Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2021;20(5):585-591
doi: 10.33233/rbfex.v20i5.4891
OPINION
Paradigms in the teaching of contemporary science:
unconscious fetters?
Paradigmas
no ensino da ciência contemporânea: grilhões inconscientes?
Marvyn
de Santana do Sacramento1,2, Carlos Eduardo Souza3,
Jackeline Barbosa Moreira4, Lorena Mariel González Vitavar5
1Centro Universitário Social da Bahia,
Salvador, BA, Brazil
2Actus Cordios
Serviço de Reabilitação Cardiovascular, Salvador, BA, Brazil
3Centro Universitário Estácio da Bahia,
Salvador, BA, Brazil
4Hospital do Subúrbio/Hospital da Cidade,
Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia (SESAB), Salvador, BA, Brazil
5Universidad Adventista del Plata, Libertador San Martin, Entre Ríos, Argentina
Received:
June 6, Accepted: August
18; 2021.
Correspondence: Marvyn de Santana do
Sacramento, Av. Oceânica, 2717, 40170-010 Salvador BA
Marvyn de Santana do
Sacramento: marvynsantana@gmail.com
Carlos Eduardo Souza: contatoadmsousa@gmail.com
Jackeline Barbosa Moreira: jackmoreir25@gmail.com
Lorena Mariel González Vitavar:
lorena.gonzalez@uap.edu.ar
Abstract
Advances in technology have changed many aspects of
communication, and that includes the scientific milieu. The format of content
presentation, dissemination, availability, and speed of sharing are examples of
the discrepancy between the old model of dissemination of scientific
information and the current one. However, the way of teaching scientific
research in higher education (which permeates from scientific initiation to
doctorate) still cultivates retrograde ideas that make it difficult to learn
about the needs to do and transmit science with quality. The purpose of this
article is to question some of the mistakes in the teaching of research and
scientific writing. After all, the repercussions of such aspects can present
themselves as barriers to learning and/or keep authors away from the
publication of their studies. So, if developing science and building a
scientifically literate society is really a purpose, we need to review the way
we teach research.
Keywords: education; scientific publication indicators; scientific
communication and diffusion.
Resumo
Avanços
na tecnologia modificaram diversos aspectos da comunicação, e isso inclui o
meio científico. O formato de apresentação do conteúdo, divulgação,
disponibilidade e velocidade de compartilhamento são exemplos da discrepância
entre o antigo modelo de disseminação das informações científicas e o atual. No
entanto, a forma de ensinar a pesquisa científica no ensino superior (que
permeia desde a iniciação científica até o doutorado) ainda cultiva ideias
retrógradas que dificultam o real aprendizado sobre as necessidades para fazer
e transmitir ciência com qualidade. O objetivo desse artigo é questionar alguns
dos equívocos no ensino da pesquisa e da escrita científica. Afinal, as
repercussões de tais aspectos podem se apresentar como barreiras para o
aprendizado e/ou afasta os autores da publicação dos seus estudos. Portanto, se
o desenvolvimento da ciência e a construção de uma sociedade cientificamente
alfabetizada é realmente um propósito, precisamos rever a forma como ensinamos
pesquisa.
Palavras-chave: educação; indicadores de produção
científica; comunicação e divulgação científica.
Contemporary
science still experiences a mismatch between teaching and the real demands of
the scientific community, where a paradoxical cycle feeds back and impedes the
real effectiveness of research teaching. Crucial points such as scientific
communication went through intense changes influenced by technology, which
allowed the advancement of science dissemination and changed the way of
reporting research results aiming the reader's attention, however, research
teaching still follows some anachronisms.
This document
aims to present some of the mismatches between academic teaching on research
and the requirements of journals and, finally, to propose measures that improve
the teaching and learning process in research, making the scientific
environment more attractive to academics and professionals.
The influence of technology
Technological
advances have allowed us to migrate from a system of
knowledge exchange mediated by letters, to a model of real-time
information sharing [1]. This change allowed for greater dissemination of
scientific content, now available and easily accessible to non-specialized audiences.
Added to this are the facilities for sharing data and conducting research,
increasingly arousing the interest of new researchers, who started to
contribute to the scientific literature.
To get an idea
of the advance in the number of publications over time, when performing a quick
search via PubMed in the United State National Library of Medicine, for the
term "Health", we found approximately 4.9 million results since the
year 1782, of which, at least 3.8 million have been published since the 2000s
[2]. Although the numbers described do not specifically reflect the quality of
scientific production [3] and they need careful evaluation, there is an
increase in worldwide involvement with research.
Easy access to
scientific literature through smartphones facilitates learning and problem
solving [4]. However, the high number of publications available each day on the
same topic can impair the proper filtering and selection of information, which
requires substantial knowledge for the reader to evaluate scientific research
[5], and strategies [6] loyalty by the periodicals.
Changes in the
technology and information scenario directly influence the way magazines
disseminate their content, such as availability on websites at the expense of
print placement; development of applications to provide immediate access to
journal issues and even the creation of podcasts with scientific debate. In
addition, there was an increase in the speed of availability of works for
reading through publication in aheads of print, as an
alternative that allows for a balance between the peer review procedure and the
rapid availability for the community [7].
It is also
necessary to recognize that aspects, formerly linked to the dissemination of
computer software, are now part of the construction of the brand (scientific
magazine) and its product (scientific document). As an example, we can mention
the user interface (UI) and user experience (UE), which basically represent the
way the content is presented to the user (dimensions, colors, typography,
elements such as tables, figures) and what is the experience lived by the user,
even when in possession of the product (Is it enjoyable? Does he feel motivated
to stay on the platform? Does it meet your expectations?) [8].
Another point
made more flexible by the digital age is the possibility of adding a greater
number of images to scientific articles. Initially, due to the costs involved
in printing the article, the number of figures was limited and, currently, according
to the study design, authors are encouraged to present figures that facilitate
the understanding of the content or even the dissemination of their research in
the social media [6,9]. In a context with a growing number of journals
providing information with the same theme, aspects related to the quality of
information and publishing may be part of the reader's choice criteria.
Research teaching: how are we currently?
Master's and
doctoral programs aim to turn students into researchers. For this, a period of
2 to 4 years is necessary for each of these stages and the presentation of a
dissertation or thesis as a final product. However, it is not uncommon for
professionals who participated in strictu sensu graduate courses often present as scientific
production only the documents generated during the program. Judging by the
purpose of the program, which is the training of independent scientists, the
ideal would be the existence of periodic reassessments on the existence and
quality of these scientific productions [10]. We understand that the excessive
charge for publications does not necessarily imply quality work, however, the
absence of future contributions represents a social burden.
The evaluations
of graduate programs are made based on the quantity and level of scientific
production, and in 2018 an update was proposed in the evaluation criteria
capable of encompassing qualitative aspects involving participants and
graduates of each program, however, not yet were implemented [11]. Therefore,
considering the current metrics, little production and low scientific quality
represent risks for institutions, which may lose the right to keep graduate
programs in operation. Therefore, this is a joint responsibility, of the
student and the institution. Furthermore, the growth of any field of activity
depends on scientific production, which leads us to reflect on the amount of
professional dedication dedicated exclusively to research and how the
organization of our socio-political system makes this growth difficult.
Protect Time, as
it is called, refers to the percentage of working hours financed so that
professionals can dedicate themselves to production and learning about
research, such as participation in scientific events [12]. Although the
Brazilian reality deviates from the values of 70-80% of the workload of
dedication to research, we must adapt them to our context, striving to maintain
their existence, even in the absence of external sponsorship. We know it is not
easy, but this seems to be the way to strengthen professional qualification.
The research by
Park et al. [13] shows us that among the barriers encountered by
physical therapists in the application of scientific knowledge are the time for
reading and the autonomy to change protocols. If we think of the intensive care
physical therapist, for example, we will have many professionals working in
different institutions with almost exclusively practical demands. In this
situation, the Herculean effort to add 1 hour of study/day, even far from the
ideal 70%, contemplates the equivalent of a graduate degree (365 hours) per
year, with direct effects on evidence-based decision making and quality of
care. Involvement with research will promote greater mastery of updated
knowledge and will empower professionals, making them capable of discussing the
best strategies with other professionals and managers of the health system. At
this point, reading materials that support rationality for decision making is
fundamental [14].
On the other
hand, we have the contact of undergraduate students with scientific research,
whether due to mandatory training or through participation in scientific
initiation programs. The research conducted by Riggs et al. [15] draws
our attention to the following point: Academics who reach the first scientific
publication during their undergraduate course have a higher level of scientific
production after graduation, even before the doctorate. Certainly, favoring the
engagement of academics with scientific research will bring benefits to the
profession, not only due to the increase in scientific production, but also due
to the technical qualification and development of the capacity to use evidence
to obtain the best results in clinical practice.
But, how to
provide this experience to the student if, despite the title, the professor of
subjects related to research is not always an active researcher? Studies have
repeatedly pointed out the importance of teaching quality for learning and part
of this requirement comes from the involvement with the area in which it is
proposed to teach [16].
The failure to
teach research may be even more profound. When we challenge higher education
academics about their experience with research during their undergraduate
course, they often report that the scientific process is taught in a boring and
unnecessarily bureaucratic way, which reduces the interest of this group. For
example, it is not known when it appeared, but the idea of many pages to
justify the importance of a content is still present and is not restricted to
the scientific environment. Society still shares the retrograde thinking
responsible for giving greater value to long arguments vs objective answers;
planning with numerous procedures (sometimes unnecessary) vs planning aimed at
solving the problem; theses with greater thickness vs article with smaller
number of pages [6]. We must ask ourselves: which option satisfactorily meets our
demand? and the answer will guide the choice.
If we think
about the number of activities performed by health professionals and the need
to make quick and well-informed decisions, the text that is too long will
probably not be part of their preferences. However, this is still one of the
main requirements that we observe in the thesis and dissertation evaluation
boards. We emphasize that there are no problems with the requirements for
adding content to scientific texts so that they can better express a thought,
but the search for page numbers as a rule is based on an empty and unnecessary
argumentation. This type of requirement is present from basic education to
postgraduate programs [6]. Regarding the latter, the paradox of the need for
content is established when requesting the addition of pages to a thesis, when,
at the end of the defense for the title, the author is obliged to shred all the
content to adapt it to the norms of a journal, which, would normally not accept
it with more than half the original content. At this point, another question
arises: if we want to train researchers, why not teach them
and demand them according to the metrics that really imply in the construction
of good research?
Perhaps for this
reason, so many masters and doctors do not follow up with their own research
after acquiring their respective titles. Perhaps, this is one of the factors
that influence the population's view of science as something complex and
difficult to appropriate. If we think that this process can be facilitated
without harming scientific integrity, then we find the answer to bringing
professionals and academics closer to research production.
When thinking
about the teaching of writing, some rules that should have been buried by time
still exist and oppose the author's freedom of creation. One example is the
need for impartiality and impersonality in writing [6]. In the first case, when
defending a point of view, absolute impartiality will already be compromised
[6]. As for impersonality, from the author's point of view, we believe that the
argument must be transparent, bluntly or strategies to make up one's thoughts
amidst the ocean of knowledge. Thus, the reader will also benefit from
realizing which extrapolations are the author's thoughts, whether they are
supported or not by the research findings.
The
contradiction extends to the aversion to the use of personal pronouns in the
first person singular or plural [6]. Such incongruity amounts to the imposition
of using the 3rd person to report their own findings, but what is the meaning?
These and other ideas are perpetrated in research teaching, and we realize that
although scientific thinking has evolved and we defend skeptical thinking, we
still carry and pass on beliefs. Let's look at the following example:
A research
group, of which I am a part, found higher plasma renin values in women using
combined oral contraceptives. According to the requirements of impersonality in
the scientific text, we must report as follows:
- The study by
Oliveira et al. [17] found elevated plasma renin values in women using
combined oral contraceptives.
The form of
personal writing would be:
- Our research
group found elevated plasma renin values in women using combined oral contraceptives
[17].
The second form
of presentation does not change the meaning of the sentence and even allows
credit to be given directly to the person who writes and to the group that
carried out the research. This trend can be observed in the publications of the
largest journals in the world [18], however, we still find this obstacle in
undergraduate and graduate teaching.
Scientific journals
To understand
the dichotomy between teaching and the dissemination of science, it is
necessary to be aware of the following point: research is still consumed after
its publication. Before that, projects, course conclusion works, dissertations
and theses have almost zero value from a scientific point of view, since they
will be consumed after their publication in the form of articles.
When observing
the publication norms of a scientific journal, we verified aspects such as the
limitation of references, images (with a suggestion of the minimum number),
tables and words. And, in the absence of limitation described in the submission
rules for the number of words, they appear in the form of reviewers' comments
for adequacy of the manuscript, and this is, again, related to the influences
of the dispute process for the reader's attention. These basic points are
recommended for the publication of scientific articles, for which the
researcher's ability to synthesize and deepen the content is increasingly
required.
Is it time to change?
Establishing
quality communication, as well as taking care of the procedures for the
construction and execution of the scientific method, is an obligation of the
researcher. The clarity, objectivity and even the aesthetics of the
presentations have helped in the promotion of scientific articles, therefore,
it is up to researchers to dedicate more time to learning the art of
communication. As for educational institutions, behavior change is crucial for
advances in research and we risk raising the point that not only the number of
annual publications, but also the interest of professionals and academics in
science will grow exponentially when we get rid of the unfounded bureaucracies
in the teaching of contemporary research.
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest
with relevant potential.
Financing source
Own financing sources.
Author’s contribution:
Conception and design
of the study: Sacramento MS; Data collection: Sacramento MS, Vitavar LMG; Analysis and interpretation of data: Sacramento
MS, Souza CE; Writing: Sacramento MS, Vitavar LMG,
Souza CE, Barbosa JS; Critical review of the manuscript for important
intellectual content: Sacramento MS.