CNPq opinion says that pregnancies hindered teacher – 12/27/2023 – Panel

Professor Maria Carlotto, from the international relations course at UFABC (Federal University of ABC), received an opinion from the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) which, in analyzing her academic training, stated that “her pregnancies probably got in the way” carrying out post-doctoral studies outside the country, “which could be compensated in the future”.

She had her application for a productivity grant rejected and intends to appeal.

The professor explains to the Panel that the notice for her area, sociology, contained a mechanism to encourage women who are mothers to submit proposals. When analyzing academic production (articles, books, research guidelines), the notice took into account what was produced in the last five years. In the case of mothers, the period of coverage was longer, with two years added to each maternity leave.

She says that the CNPq should have prepared itself institutionally for the implementation of policies of this type.

“A notice that proposes to be sensitive to the issue of gender and, more specifically, motherhood, had to have done the complete circuit. In practice, they encouraged women mothers to participate and then delivered gender-based violence. They had to have work was done on the literacy of the reviewers”, says the researcher, who emphasizes that she was treated by a male article, as “the proponent”, throughout the opinion, including in the section that talks about her maternity leaves.

In a note, the CNPq states that the judgment was inadequate and incompatible with the principles that govern the agency’s policies, “both because an internship abroad is not a requirement for competition in such a notice and because it expresses a prejudiced judgment regarding the circumstances associated with pregnancy “.

The CNPq also states that the evaluation was formulated by an ad hoc reviewer and did not influence the decision not to grant funding to the professor, as it was not corroborated by the advisory committee responsible for analyzing the research proposals.

Carlotto disagrees and says that the CNPq note outsources the blame. She states that there was, indeed, an error by the ad hoc reviewer, but also by the CNPq, which, in her opinion, should have banned the opinion as a whole. Several passages from the text were cited in the final evaluation of his proposal, he states, even though the prejudiced section was left out.

“They saw that there was gender-based violence. How did they let that opinion pass? They should have asked for another one. Which, in fact, could have been negative too”, he states.

She emphasizes that she is not in a position to judge whether the final evaluation of her request was fair or unfair, given that this could only be done by comparing it with all other proposals, and that her discussion is not related to the rejection of the proposal.

In its position, the CNPq adds that it will instruct the body of reviewers to pay greater attention when issuing opinions and that the CNPq Executive Board will examine the appropriate measures.

“The CNPq’s values ​​are the search for greater inclusion considering gender, ethnic-racial dimensions and regional asymmetries and does not tolerate attitudes that express prejudices of any nature, be they gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or political creed”, it states .

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.