Desafios do Quebra-Cabeça Científico Teses por Artigos em Administração
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2025.v26n2.2681Palavras-chave:
Epistemologia, Teorização, Estratégias de Pesquisa, Métodos, Administração PúblicaResumo
Este artigo discute desafios epistemológicos, metodológicos e analíticos das teses por artigos no campo da administração pública. Trata-se de um campo interdisciplinar, no qual decisões epistemológicas moldam o desenho da pesquisa e a escolha de métodos. Analisamos 139 teses brasileiras (2014–2022), das quais 17 foram estruturadas por artigos. O resultado revela dificuldades na articulação entre teoria e método, especialmente ao combinar abordagens qualitativas e quantitativas. Argumentamos que esse modelo exige competências específicas e planejamento rigoroso, o que nem sempre ocorre entre pesquisadores em formação. Concluímos que, embora haja vantagens em termos de produtividade, a adoção do modelo deve considerar o processo formativo do doutorando e os objetivos da pesquisa.
Downloads
Referências
Abbott, A. (2007). Against Narrative: A Preface to Lyrical Sociology. Sociological Theory, 25(1), 67-99.
Alexander, D. E. & Davis, I. R. (2019). The PhD system under pressure: an examiner’s viewpoint. Quality Assurance in Education, 27,1, pp. 2-12.
Allen, K. R. (2023). Feminist theory, method, and praxis: Toward a critical consciousness for family and close relationship scholars. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(3), 899-936.
Allison, L. (2015). Three important lessons for productivity: task management and how to be your own project manager. European Political Science, 14(2), 149-161.
Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor-rated: The PhD by published work. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 331-342.
Becker, Howard S. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Bhambra, G. K. (2007). Sociology and Postcolonialism: Another `Missing’ Revolution? Sociology, 41(5), 871-884.
Bhambra, G. K., & Holmwood, J. (2018). Colonialism, Postcolonialism and the Liberal Welfare State. New Political Economy, 23(5), 574–587.
Breimer, L. H., & Mikhailidis, D. P. (1993). Towards a doctoral thesis through published works. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 47(9), 403-407.
Breuning, M., Fattore, C., Ramos, J., & Scalera, J. (2021). The great equalizer? Gender, parenting, and scholarly productivity during the global pandemic. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 427-432.
Burawoy, M. (2003). For a Sociological Marxism: The Complementary Convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. Politics & Society, 31(2), 193-261.
Burr, V. (2015) Social Constructionism. (3rd edn.) East Sussex: Routledge.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. Being more open about PhD papers. Nature 536, 274 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/536274b
Carey, H. F., & Raciborski, R. (2004). Postcolonialism: A Valid Paradigm for the Former Sovietized States and Yugoslavia? East European Politics and Societies, 18(2), 191-235.
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2094-2101.
Chafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 97–120.
Chun Tie Y., Birks M., & Francis K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7.
Cook, S. D. N., & Wagenaar, H. (2012). Navigating the Eternally Unfolding Present: Toward an Epistemology of Practice. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 3-38
Corry, M., Porter, S., & McKenna, H. (2018). The redundancy of positivism as a paradigm for nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, e12230.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally-responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39: 123-139.
Davies, R. E., & Rolfe, G. (2009). PhD by publication: A prospective as well as retrospective award? Some subversive thoughts. Nurse Education Today, 29(6), 590-594.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Feeney, M. K., Carson, L., & Dickinson, H. (2018). Power in editorial positions: A feminist critique of public administration. Public Administration Review, 79(1), 46-55.
Feldman, M. S., & W. J. Orlikowski. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22: 1240-1253.
Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as practice and the narrative turn. Organization Studies, 32 (9): 1171-1196.
Fitzpatrick, J., Goggin, M., Heikkila, T., Klingner, D., Machado, J., & Martell, C. (2011). A New Look at Comparative Public Administration: Trends in Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 821–830.
Grabbe, L. L. (2003). The trials of being a PhD external examiner. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 128-133.
Gerring, J. (2008). The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 161–179.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
Gill, M. J. (2014). The Possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 17: 118-137.
Gould, J. (2016) What’s the point of the PhD thesis? Nature, 535, 26–28
Hagen, N. T. (2010). Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD? Scientometrics, 85(2), 567–579.
Hendren, K., Luo, Q. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2018). The State of Mixed Methods Research in Public Administration and Public Policy. Public Administration Review.
Hendren, K., Newcomer, K., Pandey, S. K., Smith, M., & Sumner, N. (2023). How qualitative research methods can be leveraged to strengthen mixed methods research in public policy and public administration? Public Administration Review, 83(3): 468-485.
Holstein, J.A. & Gubrium, J. F. (eds.). (2013). Handbook of Constructionist Research. NY: Guilford Press.
Jackson, D. (2013). Completing a PhD by publication: A review of Australian policy and implications for practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), 355-368.
Jacobsen, C. B., & Andersen, L. B. (2014). Performance Management for Academic Researchers: How Publication Command Systems Affect Individual Behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 84-107.
Kwiek, M. (2018). Academic top earners: Research productivity, prestige generation, and salary patterns in European universities. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 1-13.
Latham, S. D. (2014). Leadership Research: An Arts-Informed Perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(2), 123-132.
Larivière, V. (2011). On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics, 90(2), 463–481.
Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 511-523.
Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162-180.
Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Methods, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morton, K., Dennison, L., May, C., Murray, E., Little, P., McManus, R. J., & Yardley, L. (2017). Using digital interventions for self-management of chronic physical health conditions: A meta-ethnography review of published studies. Patient Education and Counseling, 100(4), 616–635.
Morton, S. (2015a). Creating Research Impact: The Roles of Research Users in Interactive Research Mobilisation. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 11/1: 35–55.
Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Research Evaluation, 24, 4: 405–419
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418.
Nitzschner, P. (2022). Beyond ‘contemporary relevance’: Reading critical theory today. Contemporary Political Theory, 21(Suppl 2), 49–54.
Olesen, V. (2011). Feminist qualitative research in the Millennium’s first decade: Developments, challenges, prospects. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 129–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 213–237.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2008). Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration. Public Administration, 86(4), 925–949.
Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2011). The Future of the Study of Public Administration: Embedding Research Object and Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 916–924.
Raimondo, E., & Newcomer, K. E. (2017). Mixed-Methods Inquiry in Public Administration: The Interaction of Theory, Methodology, and Praxis. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 183-201.
Riach, K., & Davies, O. (2018). Sociomateriality and qualitative research: Method, matter and meaning. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods (pp. 133-149). SAGE.
Rummery, K., & Fine, M. (2012). Care: A Critical Review of Theory, Policy and Practice. Social Policy & Administration, 46(3), 321–343.
Shannon, P. J., Soltani, L., & Sugrue, E. (2023). Exploring the use of focused ethnography in social work research: A scoping review. Qualitative Social Work, 0(0).
Simpson, B. (2008). Pragmatism, Mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30(12): 1329–1347.
Simpson, B. (2018). Pragmatism: A philosophy of practice. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods (pp. 54-68). SAGE.
Su, N. (2018). Positivist qualitative methods. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods (pp. 17-32). SAGE.
The past, present and future of the PhD thesis. Nature 535, 7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/535007a
Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). What have the feminists done for us? Feminist theory and organizational resistance. Organization, 12(5), 711-740.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186.
Wessels, JS (2023). Conhecimento significativo sobre administração pública: antecedentes epistemológicos e metodológicos. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 45(1), 25–43.
Whetsell, T. A., & Shields, P. M. (2013). The Dynamics of Positivism in the Study of Public Administration. Administration & Society, 47(4), 416–446.
Williams, K. (2020). Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment. Research Evaluation, 29(2): 191-202.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Rafael Viegas, Fernando Abrucio, Marco Antonio Carvalho Teixeira, Silvia Avelina Arias Mongelos
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Ao aceitar que seu manuscrito seja publicado no periódico Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa (RAEP), os autores declaram que o trabalho é de sua exclusiva autoria e assumem, portanto, total responsabilidade pelo seu conteúdo. Os autores concedem à RAEP uma licença de direitos não exclusivos para utilizar o trabalho das seguintes formas:
(1) vender e/ou distribuir o trabalho em cópias impressas ou em formato eletrônico;
(2) distribuir partes ou o trabalho como um todo com o objetivo de promover a revista por meio da internet e outras mídias digitais e impressas e;
(3) gravar e reproduzir o trabalho em qualquer formato, incluindo mídia digital.
Autores e leitores têm permissão para compartilhar o material, usá-lo em aulas, apresentações e também para outros fins, e criar novos conhecimentos a partir de qualquer publicação da RAEP, desde que seja atribuído o devido crédito ao trabalho original e os seus autores, por meio de citações, referências e outros meios.
O periódico adota medidas preventivas para identificar plágio por meio de software específico destinado para este fim.
A RAEP não cobra dos autores qualquer valor pela submissão ou publicação dos artigos aprovados.
Em consonância com as políticas da revista, a cada artigo publicado será atribuída uma licença Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0.
