Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
CARDOSO, LUIS DE SOUZA |
| Orientador(a): |
Fischmann , Roseli |
| Banca de defesa: |
Barreto, Ely Eser,
Josgrilberg, Rui de Sousa,
Lopes, Nicanor,
Souza, Roger Marchesini de Quadros |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Metodista de Sao Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Educacao
|
| Departamento: |
Educacao:Programa de Pos Graduacao em Educacao
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede.metodista.br/jspui/handle/tede/1596
|
Resumo: |
This thesis on Education aims to investigate the process of constitution of the identity of the Methodist University of Piracicaba in the movement of construction of its Academic Policy (PA). The research is part of the field of the Brazilian University studies, having as its case Unimep, institution of private, confessional nature, with public and community spirit. The PA, approved in 1992, at the time constituted a sui generis case in the Brazilian University field, the methodology of its construction and the radical definition of its foundation and reason of been University, based on the ethics of “building of citizenship as collective heritage of the civil society”. In construction a historical narrative of Unimep, the building of its Academic Policy and other policies that around its integrator axis gravitating, the research sought to explain and understand the process and institutional movement (the institutionalization of the University), as well as its incidence in the constitution of the identity of Unimep. The method used in an exploratory way was based on the Grounded Theory. The data were obtained from the documents of the institutional historical archive and intensive semi-structured interviews with protagonists of the movement of the Academic Policy. The survey results came from a historical analysis of Unimep and found that in its establishing and development since the IEP Isolated and Integrated Colleges, founded in 1964, until the end of the first phase as a University in 1978, it went through different stages, all of them, however, crossed by the prevailing ideology in the historical context of the country, with lack of democracy, authoritarian and centralized management, with very low critical and collective participation. However, the movement of the academic community advanced and evolved in the opposite direction to the official management, demonstrating counter-ideological, marked by nonconformity and dissatisfaction with the status quo. The contradictions were made explicit and culminated in crises experienced in 1978 and 1985. In the administration and resolution of these crises, the resistance of the teachers and student’s movement played a key role, relying on the following steps with the support and political will of the new rectories, in such way that the University made significant jumps in the formation of its identity. Especially the construction of its Academic Policy (1989-1992) Unimep experienced a process of institutionalization and has established itself as University counter-ideological and counter-reproductivist, of democratic, collective-participatory character, based on the search for the inseparability of teaching, research and extension, which marks its pedagogical project. Particularly its identity, made over time in its historicity, was synthesized in the process and movement of the Academic Policy, which advocates quality in the education and quality policy, based on the ethics of “building of citizenship as a collective heritage of the civil society” as its utopia and reason for being. The grounded theory emerging arrived, therefore, to a triad of core analytical categories, with conceptual power, explanatory-understanding of the phenomenon of the “construction of the Academic Policy and the establishment of the identity of Unimep”, by the confluence and combination of the “nonconformity” of the academic community, of the “collective-participatory-dialectical method” and of the ethics of “construction of citizenship” as its deepest evaluative expression |
