention to social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, n. 126, p. 2.413-2.435, 2021.

McMANUS, Concepta; BAETA NEVES, Abilio Afonso. Bibliometric measures in social sciences and humanities from different sources based on Brazilian data. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, v. 16, n. 2, p. 279-304, 2022.

McMANUS, Concepta; BAETA NEVES, Abilio; MARANHÃO, Andrea. Brazilian publication profiles: where and how brazilian authors publish. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, v. 92, n. 2, p. 1-22, 2020.

MISHRA, Shubhanshu; et al. Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender. PloS One, v. 13, n. 9, p. 1-21, 2018.

MOITA, Marcia Helena Veleda. Um modelo para Avaliação da Eficiência Técnica de Professores Universitários utilizando Análise de Envoltória de Dados: o caso dos professores da área de engenharias. 170f. Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção pela Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis, 2002.

MOLAS-GALLART Jordi; TANG, Puay. Tracing “productive interactions” to identify social impacts: an example from the Social Sciences. Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 219-226, 2011.

MOREIRA, Maria Lígia; VELHO, Lea. Pós-Graduação no Brasil: da concepção “Ofertista Linear” para “Novos Modos de Produção do Conhecimento” implicações para avaliação. Avaliação, v. 13, n. 3, p. 625-645, 2008.

MUHONEN, Reetta; BENNEWORTH, Paul; OLMOS-PEÑUELA, Julia. From productive interactions to impact pathways: understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, v. 29, n. 1, p. 34-47, 2020.

NEYLON, Cameron; WILLMERS, Michelle; KING, Thomas. Rethinking impact: applying altmetrics to southern african research. Ottawa: International Development Research Center, 2014.

NOBRE, Lorena Neves; FREITAS, Rodrigo Randow. A evolução da pós-graduação no Brasil: histórico, políticas e avaliação. Brazilian Journal of Production Engineering (BJPE), v. 3, n. 2, p. 18-30, 2017.

OCHSNER, Michael; HUG, Sven; DANIEL, Hans-Dieter. Four types of research in the humanities: setting the stage for research quality criteria. Research Evaluation, v. 22, n. 2, p. 79-92, 2013.

OLMOS-PEÑUELA, Julia; CASTRO-MARTÍNEZ, Elena; D’ESTE, Pablo. Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy, v. 43, n. 4, p. 696-706, 2014.

PEDERSEN, David Budtz; GRØNVAD, Jonas; HVIDTFELDT, Rolf. Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities: a literature review. Research Evaluation, v. 29, n. 1, p. 4-21, 2020.

PIMENTA, Ricardo Medeiros. Os objetos técnicos e seus papéis no horizonte das Humanidades Digitais: um caso para a ciência da informação. Revista Conhecimento em Ação, v. 1, n. 2, p. 20-33, jul./dez. 2016.

PREWITT, Kenneth; SCHWANDT, Thomas; STRAF, Miron (Eds.). Using science as evidence in public policy. National Research Council, Committee on the use of social science knowledge in public policy. Washington: The National Academic Press, 2012.

REALE, Emanuela; et al. A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, v. 27, n. 4, p. 298-308, 2018.

ROESNITA, Ismail; ZAINAB, Awang Ngah. The pattern of e-book use amongst undergraduates an Malaysia: a case of to know is to use. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, v. 10, n. 2, p. 1-23, 2005.

ROWE, Gene; FREWER, Lynn. A typology of engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, v. 30, n. 2, p. 251-290, 2005.

SAMUEL, Gabrielle; DERRICK, Gemma. Societal impact evaluation: exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterisation of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation, v. 24, n. 3, p. 229-241, 2015.

SCHMITT, Valdenise; et al. Interdisciplinaridade e Pós-Graduação. Revista de Biologia e Ciências da Terra, v. 6, n. 2, p. 295-304, 2006.

SEOANE, Carmen Denébola Álvarez; RODRÍGUEZ, Jesús. Characteristics and properties of the didactic materials developed by local governments. Orbis Scholae, v. 8, n. 2, p. 23-41, 2015.

SHORE, Cris; WRIGHT, Susan. Audit culture revisited: rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, v. 56, n. 3, p. 421-444, 2015.

SILVA, Jadiel Vieira da. Higher education and University Reform in Brazil. Gainesville; East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center; Michigan State University, 1977.

SIVERTSEN, Gunnar; LARSEN, Birger. Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, v. 91, n. 2, p. 567-575, 2012.

SOVACOOL, Benjamin. Diversity: energy studies need social Science. Nature, v. 511, p. 529-530, 2014.

SPAAPEN, Jack; VAN DROOGE, Leonie. Introducing “productive interactions” in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, v. 20, n. 3, p. 211-218, 2011.

SUCUPIRA DATA. 2013-2016. Disponível em: Acesso em: 22 maio 2023.

SUPOVITZ, Johnathon. Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, v. 10, p. 211-227, 2009

UHLMANN, Eric Luis; COHEN, Geoffrey. Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, v. 16, n. 6, p. 474-480, 2005.

VAN LEEUWEN, Thed. Bibliometric research evaluations, Web of Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities: a problematic relationship? Bibliometrie: Praxis und Forschung, n. 2, p. 1-18, 2013.

VOGEL, Michele Jabala Mamede; KOBASHI, Nair Yumiko. Avaliação da pós-graduação no Brasil: seus critérios. In: Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa e Ciência da Informação. Anais... João Pessoa: UFPE, 2015, p. 1-18.

VOLBERDA, Henk; et al. Sociale innovatie: nu nog beter! Erasmus Concurrentie en Innovatie Monitor 2009-2010. Rotterdam: INSCOPE, 2010.