Repercussion of the phenomenon of academic productivism on scientific practice and subjective well-being of research productivity fellows

ABSTRACT

Introduction:  Academic productivism is a phenomenon that stems from postgraduate assessment processes and is characterized by an excessive emphasis on the quantity of scientific output. In this sense, this research aims to analyze the phenomenon of academic productivism in the scientific practice of PQ productivity scholarship holders from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development in the field of Information Science.

Objective:  To this end, it examines productivity fellows linked to Postgraduate Programs in Information Science offered in the North, Northeast, and Central-West regions. It describes the fellows' profile and their understanding of academic productivism. Then it identifies, from this group's perspective, the impact of academic productivism on their scientific practices, with an emphasis on subjective well-being. Methodology: From a methodological perspective, the research is bibliographical, documentary, and descriptive, using a qualitative approach with quantitative input. The results were analyzed using content analysis using thematic categories.

Results:  The results show that the productivity scholarship holders understand that they are subject to and strongly affected by academic productivism in their activities, especially when they are assessed quantitatively in terms of publications to be granted research funding. The research indicates that academic productivism undermines their subjective well-being.

Conclusion:  Productivity fellows consider themselves productive but not productivist, committing themselves to contributing to areas of knowledge and citizen science through "healthy" stimuli rather than impositions.

KEYWORDS
Academic productivism; Information Science; Research productivity fellows-the burnout society; Subjective well-being.

RESUMO

Introdução:  O produtivismo acadêmico é considerado um fenômeno proveniente dos processos de avaliação da pós-graduação, sendo caracterizado pela excessiva ênfase na quantidade da produção científica.

Objetivo:  Neste sentido, a presente pesquisa tem como objetivo analisar o fenômeno produtivismo acadêmico na prática científica dos bolsistas de produtividade PQ do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico na área da Ciência da Informação. Para tanto, contempla os bolsistas de produtividade vinculados aos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação com oferta nas regiões Norte, Nordeste e Centro-Oeste. Para tal, descreve o perfil dos bolsistas, o entendimento sobre o produtivismo acadêmico e, em seguida, identifica, na perspectiva deste grupo, o impacto do produtivismo acadêmico em suas práticas científicas, com adensamento ao bem-estar subjetivo. Metodologia: Do ponto de vista metodológico, a pesquisa, sob abordagem qualitativa com aporte quantitativo, é de natureza bibliográfica, documental e descritiva. Os resultados são tratados por meio da análise de conteúdo por categorias temáticas.

Resultados:  Evidencia que os bolsistas de produtividade entendem que estão submetidos e que são fortemente atravessados pelo fenômeno do produtivismo acadêmico em suas atividades, sobretudo quando avaliados, quantitativamente, em termos de publicações, para concessão de recurso para pesquisas. Os bolsistas de produtividade apontam que o produtivismo acadêmico, associado à sociedade do cansaço e/ou desempenho, intervém no bem-estar subjetivo.

Conclusão:  Conclui que os bolsistas de produtividade consideram que devem ser produtivos, mas não produtivistas, comprometendo-se em contribuir com as áreas de conhecimento e com uma ciência cidadã por meio de estímulos “saudáveis” e não imposições.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Produtivismo acadêmico; Ciência da Informação; Bolsistas de produtividade em pesquisa; Sociedade do cansaço; Bem-estar subjetivo.

1 INTRODUCTION

Both Brazilian and international researchers have explored academic productivity, particularly in the fields of business administration, education, physical education, bioethics, applied ethics, and public health. Examples of this research include the work of Machado and Bianchetti (2011), Bianchetti and Valle (2014), and Patrus, Dantas, and Shigaku (2015), as well as Andrade, Cassundé, and Barbosa (2019) in business administration; Bosi (2007) in education; Kunz (2012) in physical education; and Esteves (2017) in bioethics, applied ethics, and public health. The topic is also discussed in the field of information science by Costa (2021) and by Costa and Barbosa Filho (2021, 2022, 2023). These authors incorporated issues such as the pandemic, Byung-Chul Han's "society of fatigue," and subjective well-being into their studies beyond the phenomenon itself.

It is common for the terms "academic productivism" and "scientific production" (referring to productivity) to be perceived as similar. However, they refer to distinct issues. Costa et al. (2023) clearly explain this distinction, acknowledging the fine line between academic productivism and productivity.

According to Estácio et al. (2019, p. 133), "productivism is characterized as pressure and/or a stimulus for production [...]". Academic productivism, also known as academic performativity, denotes an exaggerated emphasis on the quantity of scientific output as an indicator of quality (Alcadipani, 2011).

Scientific output, according to Witter (1989, p. 29), is "related to the performance of graduate programs, in terms of their scientific work and their role in training teachers and researchers." Targino (2010, p. 33) notes that it is "a mirror of science and the scientific community of a country and a discipline, which ultimately means that it is an important element in measuring the developmental process of nations."

Based on the above, the research was guided by the following question: How is academic productivism constituted in the scientific practices of PQ Productivity Fellows affiliated with graduate programs in information science in Brazil, with a focus on programs in the north, northeast, and central-west regions?

To answer this question, the present study analyzed the academic productivity of PQ Productivity Fellows from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq) in the field of information science (IS). The study focused on fellows working in IS graduate programs in Brazil, specifically those in the North, Northeast, and Central-West regions¹, to highlight the productivity of this group, considered representative in the field. The choice of this group is justified by its standing among peers as the elite of scientific production in the field. This group possesses scientific maturity and the capacity for continuous professional development. According to Bufrem and Sobral (2022), these individuals actively participate in the institutionalization of a field of knowledge and influence generations of researchers.

This article consists of an introduction, a theoretical framework on the central theme of academic productivity, a description of the methodological procedures, the results, and concluding remarks.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In his article "Productivism, Research, and Scientific Communication: between the Poison and the Cure”,Rego (2014) discusses productivism and its consequences, examining the topic from two perspectives: the integrated and the apocalyptic. On one side is conformism, whose motto is: "Publish to exist and be cited so as not to die," and on the other is a sense of disillusionment with scientific production and everything related to it. Each perspective offers a different explanation of social reality and knowledge. Because they are structured around divergent interests and worldviews, the different theoretical foundations underpinning scientific knowledge contradict, complement, and overlap one another (Silva, Silva, and Moreira, 2014).

According to Bahia (2020), productivism is pejorative when used to produce content solely for the publisher's visibility rather than for the visibility of original and contributory content. It is also related to "more of the same," meaning it merely complements what has already been produced.

The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes), one of the country's leading research funding agencies, ensures that the large-scale scientific knowledge produced by students and faculty/researchers in stricto sensu graduate programs justifies maintaining well-regarded programs. Furthermore, it fosters a profile of highly productive researchers, regardless of the conditions offered. Capes is an evaluation system that serves as a tool for the university community to pursue academic excellence in master's and doctoral programs. The results of program evaluations inform policies for graduate studies and scaling support initiatives (Brazil, 2017, unnumbered document). This leads to classifying individuals based on the quantity and quality of their scientific communication channels used to disseminate knowledge.

Among scholarship recipients, in addition to the need to publish regularly to maintain their scholarships, there is a focus on producing scientific articles to meet scholarship award criteria. Thus, the production of other types of work takes a back seat because it is not directly related to these criteria (Pinto et al., 2023, p. 16). This practice contributes to the culture of academic productivity, given funding agencies' strategies for awarding productivity grants.

From the perspective that those who do not publish are not seen or recognized by their peers, those within the academic-scientific sphere are compelled to publish for various reasons, such as remaining in graduate programs (GPs). The pressure to publish sometimes leads researchers to resort to unethical practices to produce an ideal amount of work and remain "productive" (Costa and Barbosa Filho, 2021). However, some go against this system by prioritizing the maturation of their reflections to produce quality work. This is sometimes seen as unproductive, which may result in their dismissal or removal from the program (Andrade, Cassundé, and Barbosa, 2019).

The rationale for publication is to make research findings public so they can be understood and accepted. This ensures that public investments in research funding are not wasted and that such research benefits society. There is also an intention to improve the ranking of Brazilian research in international academic excellence standards. The pressure and demands to produce are hallmarks of the quantitative evaluation model used by funding agencies. Programs aiming to meet CAPES's accreditation criteria rely on the student body to maintain their standing. This demands ever-increasing productivity from researchers in training and fuels the vicious cycle of academic productivism.

While scientific production is highly relevant, providing society with access to advances, setbacks, and limitations of knowledge and allowing them to be questioned, reflected upon, reevaluated, and applied in everyday interventions (Silva, Silva, and Moreira, 2014), the pressure to publish can have negative consequences for researchers, including fatigue, physical and mental exhaustion, and stress. These feelings ultimately lead to psychomotor, emotional, and mental illnesses due to the pressure to publish a large number of papers. These illnesses are more widespread than one might imagine. They are often insidious, obscured, denied, and concealed. They are also stigmatized and consequently underreported (Ribeiro, Leda, and Silva, 2015).

This discussion of the consequences of academic productivism reveals that this phenomenon can restrict the productive and creative freedom of university members and their aspirations. It can also intensify activities and precarious working conditions, contributing to negative feelings and experiences of suffering at work. These feelings can evolve into physical and psychosomatic symptoms that affect the health of these professionals (Andrade, Cassundé, and Barbosa, 2019). These symptoms are becoming more prevalent among faculty members, researchers, and graduate students (Costa and Barbosa, 2021; Costa, Barbosa, and Silva, 2022), linking academic productivism to the "society of exhaustion."

Academic productivity dictates the agenda of academic activities. The quest to meet institutional productivity demands in terms of publications results in productivity masked as productivity. This occurs amid the reconfiguration of working hours, which leads to the precariousness and intensification of teaching work (Costa et al., 2023).

Academic productivism emerged in Brazil in the late 1970s and became institutionalized in the 1990s (Godoi and Xavier, 2012). Costa and Barbosa-Filho (2021) attribute this shift to the historic "list of the unproductive," a Folha de São Paulo newspaper article that published the names of USP faculty members who did not publish between 1985 and 1986. According to Sampaio (2016), this list sparked a focus on intellectual output as a topic of discussion. Rego (2014) views academic productivity as the researcher’s obligation to publish exclusively in quality scientific journals for evaluation purposes, since these publications are linked to quality indicators assigned to the journals (such as Qualis Periódicos). This acknowledges the importance of these channels of scientific communication. In light of this, it is necessary to reflect on the consequences of this phenomenon for teaching activities, particularly for faculty members working in graduate programs. As Café, Ribeiro, and Ponczek (2017, p. 75) point out, "trivial productivism has taken hold of minds and bodies in Brazilian graduate programs."

3 METHODOLOGY

Based on the research objective², this study was characterized as bibliographic, documentary, and descriptive in nature, employing a qualitative strategy with quantitative elements (Richardson, 1999).

The research was conducted among 28 graduate programs in computer science in Brazil. However, this study focused on programs offering courses in the North, Northeast, and Central-West regions. Thus, eight programs were included in the study. The Graduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal do Pará (PPGCI/UFPA), the Graduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal da Bahia (PPGCI/UFBA), the Graduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal do Sergipe (PPGCI/UFS), the Postgraduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal da Paraíba (PPGCI/UFPB), the Postgraduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal de Alagoas (PPGCI/UFAL), the Postgraduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (PPGCI/UFPE), the Postgraduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade Federal do Ceará (PPGCI/UFC), and the Postgraduate Program in Information Science at the Universidade de Brasília (PPGCINF/UnB).

The research participants were research productivity fellows in information science affiliated with the aforementioned programs. Data on fellows' identification were collected through the CNPq portal's open-access service for the payment of fellowships to researchers. Next, a search was conducted on the programs’ websites to cross-reference the scholars’ identities with their affiliation to the graduate programs. Thus, the population of scholarship recipients consisted of 14 researchers (100%). However, the research sample comprised the scholars who responded to the research questionnaire.

The questionnaire, created using Google Forms, contained openand closed-ended questions designed to highlight the profiles of the scholarship recipients and their understanding of academic productivity. The questions also sought this study group's perspective on the impact of academic productivity on their scientific practices, with a focus on subjective well-being. The questionnaire was sent on April 11, 2024, and resent on April 23, 2024. Nine responses were received, eight of which were usable for research purposes (57%). One scholarship recipient did not complete the questionnaire and chose not to participate in the study.

The data were organized and systematized using Microsoft Excel. Basic and descriptive statistics were used for data processing and presentation, employing absolute frequencies and percentages.

Once the data were collected, they were analyzed and interpreted. Analysis is defined as "the attempt to highlight the relationships between the phenomenon under study and other factors" (Lakatos and Marconi, 2017, p. 185). Thus, the results were processed through content analysis by thematic categories (Bardin, 1979). Content analysis requires creating categories related to the object of study. Three categories of analysis were established in line with the phenomenon under investigation: a) the profile of scholarship recipients, b) the understanding of academic productivism, and c) the impacts of academic productivism on subjective well-being.

The results and analyses were presented and discussed according to the aforementioned categories, in light of the scientific literature that informed the research.

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSES

This section describes data obtained from analyses of profiles of productivity scholarship recipients and academic productivity (to understand the phenomenon and its impacts).

4.1 Profile of Productivity Scholarship Recipients

Regarding the profile of productivity grant recipients, the analysis covered aspects such as age group and parental status, as well as the length of their affiliation with the higher education institution where they work and with the graduate program.

Regarding age group, 50% of the scholarship recipients (F=4) are between 41 and 50 years old, 37% (F =3) are between 51 and 60 years old, and 13% (F=1) are over 61 years old, as shown in Graph 1.

Graph 1
Age group of recipients of research productivity grants

As shown in graph 1, there are no grant recipients under 40. This finding may reflect the significant experience and maturity required for researchers to qualify for a research productivity grant.

In line with the Parent in Science movement (2023), which is dedicated to broadening the understanding of other variables in scientific research, we monitored and evaluated the distribution of CNPq research productivity fellowships (PQ) from the perspective of diversity in terms of gender, race, disability status, parenthood, and region. This study addressed the issue of motherhood/fatherhood, with 50% of respondents (F=4) reporting having children and the other 50% (F=4) reporting not having children.

Regarding the higher education institution where the scholarship recipients work, we found that UnB had the highest number of research productivity scholarship recipients among the respondents, with three instances (38% of the total responses). UFC had the second-highest number, with two instances (25% of the responses). The remaining institutions had one or no respondents, as shown in Graph 2.

Graph 2
Higher education institution where the scholarship recipients work

Regarding the length of service of scholarship recipients at the higher education institution where they work, it was found that 50% have been employed for between 10 and 15 years, while 25% have been employed for between 16 and 20 years, followed by 12% who have been employed for between 21 and 30 years, and another 12% with more than 31 years of service. This result is shown in Graph 3.

Graph 3
Length of service at the institution of higher education

Finally, the length of affiliation with the graduate program was identified, revealing that 50% of research productivity fellows have been affiliated for between 5 and 10 years, followed by 38% who have been affiliated for between 11 and 15 years, and 12% of fellows who have been affiliated for between 16 and 20 years.

Finally, the last question in this first section aimed to identify the length of time respondents have been affiliated with the graduate program in which they work, where four fellows (50%) stated they had been affiliated for between five and 10 years, while three fellows (38%) stated they had been affiliated for between 11 and 15 years, and only one researcher (12%) has been affiliated for 16 to 20 years. The two available options were 21 to 25 years and more than 26 years; however, there were no responses for these options.

4.2 Scholarship recipients’ understanding of academic productivity

Regarding the understanding of productivity fellows regarding academic productivism-where they could select more than one option-the results led us to conclude that the group under study perceives the phenomenon as: an excessive emphasis on the quantity of scientific output at the expense of quality (87%); a requirement imposed by the graduate program evaluation system centered on intellectual output (87%); a logic that can hinder theoretical development and the maturation of research (75%); pressure to produce and publish a large volume of research (75%), a practice that intensifies competition among peers (50%); and the practice of seeking increased output as an end in itself (50%).

Next, the scholarship recipients explained how they view the impact that the productivist logic has on the quality of their scientific practices, relating it to the demands of funding agencies and graduate programs, as seen in the highlighted responses:

This has led to deep discouragement, which manifests as a growing disinterest in the graduate program itself, compounded by the perception that any activities unrelated to publishing in journals considered “recommended” are not worthy of academic or scientific interest (BP 4).

[...] since funding agencies use indicators closely tied to the quantity of output, this ultimately impacts activities. (BP 6)

Many programs have required publication in journals in the Qualis A tier as a prerequisite for qualification and defense. Similarly, there is discouragement of publishing in journals that have not achieved the highest rating under the Qualis journal criteria. (BP 8)

In addition, one of the scholarship recipients noted that administrative duties at the university reduce the time available for research. Administration is one of the activities in which many faculty members and researchers find themselves involved, either directly or indirectly:

Classes, guidance, and article reviews feed into research, and vice versa, but in management, this does not happen; I do not use anything I do in management to feed into my research. In this context, the productivity-driven mindset is even more grueling, as there is no time to produce. (BP 1)

These findings align with those of previous studies by Costa and Barbosa Filho (2021, 2022) and Costa, Barbosa Filho, and Silva (2022), which examined this phenomenon among tenured faculty and graduate students in information science programs in Brazil. These studies describe the current landscape of research and knowledge production as resembling a factory model and increasingly likening it to a commodity. Their findings are similar to those reported in the present study. Despite the identified issues and the researchers’ perception of the context, this phenomenon is already an established reality. However, based on current studies, it may prompt change. According to Café, Ribeiro, and Ponczek (2017, p. 75), it has already taken hold "of minds and bodies in Brazilian graduate education."

4.3 The Impacts of Academic Productivity and Possible Strategies for Subjective Well-being

In addition to the productivity-driven environment prevalent in graduate programs, another symptom of an academic, productivity-driven culture is the excessive extension of weekly work hours for productivity fellows. Often, it becomes necessary to use time dedicated to leisure and socializing, such as weekends and vacations, to meet deadlines and remain productive. This can trigger physical and mental health issues. The following stand out regarding this reflection on the extension of the workweek and encroachment on leisure time:

I rarely spend a significant portion of my vacation time conducting research, as this is precisely the time to do so at a leisurely pace, free from the daily pressures of other activities. (BP 1).

It is not uncommon to read papers [...], conduct evaluations, and prepare reports outside of regular working hours. (BP 2)

In recent years, there has been a backlog of activities, which has necessitated, as noted, working on weekends, holidays, and at night. This negatively affects the quality of scientific practices and researchers' health. (BP 8)

In light of this, the COVID-19 pandemic that ravaged the global population between 2020 and 2023 forced various scientific activities and practices to be conducted entirely from home, further exacerbating the effects on academic productivity, as there was no longer a clear separation between the two environments. In this regard, the productivity fellows shared with us their feelings regarding the already prevalent overwork during the pandemic period, which include fatigue (87%), stress (87%), worry (75%), anxiety (62%), sadness (50%), burnout (50%), vulnerability (50%), demotivation (37%), loneliness (37%), depression (12%), and hopelessness (12%). Due to these issues, it is common to develop some form of Common Mental Disorder (CMD) resulting from stressful situations, such as the excessive workload associated with the unfolding pandemic.

Considering the above, the productivity scholarship recipients were asked about any work-related CMD, in line with the Performance Society framework. We found that respondents cited irritability (63%), forgetfulness (50%), fatigue (37%), insomnia (25%), nervousness (25%), difficulty concentrating (25%), nonspecific somatic complaints (25%), and not experiencing any type of CMD (25%). The results are shown in Graph 4 below:

Graph 4
Common mental disorders associated with work

These results confirm the findings of Araújo and Andrade (2023), who reported an increased tendency to develop mental health issues during the pandemic. Although the study is limited to undergraduate students, the problem clearly extends to other groups, such as more experienced researchers. University professors, the group investigated in the present study, deal with a heavy workload encompassing teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels, research, extension, and administration, each with its own demands. This workload is a source of stress that contributes to dissatisfaction and illness, and can result in an inability to work and a need for healthcare services. As Carlotto (2010, p. 189) warned, "Professors suffer the consequences of being exposed to increased tension in the performance of their work, the scope of which has fundamentally expanded due to the fragmentation of the professor’s activities."

To mitigate the damage caused by physical and mental health issues often stemming from the performance-oriented society, it is necessary to implement strategies that maintain quality of life within each individual's capabilities. To better understand these strategies, respondents described activities they engage in to promote health and well-being, as evidenced below: Domestic tasks (e.g., housework, cooking, tending to plants) and physical activity were both mentioned by 75% of respondents (F=6). Productivity scholarship recipients also pointed to cultural practices (F=5; 63%) and setting aside time for rest (F=4; 50%), as shown in Graph 5.

Graph 5
Strategies for maintaining quality of life, physical health, and mental health

Although strategies such as those mentioned above can help maintain mental health, they do not replace more assertive psychological or psychiatric methods when necessary. In this regard, we refer to Sena et al. (2023), whose study highlighted the potential of community therapy. This strategy was evaluated among university faculty members and was found to be effective in promoting social interactions within the study group.

Self-assessments by scholarship recipients of their happiness, considering personal, professional, and social factors, yielded the following results: happy (50%), unhappy (25%), very happy (12%), and neither happy nor unhappy (12%).

Regarding subjective well-being, results centered on statements such as "I am always committed and engaged with what is asked of me" (25%), "I rarely feel rested" (25%), "I feel my mind is alert all the time" (12%), "I always feel very tired and exhausted" (12%), and "I feel I have a lot of energy" (12%). These results are significant for reflecting on how academic productivism influences thinking and self-reflection. As Vostal (2015) noted, speed has become a central component of academic life, significantly impacting work quality and well-being due to an accelerated perception of time.

Finally, survey respondents were invited to provide comments, reflections, or critiques regarding academic productivism in the life of a productivity grant recipient. This was done to understand the opinions of the group under investigation in this context. The question was: "Is a slower-paced science possible to minimize the effects of academic productivism?" Their responses revealed a consensus among research funding agencies on the need for new evaluation criteria, with a focus on qualitative criteria. Furthermore, many respondents emphasized the importance of incentives for productive work.

Whether or not we are on a productivity grant, I believe we should be productive rather than productivity-driven in every aspect of our lives. In the context of science, being productive means thinking about contributions to the field of knowledge in which one is engaged, as well as to the development of society. (BP 1).

Human beings, in my view, need incentives to produce. If there are no incentives, production will decline. But the line between “healthy” production and productivism is not easily drawn. (BP 3)

Yes, because academic productivism is, in fact, harmful to both research and our lives. (BP 7)

A citizen science, concerned with social impact and transformation rather than production metrics, should be the ideal to strive for. Advisory committees should review the criteria for awarding productivity grants, prioritizing qualitative criteria and social impact. (BP 8)

The featured reports are consistent with the reflections of Freitas (1998), who highlights the need for new evaluation methods and clearer criteria for awarding research productivity grants, to seek better ways to evaluate scientific output, limit the focus on and the race for publication numbers, thereby reducing the consequences of the productivity-driven logic, not only among research productivity grant recipients but among the entire academic community grappling with this issue.

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study analyzed academic productivity among PQ Productivity Fellows from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq) in the field of information science. The analysis was based on graduate programs in information science in Brazil, focusing on programs offered in the north, northeast, and central-west regions.

The results indicate that the productivity fellows understand academic productivism. Some respondents view it as normal. Because they have been immersed in this context for a long time, they do not consider the phenomenon's existence and persistence unusual. However, they feel its impact on their activities and subjective well-being.

Regarding the impact of academic productivism, it involves exceeding weekly productivity hours, using time that should be dedicated to leisure and social interaction, and meeting all kinds of deadlines (submissions to events, article reviews, case evaluations, and participation in thesis defense committees), which characterizes both tangible and intangible work. It was also evident that productivity fellows in this context may experience TMC, increasingly stemming from stressful situations driven by relentless workloads.

To minimize the effects of productivism on physical and mental health, the group under investigation employs strategies or habits to maintain quality of life. These strategies include domestic, physical, and cultural practices that have been maintained since the onset of the pandemic.

The research participants, the recipients of productivity grants, who are considered the elite in their fields of expertise, believe that they must be productive but not "productivists." They are committed to contributing to their fields of knowledge, citizen science, and society through "healthy" incentives. Furthermore, it was found that research funding agencies incorporate qualitative and social impact criteria when awarding fellowships.

The hope is that these conclusions will spark discussions about academic productivism within the scientific community, particularly in information science, as this remains an unresolved topic given research funding agency regulations governing grant awards. The theoretical and practical framework regarding academic productivism may encourage fields and regulatory agencies to consider the particularities of each area of knowledge. They should also be more sensitive when establishing criteria and setting deadlines to promote better working conditions and scientific development for researchers.

• 1
  The decision to investigate the phenomenon of academic productivity in these regions is consistent with the modus operandi of the author’s previous research, as well as with the decentralization (of the South and Southeast regions) and recognition of the research potential in the North, Northeast, and Midwest by researchers who have been making significant contributions to scientific research, while also taking into account the agencies’ resource investment policies in these regions. It is worth noting that the continuum of this research, which includes research productivity grant recipients from the South and Southeast regions, was conducted from September 2024 to July 2025.
• 2
  Submitted to the Research Ethics Committee via the Plataforma Brasil system and approved under number 78884424.5.00005188.
• Funding:
  This study was funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant number 17728.
• Approval:
  Submitted to the Research Ethics Committee via the Plataforma Brasil platform, approved under number 78884424.5.00005188.
• Statement on the use of AI tools:
  The author declares that she did not use AI tools to write the manuscript.
• Image:
  Retrieved from the Lattes platform.
• JITA:
  GL. Academic productivity
• SDG:
  4. Quality education
• Article submitted to the similarity checker

Acknowledgments:

The author would like to thank the Productivity Scholarship recipients.

Availability of data and materials:

Not applicable.

References

• ALCADIPANI, Rafael. Academia e a fábrica de sardinhas. Organizações & Sociedade, Salvador, v. 18, n. 57, p. 345-348, 2011.
• ALCADIPANI, Rafael. Resistir ao produtivismo: uma ode à perturbação acadêmica. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 9, n. 4, p. 1174-1178, dez. 2011.
• ANDRADE, Jackeline Amantino de; CASSUNDÉ, Fernanda Roda de Souza Araújo; BARBOSA, Milka Alves Correia. Da liberdade à “gaiola de cristal”: sobre o produtivismo acadêmico na pós-graduação. Perspectivas em Gestão & Conhecimento, João Pessoa, v. 9, n. 1, p. 169-197, jan./abr. 2019.
• ARAÚJO, Bianca Ely; ANDRADE, Luma Silva. A saúde mental dos estudantes universitários em tempos de pandemia. Revista NUFEN: Phenomenology and Interdisciplinarity, Belém, v. 15, n. 1, 2023.
• BAHIA, Cynthia de Cássia Martins. A voz e a vez discente: liberdade, produção e difusão de conhecimento científico na pós-graduação stricto sensu da área interdisciplinar no Brasil. 2020. Tese (Doutorado em Difusão do Conhecimento) - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, 2020.
• BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo Lisboa: Edições 70, 1979.
• BOSI, Antônio de Pádua. A precarização do trabalho docente nas instituições de ensino superior do Brasil nesses últimos 25 anos. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, v. 28, n. 101, 2007.
• BRASIL. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. História e missão 2022. Disponível em: https://encurtador.com.br/yMlE7 Acesso em: 7 ago. 2022.
  » https://encurtador.com.br/yMlE7
• CARLOTTO, Mary Sandra. Síndrome de Burnout e satisfação no trabalho: um estudo com professores universitários. In: PEREIRA, Anamaria Teixeira Barbosa. Burnout: quando o trabalho ameaça o bem-estar do trabalhador. São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo, 2010. p. 187-212.
• COSTA, Luciane Figueiredo. O impacto do produtivismo acadêmico nas atividades dos docentes dos programas de pós-graduação em ciência da informação das regiões Norte, Nordeste e centro-oeste do Brasil. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA E PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 21, 2021, Rio de Janeiro. Anais […], 2021. v. 1. p. 1-15.
• COSTA, Luciane Figueiredo; BARBOSA FILHO, Evandro Teixeira. O produtivismo acadêmico na Pós-Graduação stricto sensu em Ciência da Informação no Brasil. Ciência da Informação em Revista, Alagoas, v. 8, n. 1, p. 165-190, abr. 2021.
• COSTA, Luciane; BARBOSA FILHO, Evandro Teixeira. Produtivismo acadêmico: desvelando o conhecimento dos docentes da pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação das regiões Sul e Sudeste do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação, São Paulo, v. 18, p. 1-23, 2022.
• COSTA, Luciane; BARBOSA FILHO, Evandro Teixeira; SILVA, Jonathas Claudino da. A vez dos discentes da pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação no Brasil: repercussões do produtivismo acadêmico. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT VIRTUAL, 19th, 2022. Anais [...] São Paulo: USP, 2022.
• COSTA, Luciane Figueiredo et al Produtividade e produtivismo acadêmico: fronteiras conceituais e condicionantes nas atividades dos membros pesquisadores do GIACO. In: DUARTE, Emeide Nóbrega et al (org.). Grupo de pesquisa informação, aprendizagem e conhecimento: trajetória e contribuições. 1. ed. João Pessoa: Editora UFPB, 2023. v. 1, p. 58-82.
• ESTÁCIO, Letícia Santana de Souza et al. O produtivismo acadêmico na vida dos discentes de pós-graduação. Em Questão, Porto Alegre, v. 25, n. 1, p. 133-158, jan./abr. 2019.
• ESTEVES, Mariza Miranda de Souza Silva. Produtivismo acadêmico no Brasil: uma abordagem introdutória dos parâmetros da avaliação da pós-graduação e dos seus possíveis efeitos. 2017. 143 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Bioética, Ética Aplicada e Saúde Coletiva) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Rio de Janeiro, 2017.
• FREITAS, Maria Helena de Araújo. Avaliação da produção científica: considerações sobre alguns critérios. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, São Paulo, v. 2, n. 3, p. 211-228, 1998.
• GODOI, Christiane Kleinübing; XAVIER, Wescley Silva. O produtivismo e suas anomalias. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 10, n. 2, p. 456-465, 2012.
• HAN, Byung-Chul. Sociedade do cansaço Petrópolis: Editora Vozes Limitada, 2015.
• KUNZ, Elenor. Pós-graduação em Educação Física no Brasil: o fenômeno da hiperprodutividade e formação cultural. Revista Kinesis, Santa Maria, v. 30, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2012.
• LAKATOS, Eva Maria; MARCONI, Marina de Andrade. Metodologia do Trabalho Científico Procedimientos básicos. Pesquisa bibliográfica, Projeto e Relatório. Publicações e Trabalhos Científicos. 8. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2017.
• MACHADO, Anna Maria Neto; BIANCHETTI, Lucídio. (Des)fetichização do produtivismo acadêmico: desafios para o trabalhador-pesquisador. Revista de Administração de Empresas, São Paulo, v. 51, n. 3, p. 244-254, mai. 2011.
• PARENT IN SCIENCE. As bolsas de produtividade em pesquisa: uma análise do movimento parent in science. Porto Alegre: Parent in Science, 2023. Disponível em: www.parentinscience.com/documentos Acesso em: 5 jun. 2024.
  » www.parentinscience.com/documentos
• PATRUS, Roberto; DANTAS, Douglas Cabral; SHIGAKI, Helena Belintani. O produtivismo acadêmico e seus impactos na pós-graduação stricto sensu: uma ameaça à solidariedade entre pares? Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1 a 18, jan. 2015.
• PINTO, G. M. C. et al. Análise da produção científica e fomento dos bolsistas de produtividade do CNPQ em Educação Física no período de 2010-2020. Movimento, Porto Alegre, v. 29, p. 1-23, 2023.
• REGO, Teresa Cristina. Produtivismo, pesquisa e comunicação científica: entre o veneno e o remédio. Educação e Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 40, n. 2, p. 325-346, 2014.
• RIBEIRO, Carlos Victor Sousa; LEDA, Denise Bessa; SILVA, Epaminondas de Oliveira da. A expansão da educação superior pública e suas implicações no trabalho docente. Revista Educação em Questão, Natal, v. 51, p. 147-174, 2015.
• RICHARDSON, Roberto Jarry. Pesquisa social: método e técnicas. 3. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 1999.
• SAMPAIO, Poliana de Pinho. Ser (in)feliz na universidade: sofrimento/prazer e produtivismo no contexto da pós-graduação em Saúde Coletiva/Saúde Pública. 2016. Tese (Doutorado em Saúde Coletiva) - Universidade de Fortaleza, Fortaleza, 2016.
• SENA, Edite Lago da Silva et al. Terapia comunitária como estratégia de promoção da saúde mental de docentes na pandemia de covid-19. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, Porto Alegre, v. 44, 2023.
• SILVA, João Vitor Pinto; SILVA, Layla Lane Gonçalves de Souza; MOREIRA, Wagner Wey. Produtivismo na pós-graduação. Nada é tão ruim, que não possa piorar. É chegada a vez dos orientandos! Movimento, Porto Alegre, v. 20, n. 4, p. 1423-1445, out./dez. 2014.
• TARGINO, Maria das Graças. Produção intelectual, produção científica e produção acadêmica: facetas de uma moeda. In: CURTY, Renata Gonçalves (org.). Produção intelectual no ambiente acadêmico Londrina: UEL/CIN, 2010.
• VOSTAL, Filip. Academic life in the fast lane: The experience of time and speed in British academia. Time & Society, Reino Unido, v. 24, n. 1, p. 71-95, 2015.
• WITTER, Geraldina Porto. Pós-Graduação e produção científica: a questão de autoria. Transinformação, Campinas, v. 1, n. 1, p. 29-37, 1989.

Edited by

• Editor:
  Gildenir Carolino Santos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4375-6815

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Aug 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  17 Nov 2025
• Accepted
  09 Apr 2026
• Published
  25 May 2026