Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journalhttp://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer2

homepage:

One decade of environmental education

research in Brazil: trajectories and
trends in three national scientific
conferences (ANPEd, ANPPAS and EPEA)
Carmen Roselaine de Oliveira Farias, Isabel Cristina de
Moura Carvalho & Marcelo Gules Borges

To cite this article: Carmen Roselaine de Oliveira Farias, Isabel Cristina de Moura
Carvalho & Marcelo Gules Borges (2017): One decade of environmental education research
in Brazil: trajectories and trends in three national scientific conferences (ANPEd, ANPPAS and
EPEA), Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1326018
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1326018

Published online: 07 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this

journal

Article views:
17

View related
articles

View Crossmark dat

Download by: Date: 20 December 2017, At: 05:13

[170.244.76.31]
 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
 EnvironmEntal Education rEsEarch, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1326018

One decade of environmental education research in Brazil:

trajectories and trends in three national scientific conferences
(ANPEd, ANPPAS and EPEA)
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Carmen Roselaine de Oliveira Fariasa, Isabel Cristina de Moura Carvalhob and

Marcelo Gules Borgesc
a
departamento de Biologia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ensino de ciências, universidade Federal rural
de Pernambuco, recife, Brasil; bPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Educação, Pontifícia universidade católica do
rio
Grande do sul, Porto alegre, Brasil; ccentro de Educação, universidade Federal de santa catarina,
Florianópolis, Brasil

ABSTRACT
This article discusses the scientific research work on environmental ARTICLE HISTORY
education presented during the last decade in three Brazilian conferences: received 14 march 2014
accepted 23 april 2016
the meetings of the National Association of Graduate Research on
Education (Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Educação, KEYWORDS
ANPEd), the National Association of Graduate Research on Environment Environmental education
and Society (Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em research; scientific
Ambiente e Sociedade, ANPPAS), and the Environmental Education production on environmental
education; environmental
Research Meetings (Encontros de Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, EPEA).
education and scientific
It analyzes the authors, institutions, and regions whence the studies came conferences
from, as well as their main research subjects. Our findings indicate the
prevalence of women in all academic degree segments; of PhD holders and
candidates; of professors in public higher education institutions located in
the Brazilian Southwest and South regions; and of environmental education
in formal teaching as the main subject in all three conferences. Based on
these results, we discuss how this body of research relates to the
development of Brazilian academic and educational policies, and indicate
some of the challenges involved in building a research tradition in this field,
in close dialogue with the arduous political and pedagogical path of
environmental education in Brazilian schools.

Introduction
The constitution of a field of scientific production on environmental education (EE) is a relatively recent
phenomenon in Brazil. Since the 1980s there has been an increase in the number of dissertations,
theses, scientific articles and books about EE. It was not until the early 2000s that this subfield of
education was recognized as a legitimate field of inquiry by the education of scientific associations and
those working in the interdisciplinary field of environmental studies. It was during this period that EE
established itself as a subject for Working Groups in Brazil’s top organizations in the academic field of
education, the National Association of Graduate Research on Education (Associação Nacional de Pós-
Graduação e Pesquisa em Educação, ANPEd) and in the national research association in the
interdisciplinary field of environmental studies (Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em
Ambiente e Sociedade,
 2 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.
CONTACT carmen roselaine de oliveira Farias carmen.farias@ufrpe.br
© 2017 informa uK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group
ANPPAS), and became a subject in the Environmental Education Research Meetings (Encontros de
Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, EPEA).
The recognition of EE in the scientific field is also linked to the broader social process that has been
referred to as ‘environmentalization’ of social spheres (Leite Lopes 2004, 2006; Acselrad 2010). The
inclusion of environmental concerns in the social agenda of governments and civil society induced a
legitimization of environmental issues as a relevant and valid subject for education and scientific
research. In their attempts to understand this emerging phenomenon, meta-research efforts such as
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

what is reported here, and others, serve to co-produce a particular research universe in Brazil
(Carvalho 2009; Carvalho and Toniol 2010).
In order to understand the formation of a research field focused on environmental education, in
this and other works (Carvalho and Schmidt 2008; Carvalho 2009; Carvalho and Farias 2011) we have
deployed Bourdieu’s notion of scientific field (Bourdieu 1976). Generally, this concept refers to a space
of competitive struggle over scientific authority, defined simultaneously as technical capacity and
social power. In other words, this is a struggle to monopolize scientific competence, understood as the
capacity, socially granted to a certain agent, to speak and act legitimately (i.e. in an authorized and
authoritative manner).
We assume that scientific conferences are a key arena for the type of struggle that Bourdieu
describes as legitimizing EE scholars among their academic peers. Along with other publishing
enterprises, these events help establish the scientific criteria (e.g. relevance of the topic, empirical or
theoretical research, textual quality, unpublished papers, and guidelines by the Brazilian National
Standards Organization) that set the works accepted for publication apart from those that do not fit
the ‘scientific’ frame. Generally, in these events, ‘accounts based on experiences’ or ‘descriptions of EE
practices’ are not recognized as research, even if these works do contribute to the field’s diversity and
scope.1 What is at stake in the scientific field is an effort to reach the level of reflexivity and
theorization which is highly valued as a major characteristic and quality of scientific research.
This article analyzes the trajectory of EE research over the past using three Brazilian scientific
conferences as a primary source of data: the meetings of the National Association of Graduate
Research on Education (ANPEd), of the National Association of Graduate Research on Environment and
Society (ANPPAS), and the EPEA. These regular, nation-wide events are well placed in the national
system of scientific associations, and are acknowledged and influential in the scientific community,
since the results of scientific research are circulated even before their publication in journals. They
gather academic representatives from the major Brazilian higher education institutions, and the
complete works (full papers) are submitted by their authors and selected by the scientific committees
of the events within a system of peer review. (Carvalho and Farias 2011).
It is important to highlight that despite their special academic relevance, these events do not
exhaust environmental education research in Brazil, which has extended further into different fields of
knowledge and institutional spaces (e.g. the National Meeting of Research in Science Education,
Brazilian Association of Research in Science Education). Therefore, we are aware that our choice for
these conferences is just a methodological delimitation, since these events are significant for
understanding part of the trajectory of EE research. This delimitation brings to the front, important
characteristics and trends in EE research without however exhausting all possibilities for understanding
this phenomenon.

The education research field in Brazil and environmental education research

EE research has to be understood within the context of the constitution of the scientific field on
education, and the establishment of Brazil’s National Graduate System (Sistema Nacional de Pós
Graduação, SNPG). Even though research on education was carried out in the late 1930s in non-
university institutions aimed at supporting policy-making, such as the National Pedagogic Studies
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 3
Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estudos Pedagógicos, INEP) and the Ministry of Education and Culture
(André 2006), it was not until the late sixties and early seventies that educational research gained
ground in the country’s universities. This period marked the beginning of graduate studies in Brazil
through the Federal Education Council’s resolution number 977 of 1965 (Macedo and Sousa 2010),
which gave new impulse to educational research in Brazil (Moreira 2009).2
Since then, the consolidation of a National Graduate System (SNPG) has progressed through a series
of National Graduate Plans (Planos Nacionais de Pós-Graduação, PNPGs). 3 Despite quality-based
deficiencies in basic education, Brazil has improved the universalization of access to schools, and, in
the case of higher education, the consolidation of its scientific policy and of a robust research
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

community. The field of education in Brazil today includes 143 programs, thus distributed: 58 in the
Southwest Region; 38 in the South Region; 25 in the Northeast Region; 16 in the Center-West Region; 6
in the North Region (Forpred 2013).
The concentration of research in the Southwest and South regions is not something specific to the
field of education; rather, it reflects a broader trend found in graduate programs on the whole in
Brazil. Historically, the Southwestern and Southern states reflect the concentration of Brazil’s
population, income, formal schooling, and access to education. Consequently, they produce the bulk of
research and assemblages of researchers in all fields of knowledge.
Research on EE therefore became possible with the institutionalization of research on education at
large. As a whole, this field of inquiry has grown steadily in the past three decades (Scott 2009). In
Brazil, M.A. theses pioneering the subject of EE were defended in the 1980s: the first ever was filed in
1989, at the University of São Paulo. 4 It was only from the mid-nineties onward that environmental
education appeared in different graduate programs (Reigota 2007), with dissemination especially
during the 2000s and increased rapidly over the last few years, in terms of the number of theses and
dissertations (Carvalho, Tomazello, and Oliveira 2009; Kawasaki and Carvalho 2009).
Macedo and Sousa (2010) mapped the production in EE based on Brazil’s Graduate Education
Programs, and found only eight areas of investigation dedicated to environmental education – the
least frequent in such programs.5 Considering that areas of investigation are important indicators in
educational research, it is significant that EE ranked last because it reflects the more recent arrival of
EE in Brazilian graduate research programs. Nonetheless, the fact that it is present at all in this national
survey is positive, since many other emerging subjects in education research as such have not been
included.
These facts support the view that EE is a relatively recent scientific research field, whose underlying
conditions follow the same norms that guide science in general. As indicated above in using Bourdieu’s
notion of field, a scientific field is always a system of objective relations, structured according to the
configuration of positions occupied by its agents and institutions, and the distribution of symbolic
capital and power relations. The more autonomous a field is, the clearer are its borders, and the less it
is traversed by other fields and rationalities. Conversely, the more heteronomous a field is the more
open and traversed by other orders (political, other social fields, social demands, etc.) it is (Carvalho
2009).
A detailed study of the EE literature helps us to understand how it was constituted as a
heteronomous, emerging scientific field, shaped by external influences and characterized by low
profile internal definition. This same condition is found in the field of education as a whole, which is
also heteronomous and has often faced difficulties when claiming its status as a scientific discipline
(Charlot 2006; Severino 2007). EE is a ‘minor’ trend within this field, and is therefore more compelled
to seek legitimacy for its contribution to the sciences in general, and to educational research in
particular (Carvalho 2009).
In this sense, the community of EE researchers – in which we are included – has made a significant
effort to map out the profile and define the traits that specify and demonstrate the scientific character
of EE studies (these works include Carvalho and Schmidt 2008; Carvalho and Farias 2011; Carvalho
2009; Rink and Megid Neto 2009; Kawasaki et al. 2009; Pato, Sá, and Catalão 2009; Kawasaki, Matos,
and Motokane 2006; Loureiro 2006; Novicki 2003). These and other studies on scientometrics, meta-
 4 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.
research, state-of-the-art reviews, and others aimed at somewhat tracing the contours of EE research
in Brazil have contributed significantly to our self-understanding as a scientific research field. These
studies are not however without risks, since by proposing analytic categories they also set norms,
suggest hegemonies, and delineate trends regarding a phenomenon that is, in fact, quite unstable
(Carvalho 2009).
Table 1. Event meetings between 2001 and 2012.
Year ANPEd ANPPAS EPEA
2001 1st meeting
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

2002 1st meeting

2003 (EE Gt) – 25th meeting 2nd meeting

2004 (EE Gt) – 27th meeting 2nd meeting

2005 (EE Gt) – 28th meeting 3rd meeting

2006 (EE Gt) – 29th meeting 3rd meeting

2007 (EE Gt) – 30th meeting 4th meeting

2008 (EE Gt) – 31st meeting 4th meeting

2009 (EE Gt) – 32nd meeting 5th meeting

2010 (EE Gt) – 33rd meeting 5th meeting

2011 (EE Gt) – 34th meeting 6th meeting

2012 (EE Gt) – 35th meeting 6th meeting

The scientific conferences studied

The three conferences under our purview comprise one decade of scientific production on EE: ANPEd
(2003–2013), ANPPAS (2002–2012) and EPEA (2001–2011). The ANPEd conference is held every year,
and the ANPPAS meeting and EPEA are biennial. 6 Considering that the EPEA is held every odd year, and
the ANPPAS meetings in even years, since 2003 there has been two EE conferences each year. This
frequency has bolstered the participation of the community of EE researchers in these spaces of
scientific communication. Table 1 presents each version of the events.

The environmental education working group at ANPEd

The National Association of Graduate Research on Education (ANPEd) is the first and most prestigious
scientific association in the field of Education in Brazil. It was founded in 1976, and Since 1979 has
accepted institutional and individual members.
As we have previously remarked Carvalho and Farias (2011), since then the association has
projected itself as an important forum for scientific and policy debates in the field, and as a mirror of
the Brazilian production in the field of education. It has a double structure: the stricto sensu Education
Graduate Programs, which are represented in the Forum of Education Graduate Program Chairs
(Fórum de Coordenadores dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Educação, FORPRED); and the
thematic Working Groups (Grupos de Trabalho, GT). The latter gathers professors, researchers and
graduate students interested in the various specialized sub-fields of educational research. In order to
be recognized, GTs has to have been functioning as Study Groups (Grupos de Estudo, GE) for two years
– a pre-requisite for their approval as a Working Group by the General Assembly. The Forum and
Working Groups are headed by peer-elected coordinators and vice-coordinators.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 5
The main activities of the organization include its Annual Meeting, where the Working Groups
assemble, and other activities are held such as round tables, special sessions, keynote lectures,
debates, workshops, and expositions. In addition, the association publishes the Revista Brasileira de
Educação (Brazilian Educational Journal). Today, ANPEd includes 24 Working Groups: nuclei from
where information on their respective subjects is disseminated, which function throughout the year
beyond their annual gathering at the ANPEd meetings. Environmental Education (EE) is harbored in the
Working Group number 22 (GT 22), which started in 2003.
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

The ANPPAS working group on society, environment and education

The National Association of Graduate Research in Environment and Society (ANPPAS) was created in
2002 by a group of interdisciplinary graduate programs in order to fill a gap in the academic
community, where environmental study programs were not well represented within the existing
discipline-based scientific associations. ANPPAS assembles graduate programs and research
institutions working on the socio-environmental field. Since 1997, it runs a scientific journal, Revista
Ambiente & Sociedade (Environment & Society Journal) (Avanzi, Carvalho, and Ferraro 2009).
From the beginning, the ANPPAS meeting has included works on environmental education. They
were typically presented in specific Working Groups, such as GT8 on Knowledge Society, Education and
the Environment (2002), GT10 on Environment, Society and Education (2004), GT9 on Environment,
Society and Education (2006 and 2008), and GT6 on Society, Environment and Education (2010 and
2012). In this study we will deploy the latter denomination to indicate the ANPPAS Working Group that
has been receiving research papers on environmental education.
According to the description of the GT Society, Environment and Education available on the ANPPAS
website, this working group aims at understanding, discussing, and supporting the constitution of a
political-pedagogic and academic field of environmental education in Brazil. In this sense, the GT
welcomes ‘research papers on environmental education which possess a clear methodology and
critical perspective, highlighting innovative approaches to the contexts being studied, theoretical
outlines, and analytical integration with other fields concerned with socio-environmental issues.’ 7

The environmental education research meetings

The EPEA were conceived in 2001 by public universities from the state of São Paulo: the Federal
University of São Carlos (UFSCar/São Carlos), the Paulista State University (UNESP/Rio Claro), and the
São Paulo State University (USP/Ribeirão Preto). They have involved, within these campuses, the
Science Teaching
Research Group of the Interdisciplinary Laboratory on Professional Training of Teachers (Laboratório
Interdisciplinar de Formação do Educador, LAIFE) of the USP/Ribeirão Preto’s Faculty of Philosophy,
Sciences and Letters; the UNESP/Rio Claro’s Education Graduate Program; and the Graduate Programs
in Education and in Ecology and Natural Resources at UFSCar.
In all of its editions, this event has had as its goals: to identify and analyze the trends and
perspectives of scientific studies on EE; to provide a space for presenting and debating EE research
reports; to continuously map out and update the state-of-the-art of EE research in the country; and to
identify significant theoretical-methodological possibilities for EE-related research, as well as priorities
to orient the efforts and investments in this field.
Due to its pioneering character and impact, the EPEA is undoubtedly a major representative of
Brazilian research on EE. One of the main differences from the other two conferences is that it may
also include the participation of undergraduate students. As it consolidates as a major meeting in the
field, EPEA has been the subject of various studies (Avanzi and Silva 2004; Cavalari, Santana, and
Carvalho 2006; Freitas and Oliveira 2006; Kawasaki, Matos, and Motokane 2006). It can even be said
that its success in the Southwest Region has inspired similar events in the Brazilian South, such as the
 6 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.
Colloquium of EE Researchers from the South Region (Taglieber and Guerra 2004) and the Paraná State
EE Meetings (Encontros Paranaenses de EA, EPEA) (Guerra 2008).

Research methodology
This methodological study was designed as a document analysis of the research papers available from
the various meetings digital database on the web and in CD-ROM format, supplemented by an analysis
of the authors’ CVs, available on the Lattes Platform of Brazil’s National Scientific and Technological
Development Council (CNPq).8
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

The selection of the studies followed our interest in understanding the formation of the
environmental education research field based on the most scientifically significant works at conference
events – which, in this context, has meant full research papers and oral presentations. Thus, abstracts
and posters were not included in the analysis. Each piece of work was accessed individually for textual
analysis, according to four criteria: (1) authors’ profile in terms of academic degree and gender; (2) the
institution in which authors and papers were based; (3) regional location in Brazil or abroad; and (4)
subject category.
Table 2. Papers published in scientific conferences (2001–2013).
Year EPEA ANPPAS ANPEd
2001 78

2002 11

2003 72 12

2004 23 13

2005 73 12

2006 16 13

2007 87 12

2008 20 12

2009 90 5

2010 28 21

2011 88 18

2012 17 17

2013 7

total 488 115 142

Two basic procedures were used: quantitative review of papers and descriptive statistics of the
three conferences; and interpretive analysis (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). This body of data was
systematized by developing a quantitative outline of all full papers published at the events examined.
Therefore, the figures describing each analytical criterion reflect the total amount of papers produced
in one decade.
As for the thematic analysis, the papers were classified inductively, based on our reading of the
abstracts and keywords.9 The original full papers were accessed where interpretive supplementation
became necessary for delimiting the categories. Given the vast diversity of subjects available, we
conceived broad categories that were concerned less with exhausting interpretive possibilities than
with allowing for an encompassing overview of the general subject trends within the field. Sometimes,
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 7
the same paper would fit in more than one category; where this happened we sought to identify its
emphasis by reading and interpreting the full text.
Our subject categories are, therefore, the result of one decade of research, sustained by previous
analytical efforts (Carvalho and Schmidt 2008; Carvalho and Farias 2011). They are not static, but have
been reformulated over the years in order to incorporate new meanings that have emerged in the
field. An example is the emergence of the category EE Public Policies in the most recent analyses
carried out Since 2010.
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Data analysis
Each conference included an average number of published papers that remained rather constant
throughout the decade investigated. Thus, ANPEd’s GT 22 comprised an average of 13 papers per year;
the ANPPAS’s GT included an average of 19 papers per meeting; and EPEA, the largest in our sample,
showed an average of 81 papers per event. Table 2 presents a quantitative overview of our research
universe.

The high prevalence of women in educational research

In our outline of the authors’ profile according to gender and academic degree, the reference was the
main author (first author) and his or her CV as it appears on CNPq’s Lattes Platform. Our data
presentation deploys the same category for complete and incomplete degrees. Thus, PhD holders and
PhD students are included in the same category; the same is valid for the Master’s and undergraduate
levels.
Altogether in our sample of presented papers, PhD holders/students (49%) prevail over M.A.
holders/ students (36%). A high number of female authors was found, accounting for 70% of all papers,
of which 48% were PhD holders/students and 30% were M.A. holders/students (Table 3).
The trend of female dominance among EE researchers presenting in academic meetings has been a
constant development, and was the subject of previous analyses (Carvalho and Farias 2011). On the
Table 3. author profile according to academic degree and gender.
Degree Female Male %

Phd 250 117 367 49

m.a. 199 68 267 36
undergrad 37 19 56 8
special 15 4 19 3
ni 23 13 36 5
total 524 221 745 100
% 70 30 100

one hand, EE has been tightly linked with the field of education at large – which, historically in Brazil,
has been predominantly occupied by women. This finding is not new, and there are studies discussing
the significant presence of women – or yet, the so-called feminization – of careers in education, which
have been traditionally associated with female work, care, and low pay (Werle 2005; Costa 2006; Gatti
and Barreto 2009).
Gatti and Barreto (2009) based on data from the 2006 National Household Survey (Pesquisa
Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, PNAD), remark that women account for 77% of all jobs in
education. This frequency varies according to the level of schooling, and it gradually rises among lower
educational segments: 98% in preschool; 88.3% in elementary school; 67% in high school and 42% in
institutions of higher education (INEP 2011).
Even though gender relations in contemporary society have been generally characterized by a
greater integration of women into various segments of the job market, their prevalence is still salient
in fields that provide low or no remuneration such as basic education and social services. 10 However, in
spite of claims about women’s subaltern position in society, the improvement in women’s schooling
8 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.
indicators is unmistakable, as well as in those indicating their steadily growing participation in the job
market during the past decade.
According to IBGE (2009) data, the average formal education of women is today higher than men’s.
In the subset comprising those with twelve or more years of schooling – that is, those who finished
high school or are in higher education – this asymmetry is even more pronounced. In 2008 in Brazil, for
each 100 individuals with twelve years or more of schooling, 56.7 were women and 43.3 were men.
The data we collected showed a significant prevalence of women holding graduate degrees in the
EE research field, quantitatively higher than men’s. But when PhD female and male authors are
compared, it was found that 48% are women and 53% are men. This subtle decrease at top academic
levels does not seem to be enough to support claims about the reproduction of female subalternity at
higher levels of schooling.
Indeed, the presence of men in the conferences studied, even though a minority is more significant
than in other sub-areas of education, such as childhood and elementary education. Perhaps due to its
interdisciplinary character of EE, the subject of the environment leads to a higher prevalence of men
inasmuch as it draws researchers with different professional trainings and is not restricted to those
fields where women have been traditionally concentrated, such as education in general.

Impact of regional inequalities on the environmental education research field

In our data-set, most papers have come from the Brazilian Southeast (65%) and South (17%) regions.
Taken together, the regions North, Northeast, and Center-West account for only 18% of the all papers
published in the three conferences (Table 4).
The high prevalence of the Southeast and South regions in the set of events (which together
account for 82% of all papers) reflects the difficulties involved in bringing scientific research to the
Brazilian hinterlands, which seems to stem from the historically sharp socio-economic and educational
inequalities between the various Brazilian regions.
Table 4. Papers by region of origin.
Region EPEA ANPPAS ANPEd Total %
southeast 322 62 97 481 65
south 84 19 25 128 17
center-West 44 19 3 66 9
northeast
north 29 6 13 48 6
abroad 9 8 3 20 3
total 0 1 1 2 0
488 115 142 745 100

Table 5. Brazilian cities andwhere

states conferences were held.
Event Year/City/State

anPEd 2003 2004–2010 2011 2012

Poços de caldas/minas caxambu/minas Gerais natal/rio Grande do norte Porto de

Gerais (southeast) (southeast) (northeast) Galinhas/Pernambuco
(northeast)
anPPas 2002 and 2004 2006 e 2008 2010 2012
indaiatuba/são Paulo Brasília/distrito Federal Florianópolis/santa Belém/Pará (north)
(southeast) (center-West) catarina (south)
EPEa 2001 and 2007 2003 and 2009 2005 and 2011

rio claro/são Paulo são carlos/são Paulo ribeirão Preto/são Paulo

(southeast) (southeast) (southeast)
Besides enjoying the highest population and economic development indicators, the Southeast
Region also concentrates the majority of graduate programs in Brazil, as well as of M.A. and PhD
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 9
holders. Similarly, it is in this region that most conferences have been held, except for the latest ANPEd
and ANPPAS meetings, which took place in cities in the North and Northeast, as shown in Table 5.
This same tendency of concentrating the EE research in the Southeast and South regions was
observed by Novicki (2003), Lorenzetti and Delizoicov (2006), Loureiro (2006), Carvalho and Schmidt
(2008), Kawasaki and Carvalho (2009), Carvalho, Tomazello, and Oliveira (2009), and Carvalho and
Farias (2011). These authors also found that the scientific production in this field has shown higher
growth in the South and Southeast. Regional asymmetries in the Brazilian graduate system, in turn,
have been consistently singled out as a concern in several documents issued by the Coordination for
the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Nível Superior, CAPES), as well as, in national policies for its development (Brasil 2010, 2012). Likewise,
these same tendencies can be found in studies on educational research, as Vieira and Sousa (2012)
have recently pointed out. Therefore, the situation of EE research largely follows the research patterns
of education as a whole, as well as broader socio-economic and cultural inequalities prevailing in the
country (Brasil 2010).

Public higher education institutions as the chief site for scientific production on environmental
education
In terms of the institutional origins of the papers’, Higher Education Public Institutions (HEI) prevailed
in all three conferences, accounting for 80% of the totality, compared to 12% from private HEI and 8%
from other kinds of institutions11 (Table 6).
This finding reinforces the well-known leadership of public university in Brazil’s research field,
especially in human sciences. It is likely that this is due mainly to the work regime of exclusive
dedication, the existence of consolidated post-graduate programs and research assignments to the
teacher as a general policy in these institutions (Carvalho and Farias 2011).

Environmental education in formal teaching at the center of the academic debates

Our global analysis of the three conferences during the past decade points to EE in formal education as
the most salient subject addressed by the papers. If this category is added to that of EE in the
professional
Table 6. Papers according to institutional affiliation.
Type of institution EPEA ANPPAS ANPEd Total %
a a
Public hEi 391 Private hEi 55 99 104 594 80
others 42 total 488 9 29 93 12
7 9 58 8
115 38 745 100
a
higher Education institutions (hEi).

Table 7. Papers according to subject categories.

Subject categories EPEA ANPPAS ANPEd Total

EE in formal education 113 14 26 153

EE fundamentals 83 20 39 142

EE in the professional training of teachers 59 15 19 93

the meanings of EE 66 10 15 91

EE in environmental management 55 11 4 70
 10 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.
Public and/or communitarian EE 36 20 10 66

EE in environmental debates 26 11 9 46

EE in the media, arts, and other cultural channels 27 3 10 40

EE and subjectivity 13 3 6 22

Public policies for EE 7 8 4 19

others 3 0 0 3
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

total 488 115 142 745

training of teachers and educators, they account for 33% of our sample. This trend is important when
compared to other subjects (Table 7) and reflects a central characteristic of a certain Brazilian research
tradition that focuses on formal education issues (Nosella 2010).
Generally speaking, the high prevalence of papers addressing these subject categories point to an
effort towards affirming EE as a specific knowledge field within the sciences. Thus, this research trend
focused on formal education is also a political stance or strategy in Bourdieu’s sense (Bourdieu 1976),
which legitimates EE vis-à-vis the universe of education research in general.
It is well-known that a researchers’ capital is his or her prestige, which is obtained through
recognition by scientific peers. 12 A strategy for acquiring such prestige can be precisely a concentration
of efforts towards those problems that are considered to be the most important in the field, since a
contribution or discovery in relation to these problems may yield greater symbolic profit. In this sense,
to work in the field of education requires investment in subjects involving schools, curriculum
frameworks, teacher training, and formal education. These are the most valued subjects in this
research domain. We suggest that these subjects find resonance in EE as part of a strategy to
aggregate value to research in this field (Carvalho 2009).
Another issue relates to the growth of federal public policies for formal education in the last
decade, which has prompted the emergence of a new category of studies approaching public policies
for EE. These federal policies have promoted the environmentalization of schools, by means of
practices reflecting notions of sustainable educational spaces, or sustainable schools (Trajber and Sato
2010; Borges 2011; Payne and Rodrigues 2012).
This category also includes studies assessing the impact of EE public policies in schools, their textual
meanings and political, ethical and epistemological foundations, and the production of new discourses
associated with their constitution by the government. These studies have been typically oriented
towards the agenda of educational reform in Brazil, which has been recently making room for
environmental education in broader educational policies.
This field of research calls for further reflection. Just as educational public policies prompt the need
for evaluation by society, thus contributing to the formation of epistemic communities 13 and to a
dialogue between academic sphere and government, they also induce trends in research and shape
our
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 11

subjects and questions – constituting yet another force traversing this heteronomous field (Carvalho
2009).
Finally, other categories point to different trends. The category EE Fundamentals, which includes
research contributing to the epistemological and methodological foundations of EE, including meta-
research, and accounts for 19% of the academic literature investigated. It is followed by the categories
The Meanings of EE (12%), EE in Environmental Management (9%), and Popular and/or Communitarian
EE (9%). These results follow trends found in previous analyses (Carvalho and Farias 2011).
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Conclusion
Based on the body of data analyzed here, the academic profile of EE research in Brazil can be
synthesized as follows: prevalence of female authors at all levels of academic training; prevalence of
PhD holders or candidates among the authors of published papers; and prevalence of papers from
public higher education institutions located in Brazil’s Southeast and South regions. From the
perspective of the historical formation of this research community and the public policies shaping it,
these findings point to the singular character of this sub-field of educational studies, as discussed in the
previous section. These characteristics are also in line with more general trends observed in
educational research in general (Vieira and Sousa 2012). We can therefore conclude that EE research,
in all of its particularities, is nonetheless an organic part, and brings within itself the imprint of the way
education research and Brazil’s graduate systems have developed historically.
Our findings also indicate that the formation of a of environmental education scientific community
has tended to operate as an epistemic community, that is, those holding the legitimacy to speak about
and of environmental education, as well as to contribute to policy-making in this area. Since this
movement has been based on the traditions of educational and interdisciplinary research, it has been
difficult to assemble an organic and cohesive body of theoretical-methodological foundations. This is
evident not only in our sample of studies presented in scientific conferences, but in the numerous
edited volumes and other works published during the last decade, addressing the multiple versions of
environmental education existing in Brazil (Layrargues 2004; Guimarães 2006; Carvalho, Tomazello,
and Oliveira 2009).
In turn, the effort to construct research ‘foundations’ and ‘identity’ in order to strengthen EE within
the scientific field seems to display an unavoidable characteristic of this field: the fluidity of our
research subjects and the heteronomous character of our educational and interdisciplinary production.
But if this may be considered a problem to be overcome, it can also be regarded as part of the
singularity of the process whereby EE affirms itself within the science game, since to enter the scientific
field implies an adherence to the beliefs and rules that it both produces and presupposes.
Finally, based on this meta-study, we point out that it is important to maintain a database for future
analyses, especially considering the increase of public policy and epistemic communities in EE in the
last decade in Brazil.

Notes
1. For the non-scientific works there are events and journals that seek to mobilize environmental teachers, and
promote the socialization of EE experiences and practices. These include the Iberian-American meetings of
environmental teachers, and meetings and journals linked to EE networks. The legitimacy of EE in these spaces is
manifested in the visibility and demonstration of its social force, capable of providing an entry point to new
environmental teachers and inducing policy-making in the field.
2. The first education graduate program in Brazil started in 1965 at the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC/
RJ). Between 1971 and 1972, ten majors were created, and in 1975 there were already sixteen. It was also in that
moment that many researchers who had left the country to do their graduate studies abroad returned to Brazil to
join the universities’ faculty (Moreira 2009).
3. There have been six PNPGs thus far:1st. PNPG (1975–1979); 2nd. PNPG (1982–1985); 3rd. PNPG (1986–1989);
4th.
 12 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.

PNPG; 5th. PNPG (2005–2010); and the 6th, ongoing PNPG (2011–2020). (Brasil 2010).
4. The first Brazilian PhD dissertation in environmental education, titled A Temática Ambiental e a Escola de 1° Grau,
was defended in 1989 by L.M. Carvalho, supervised by Dr. Myriam Krasilchik at the University of São Paulo.
5. The areas of research identified as the most frequent were: education policy and management (41); teacher
training and skills (39); history of education (27); didactics and teaching processes (22); learning and development
(21) and curriculum (20). A second set includes subjects such as teaching of math and sciences (17), social
movements (13), language (12), special education (12), education and culture (12), education/school and society
(11), education and work (10), philosophy of education (9), education and technology (8), and environmental
education (8) (Macedo and Sousa 2010, 17, 18).
6. ANPED’s 2012 General Assembly decided that it would become a biannual event. In 2013, it held its last annual
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

conference, and the next will be in 2015. This change does not however affect the time span of this study.
7. Available at: http://www.anppas.org.br/encontro6/index.php?p=gruposanais#gt6. Last accessed on 18 October
2013.
8. The Lattes Platform is available at http://lattes.cnpq.br/
9. There are multiple analytical possibilities for delimiting subject categories, as reflected in the broad range of
categories that have been proposed in other studies dedicated to systematizing EE. It can even be said that these
reflexive classificatory efforts make up a short ‘history’ of EE categories (Sorrentino 1998; Mello 2000; Layrargues
2004; Loureiro 2004; Sauvé 2005; Tozoni-Reis 2007). In the context of meta-research or state-of-the-art reviews
about the scientific production on EE, the subject categories constructed during the past decade have been
numerous and diverse (Kawasaki, Matos, and Motokane 2006; Cavalari, Santana, and Carvalho 2006; Loureiro
2006; Saito, Bastos, and Abegg 2006; Ramos, Guerra, and Gazzoni 2005).
10. Participation in the labor market is defined according to the position occupied by the worker. To have an
employment card signed by an employer, for instance, provides access to social rights that are denied to those
who do not have it, therefore engendering unequal conditions. The analysis of data on occupation positions
reveals important elements for addressing the question of gender and women’s unprivileged condition. An
example of this kind of inequality concerns the category of work in production for one’s own consumption, and
construction for one’s own use – that is, activities that transform goods for domestic consumption and improve
the household. The first kind of work is common in rural areas, and is conventionally considered to be ‘typically
female’. In spite of the physical effort and amount of time involved in performing it, these activities are not paid
for, and have little social value. The 2008 data confirms this evidence. The ratio of women in these positions in the
labor market in general is of 6.4%, while that of men is of 3.2% (IBGE 2009).
11. The category ‘other institutions’ includes government agencies, research institutes, non-governmental
organizations, as well as basic education and technical schools.
12. In this sense, financial resources from scholarships to grants are valued according to this economy of prestige,
more than due to its financial worth. An example of this is the distribution of funds within the ANPEd. ANPEd’s
GT22 became eligible to apply for the Association’s funds – which are financially modest, but indicate prestige and
belonging – only after it was approved in the Assembly, thus emerging from its previous status as a Study Group
(GE), when it did not have a right to apply for financial recourses (Carvalho 2009).
13. Epistemic communities are networks of professional experts considered legitimate in a certain domain of
knowledge, and who act as such in the field of public policy, both globally and nationally. According to Lopes
(2006, 41), a student of curriculum framework policies, ‘epistemic communities are made up of groups of experts
who share conceptions, values and truth regimes, and who act in policy according to their stance towards
knowledge, as part of knowledge-power relations’. These communities articulate discourses that circulate and
integrate policies in their various contexts of production.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [grant number AUXPE
PROEX N.0649/2014] and the Coordenação de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior [grant number Bolsa PQ
308393/2013-9].
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 13

Notes on contributors
Carmen Roselaine de Oliveira Farias holds a B.A. in Law from the Rio Grande Federal University Foundation (FURG), an
M.A. in Science Education from the Paulista State University (UNESP), and a Ph.D. in Education from the Federal University
of São Carlos (UFSCar). In 2009–2010 she was a post-doctoral fellow in the Education Graduate Program at the Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS). She is currently a professor in the Biological Sciences Teaching Major and
in the Graduate Program in Science Teaching at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife campus. She
has coordinated multiple research and extension projects in the field of environmental education.
Isabel Cristina de Moura Carvalho holds a B.A. in Psychology from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUCSP),
a specialization degree in Psychoanalysis from the Santa Úrsula University (Rio de Janeiro), an M.A. in Education
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Psychology from the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (Rio de Janeiro), and a Ph.D. in Education from the Federal University of
Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Between January of 2006 and February of 2007, she held a CAPES-sponsored post-doctoral
position in the Ethnic Studies Department and in the Anthropology Department at the University of California in San Diego
(UCSD). In the 1980s, she worked as an environmental educator in Conservation Units in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. In
the 1990s, she was a researcher in the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analysis (Instituto Brasileiro de Análises
Sociais e Econômicas, IBASE). She is currently a tenured professor in the Graduate Program of the Pontifical Catholic
University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), and is sponsored by CNPq’s research productivity grant. She has authored several
books and articles on environment, society and education (Accessed
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Isabel_Carvalho17>).
Marcelo Gules Borges holds a B.A. in Biological Sciences and an M.A. in Ecology (Environmental Sciences) from the Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), and was a visiting scholar in the Education Sciences Graduate Program at the
Porto University in Portugal in 2007. Ph.D. in Education from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
(PUCRS). Between January and August 2012, he was a CAPES-sponsored visiting scholar in the College of Education,
University of Saskatchewan, Canada. In 2014, he was a post-doctoral fellow in the Education Graduate Program at the
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS). He is currently a professor in the Center of Education, Federal
University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). He has been researching on environmental education, science education, and
anthropology of education.

References
Acselrad, H. 2010. “Ambientalização das lutas sociais.” [Environmentalization of Social Struggles.] Revista Estudos
Avançados 24 (68): 103–119.
André, M. E. D. 2006. “Pesquisa em Educação: desafios contemporâneos.” [Research in Education: Contemporary
Challenges.] Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental 1 (1): 1–15.
Avanzi, M. R., and R. L. F. Silva. 2004. “Traçando os caminhos da pesquisa em educação ambiental: uma reflexão sobre o II
EPEA.” [Mapping the Paths of Research in Environmental Education: A Reflection on the EPEA II.] Quaestio (UNISO),
Sorocaba/SP 6 (1): 123–132.
Avanzi, M. R., I. M. C. Carvalho, and L. A. Ferraro. 2009. “Um olhar para a produção de pesquisa em educação ambiental a
partir do GT Ambiente, Sociedade e Educação, da ANPPAS.” [A Look for the Production of Research in Environmental
Education from the GT Environment, Society and Education, ANPPAS.] Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental 4 (2): 79–93.
Borges, C. 2011. “O que são espaços educadores sustentáveis.” [What is Sustainable Educative Spaces.] Espaços
Educadores Sustentáveis.Ano XXI, Boletim 07.
Bourdieu, P. 1976. “Le champ scientifique.” [The Scientific Field.] Actes de Ia Recherche en Sciences Sociales (2-3): 88–104.
Brasil. 2010. Ministério da Educação. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Plano Nacional de
PósGraduação – PNPG 2011-2020 [Ministry of Education. Higher Education Personnel Training Coordination. National
Plan of Graduate - PNPG 2011–2020]. Coordenação de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Brasília, DF: Capes.
Brasil. 2012. Ministério da Educação. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Capes. Contribuição
da pós-graduação brasileira para o desenvolvimento sustentável: Capes na Rio+20 [Ministry of Education. Higher
Education Personnel Training Coordination – Capes. Contribution of the Brazilian Graduate to Sustainable
Development: Capes at Rio + 20]. Brasília: Capes. 194.
Carvalho, I. C. M. 2009. “A Configuração do Campo de Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental: considerações sobre nossos
autorretratos.” [The Configuration of Research in Environmental Education: Considerations about our Self-portraits.]
Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental 4 (2): 127–139.
Carvalho, I. C. M., and C. R. O. Farias. 2011. “Um balanço da produção científica em educação ambiental de 2001 a 2009
(ANPEd, ANPPAS e EPEA).” [A Review of Scientific Literature in Environmental Education from 2001 to 2009 (ANPEd,
ANPPAS and EPEA).] Revista Brasileira de Educação 16 (46): 119–134.
 14 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.

Carvalho, I. C. M., and L. Schmidt. 2008. “A pesquisa em educação ambiental: uma análise dos trabalhos apresentados na
ANPED, ANPPAS e EPEA de 2001 a 2006.” [The Research in Environmental Education: An Analysis of Papers Presented
at ANPED, ANPPAS and EPEA 2001–2006.] Revista Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental 3 (2): 147–174.
Carvalho, I. C. M., and R. F. Toniol. 2010. “Ambientalização, cultura e educação: diálogos, traduções e inteligibilidades
possíveis desde um estudo antropológico da educação ambiental.” [Environmentalization, Culture and Education:
Dialogues, Translations and Possible Intelligibilities from an Anthropological Study of Environmental Education.]
Revista Eletrônica do Mestrado em Educação Ambiental, v. Especial. 1–12.
Carvalho, L. M., M. O. Tomazello, and H. Oliveira. 2009.“Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental: panorama da produção
brasileira e seus dilemas.” [Research in Environmental Education: Panorama of Brazilian Production and its Dilemmas.]
Cadernos Cedes 29 (77): 13–27.
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Cavalari, R. M. F., L. C. Santana, and L. Carvalho. 2006. “Concepções de educação e educação ambiental nos trabalhos do I
EPEA.” [Conceptions of Education and Environmental Education in Papers from the I EPEA.] Pesquisa em Educação
Ambiental, São Carlos 1 (1): 141–173.
Charlot, B. 2006. “A pesquisa educacional entre conhecimentos, políticas e práticas: especificidades e desafios de uma
área do saber.” [Educational Research Amid Knowledge, Policies and Practice: Specificity and Challenges of an Area of
Knowledge.] Revista Brasileira de Educação 11 (31): 7–18.
Costa, M. 2006. “O magistério e a política cultural de representação e identidade.” [The Teaching and the Cultural Politics
of Representation and Identity.] In O magistério na política cultural, edited by M. Costa (Org). Canoas: Editora da
ULBRA. 69–92.
Denzin, K. N., and S. Y. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
Forpred. 2013. Carta de Recife. Educação como prioridade 1 no Brasil [Letter of Recife. Education as First Priority in Brazil].
Recife: Documento enviado ao Ministério da Educação. 08 de agosto de.
Freitas, D., and Haydée T. Oliveira. 2006. “Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental: um panorama de suas tendências
metodológicas.” [Research in Environmental Education: An Overview of Methodological Trends.] Pesquisa em
Educação Ambiental, São Carlos 1 (1): 175–191.
Gatti, B., and E. S. Barreto. 2009. Professores no Brasil: impasses e desafios [Teachers in Brazil: Impasses and Challenges].
Brasília: UNESCO.
Guerra, A. F. S. 2008. Um panorama da inserção da educação ambiental na Região Sul [An Overview of the Integration of
Environmental Education in the South]. Revista Eletrônica do Mestrado em Educação Ambiental, v. especial. 28–45.
Guimarães, M. (org). 2006. Caminhos da Educação Ambiental [Paths of Environmental Education]. Campinas: Papirus.
IBGE. 2009. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios [National Survey of Households]. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/
estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2009/default.shtm
INEP. 2011. Censo da Educação Superior [Census of High Education]. http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/
censo_superior/documentos/2010/divulgacao_censo_2010.pdf
Kawasaki, C. S., L. M. Carvalho. 2009. “Tendências da pesquisa em Educação Ambiental.” [Tendencies of Research in
Environmental Education.] Educar em Revista 25 (3): 143–157.
Kawasaki, C. S., M. S. Matos, and M. T. Motokane. 2006. “O perfil inicial do pesquisador em educação ambiental:
elementos para o estudo sobre a constituição de um campo de pesquisa em EA.” [The Initial Profile of the Researcher
in Environmental Education: Elements for the Study on the Establishment of a Search Field in EE.] Pesquisa em
Educação Ambiental, São Carlos 1 (1): 111–140.
Kawasaki, C. S., L. M. Carvalho, A. V. Rosa, D. M. Bonotto, H. T. Oliveira, H. S. C. Cinquetti, L. C. Santana, R. M. Cavalari.
2009. “A pesquisa em educação ambiental nos EPEAs (2011–2009): natureza dos trabalhos, contextos e focos
temáticos.” [The Research in Environmental Education in EPEAs (2011–2009): Nature of the Work, Contexts and
Thematic Foci.] Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental 4 (2): 147–163.
Layrargues, P. P. (coord.). 2004. Identidades da Educação Ambiental Brasileira [Identities of Brazilian Environmental
Education]. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
Leite Lopes, J. S. 2004. “Participação Pública e controle da poluição: a ambientalização dos conflitos sociais.” [Public
Participation and Control of Pollution: The Greening of Social Conflicts.] Revista de Ciências Sociais, Fortaleza, Ceará 35
(1): 20–30.
Leite Lopes, J. S. 2006. “Sobre processos de ambientalização dos conflitos e sobre dilemas da participação.” [About
Environmentalization Processes to Conflicts and Dilemmas of Participation.] Horizontes Antropológicos 12 (25): 31–64.
Lopes, A. C. 2006. “Discursos nas políticas de currículo.” [Discourses in Curriculum Policy.] Currículo sem Fronteiras 6 (2):
33–52.
Lorenzetti, L., and D. Delizoicov. 2006. “Educação Ambiental: um olhar sobre as dissertações e teses.” [Environmental
Education: A Look at the Dissertations and Theses.] Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências 6 (2): 25–
56.
Loureiro, C. F. B. 2004. Trajetória e fundamentos da Educação Ambiental [Trajectory and Fundamentals of the
Environmental Education]. São Paulo: Cortez.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 15

Loureiro, C. F. B. 2006. “O primeiro ano do GT Educação Ambiental da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa
em Educação (ANPEd): um convite à reflexão.” [The First Year of the Environmental Education Working Group of the
National Association of Post-graduation and research in Education (Anped): An Invitation to Reflection.] Educação e
Cultura Contemporânea, Rio de Janeiro 3 (5): 39–58.
Macedo, E., and C. Sousa. 2010. “A pesquisa em educação no Brasil.” [Educational Research in Brazil.] Revista Brasileira de
Educação 15 (43): 166–176.
Mello, C. M. 2000. Trilhando diferentes caminhos na educação ambiental: as concepções de educação ambiental do
programa do Núcleo Santa Virgínia e agentes sociais envolvidos [Walking Different Paths in Environmental Education:
Environmental Education Conceptions of Santa Virginia Core of the Program and Involved Social Agents]. Dissertação
(Mestrado em Educação): Faculdade de Educação da Universidade de São Paulo.
Downloaded by [170.244.76.31] at 05:13 20 December 2017

Moreira, A. F. 2009. “A cultura da performatividade e a avaliação da pós-graduação em educação no Brasil.” [The Culture
of Performativity and the Evaluation of Post Graduation Studies in Brazil.] Educação em Revista, Belo Horizonte 25 (3):
23–42.
Nosella, P. 2010. “A pesquisa em educação: um balanço da produção dos programas de pós-graduação.” [Research in
Education: A Balance of the Production of Postgraduate Programmes in Education.] Revista Brasileira de Educação 15
(43): 177–183.
Novicki, V. 2003. “Abordagens teórico-metodológicas na pesquisa discente em educação ambiental: programas de
pósgraduação em Educação do Rio de Janeiro (1981-2002).” [Theoretical and Methodological Approaches in Student
Research in Environmental Education: Postgraduate Programs in Education of Rio de Janeiro (1981–2002).] Artigo
apresentado na 26° Reunião Anual da Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação da ANPEd, 5-8 de outubro,
Poços de Caldas, MG, Brasil. http://www.anped.org.br/reunioes/26/inicio.htm
Pato, C., L. M. Sá, and V. L. Catalão. 2009. “Mapeamento de tendências na produção acadêmica sobre Educação
Ambiental.” [Mapping Trends in Academic Production on Environmental Education.] Educação em Revista, Belo
Horizonte 25 (3): 213–233.
Payne, P. G., and C. Rodrigues. 2012. “Environmentalizing The Curriculum: A Critical Dialogue of South-North Framings.”
Perspectiva 30 (2): 411–444.
Ramos, M. V., A. F. S. Guerra, and C. Gazzoni. 2005. Análise de trabalhos de educação ambiental da ANPEd: uma visão
segmentada das categorias de pesquisa em EA [Analysis of Environmental Education Work ANPEd: A Segmented View
of the Search Categories in EE]. Ribeirão Preto, Brazil: Encontro de Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, CD-ROM.
Reigota, M. 2007. “O estado da arte da pesquisa em educação ambiental no Brasil.” [The State of the Art Research in
Environmental Education in Brazil.] Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental 2 (1): 33–66.
Rink, J., and J. Megid Neto. 2009. “Tendências dos artigos apresentados nos Encontros de Pesquisa em Educação
Ambiental (EPEA).” [Trends in Scientific Productions put Forward in Research Meetings About Environmental Education
(EPEA).] Educação em Revista, Belo Horizonte 25 (3): 235–263.
Saito, C. H., F. P. Bastos, and Il Abegg. 2006. “Temáticas ambientais e biomas brasileiros: análise dos trabalhos de pesquisa
em educação em ciências em eventos científicos nacionais nos últimos cinco anos.” [Environmental Issues and Biomes:
A Review of Research Work in Science Education in National Scientific Meetings in the Last Five Years.] Revista
eletrônica Mestrado Educação Ambiental 17: 167–177.
Sauvé, L. 2005. “Uma cartografia das correntes em educação ambiental.” [A Mapping of Currents in Environmental
Education.] In Educação Ambiental: pesquisa e desafios [Environmental Education: Research and challenges], edited by
M. Sato and I. C. M. Carvalho. Porto Alegre: Artmed. 17–44.
Scott, W. 2009. “Environmental Education Research: 30 years on from Tbilisi.” Environmental Education Research 15 (2):
155–164.
Severino, A. J. 2007. “A pesquisa na pós-graduação em educação.” [Post Graduate Research Education.] Revista Eletrônica
de Educação Revista Bilíngüe do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da Universidade Federal de São Carlos 1 (1):
31–49.
Sorrentino, M. 1998. “De Tbilisi a Thessaloniki, a educação ambiental no Brasil.” [From Tbilisi to Thessaloniki,
Environmental Education in Brazil.] In Educação, Meio Ambiente e Cidadania: reflexões e experiências, edited by F.
Cascino, P. Jacobi, and J. F. Oliveira (orgs.). São Paulo: Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente/Coordenadoria de
Educação Ambiental. 27–32.
Taglieber, J. E., and Guerra, A. F. S. (Orgs.). 2004. Pesquisas em educação ambiental: pensamentos e reflexões de
pesquisadores em educação ambiental [Research in Environmental Education: Thoughts and Reflections of Researchers
in Environmental Education]. Pelotas: Ed. Universitária/UFPel.
Tozoni-Reis, M. F. C. 2007. “Contribuições para uma pedagogia crítica da Educação Ambiental: reflexões teóricas.”
[Contributions to a Critical Pedagogy of Environmental Education: Theoretical Reflections.] In Loureiro C. F. (org.) A
questão ambiental no pensamento crítico: natureza, trabalho e educação. Rio de Janeiro: QUARTET. 177–221.
Trajber, R., and Sato, M. 2010. “Escolas sustentáveis: incubadoras de transformações nas comunidades.” [Sustainable
Schools: Changes in Communities Incubators.] Revista Eletrônica do Mestrado em Educação Ambiental. v. especial. 70–
78.
16 C. R. O. FARIAS ET AL.

Vieira, C. E., and S. Z. Sousa. 2012. “A Revista Brasileira de Educação e a difusão da pesquisa educacional (2007-2011).”
[The Brazilian Journal of Education and the dissemination of educational research (2007-2011).] Revista Brasileira de
Educação 17 (50): 463–482.
Werle, F. O. C. 2005. “Práticas de gestão e feminização do magistério.” [Feminization of Teaching.] Cadernos de Pesquisa,
São Paulo 35 (126): 609–634.