Deslandes Suely, Moraes Claudia Leite de, Maksud Ivia, Marques Emanuele Souza, Bosi Maria Lúcia Magalhães, Ianni Aurea Maria Zöllner
Instituto Nacional de Saúde da Mulher, da Criança e do Adolescente Fernandes Figueira, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Instituto de Medicina Social, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Cad Saude Publica. 2021 Nov 22;37(11):e00278620. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00278620. eCollection 2021.
Scientific capital in the Collective Health field has been organized in three subfields: Epidemiology; Policy, Planning, and Management; and Social and Human Sciences. Based on Bourdieu's field theory as the sociological reference, the study analyzed the distribution of a set of scientific capital between two of these groups of scientific agents. The data were extracted from the Lattes database of resumés for 191 tenured faculty members of Graduate Studies Programs in Collective Health assessed as excellent by the Brazilian Graduate Studies Coordinating Board (CAPES), of which 38 were in the Social and Human Sciences and 153 in Epidemiology, all consolidated in an Excel database. The dimensions analyzed were inherited or acquired capital; academic capital; political or economic power capital; university power capital; scientific prestige capital; and intellectual notoriety capital. The results presented a profile of the study population in relation to the various forms of capital, as well as a stratified analysis of these forms of capital considering the two groups and a multiple correspondence analysis. The two groups present similar distribution in most of the forms of capital, shaping a group with major scientific prestige. The exception is precisely in publication and citation, considered central forms of capital for measuring high prestige and recognition. The numerical predominance of Epidemiology may also allow greater occupation of decision-making spheres for measuring prestige. The conclusion is that the field's balance occurs in the affirmation of otherness, allowing distinct forms of capital to have more outstanding space in the measurement of scientific prestige.
流行病学；政策、规划与管理；社会与人文科学。基于布迪厄的场域理论作为社会学参考，该研究分析了一组科学资本在两组科学主体之间的分布情况。数据取自巴西研究生教育协调委员会（CAPES）评定为优秀的集体健康研究生项目的191名终身教职员工的拉特斯简历数据库，其中38人从事社会与人文科学，153人从事流行病学，所有数据都整合在一个Excel数据库中。分析的维度包括继承或获得的资本；学术资本；政治或经济权力资本；大学权力资本；科学声望资本；以及知识知名度资本。研究结果呈现了研究人群在各种资本形式方面的概况，以及对这两种群体的这些资本形式进行分层分析和多重对应分析。在大多数资本形式中，这两组呈现出相似的分布，形成了一个具有较高科学声望的群体。例外情况恰恰出现在出版和引用方面，这被视为衡量高声望和认可度的核心资本形式。流行病学在数量上的优势也可能使其在衡量声望的决策领域占据更大的份额。结论是，该领域的平衡体现在对差异性的肯定上，使得不同形式的资本在科学声望的衡量中拥有更突出的空间。
