Co-authorship networks in Sociology Education: identifying micronetworks and social agentsAbstract
This article presents an analysis of co-authorship networks among Sociology Teaching researcher, with the purpose of examining the constituent aspects of the research subfield. By using the method of production and analysis of co-authorship networks in academic papers published in the last 10 years, we identified micronetwork formations and their main social agents of connection. The results reveal the presence of interconnected micronetworks that form a broader network of researchers, some of them dynamizers and aggregators of this social sphere. In addition, we note the relevance of universities and other instances of collaboration, especially political spaces of struggle for the maintenance and qualification of the Sociology teaching. This imbrication between the Sociology Teaching research subfield and a larger sphere, called by researchers as the “Sociology Teaching field,” is evidenced and analyzed.
Keywords
Sociology teaching; school sociology; subfield; co-authorship network; research
Resumo
Este artigo apresenta uma análise de redes de colaboração autoral entre pesquisadores do Ensino de Sociologia, com o objetivo de examinar os aspectos constituintes do subcampo de pesquisa. Utilizando o método de produção e análise de redes de coautorias em papers acadêmicos publicados nos últimos 10 anos, identificamos formações de microrredes e seus principais agentes sociais de ligação. Os resultados revelam a presença de microrredes interligadas que formam uma rede mais ampla de pesquisadores, sendo alguns deles dinamizadores e agregadores dessa esfera social. Além disso, constatamos a relevância das universidades e de outras instâncias de colaboração, especialmente espaços políticos de luta pela manutenção e pela qualificação do ensino de Sociologia. Essa imbricação entre o subcampo de pesquisa do Ensino de Sociologia e uma esfera maior, denominada pelos pesquisadores como “campo do Ensino de Sociologia”, é evidenciada e analisada.
Palavras-chave
ensino de sociologia; sociologia escolar; subcampo; rede de coautoria; pesquisa
Introduction
This analysis of co-authorship networks among Sociology Education researchers is justified by contributing to the assessment of the structures and dynamics from the Sociology Teaching1 research subfield, allowing the observation of academic interactions between specialists, the centrality and the place occupied by them, and identifying micro-networks of collaborations. Visualizing connections and identifying researchers with similar interests and research areas allows us to assess whether or not social subfields are forming. Collaborations indicate a cohesive community, which is crucial for the research scope and dissemination across the country.
In the Sociology Teaching case, in recent years, the volume of published research has been significantly growing through articles (Handfas & Carvalho, 2019), dossiers in journals (Brunetta & Cigales, 2018), or theses and dissertations (Antunes, Garcia & Alves, 2018; Bodart & Cigales, 2017), which occurs at the interface between Education and Sociology. Added to these loci for scientific dissemination are the national events promoted by the Research Committee of the Brazilian Sociology Society (SBS) and the Brazilian Association for the Teaching of Social Sciences (Abecs), in addition to state events. The spaces and formats of productions are plural and present different qualification requirements. In general, scientific journals are more rigorous in their selection and publication, undergoing double evaluation, usually blindly. In Brazil, journals are classified into strata by Qualis-Capes from the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation (Capes), with the purpose of evaluating stricto sensu graduate programs. The presence of the Sociology Teaching topic was examined in journals classified in the upper strata of the Education, Teaching, Sociology, Anthropology, and Political Science2 areas, identifying that there had been, from 2007 onwards, a significant expansion.
In this research, we will not limit ourselves to upper-tier journals, since not all researchers in Sociology Education are linked to graduate studies and, therefore, may not be prioritizing publication in these spaces. Also, we do not evaluate the production volume and its temporal dynamics. Our general purpose is to identify the micronetworks of researchers formed from the co-authorship of papers published in scientific journals and the main social agents that act as links between micronetworks. Therefore, this article explores part of the dynamics of the Sociology Teaching subfield, which involves the idea of social capital, specifically the publication, in co-authorship, of papers in academic journals with International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) registration.
The methods adopted were the production and analysis of co-authorship networks, guided by specialized literature on Sociology Teaching, especially in discussions around the “Sociology Teaching subfield,” based on Bourdieu’s Field Theory (2001a, 2001b, 2004, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023), which guided our choices regarding data collection, systematization, and analysis.
This article is organized into three parts, in addition to this introduction and final considerations. In the first part, we present the theoretical-methodological procedures that guided the collection, systematization, and analyses. In the second part, systematized data regarding the compositions of the Sociology Teaching researcher micronetworks is presented and discussed. Finally, in the third and final part, the analysis will focus on researchers who act as links between micronetworks.
1 Theoretical-methodological procedures
Aiming to observe co-authorship among researchers in Sociology Education, we have adopted the relational analysis technique, with a special focus on the main researchers on the topic in question. To this end, we relied on the contributions of Pierre Bourdieu’s Field Theory. Due to space restrictions, we have chosen to concisely present three theoretical “principles” that guide our analyses, providing clarity and objectivity for readers.
The first “principle” consists of looking at a specific part of the academic community as an academic subfield. In this regard, our analysis focuses on the group of researchers engaged in a specific research theme (Teaching Sociology), recognizing them as members of a social sphere with peculiar characteristics. We call this social sphere the “Sociology Teaching subfield,” aligning ourselves with Bourdieu’s concept (2023), which was adopted in previous research seeking to understand this space, as performed by Ferreira and Oliveira (2015) and Handfas (2019).
This subfield is configured as a hierarchical social space, marked by asymmetrical power relations between its members and by the propensity to stimulate the interests of social agents in occupying different positions. It is this dynamic that strengthens it and gives it vitality (Bourdieu, 2001a), making it necessary to think about its different constituent elements within its position in the field (Bourdieu, 2023).
The second “principle” concerns understanding the dynamics of this subfield. We assume that the “[...] field (or subfield) structure represents a state of power relations between the agents or institutions involved in its disputes” (Bourdieu, 2019, p. 110), resulting in differentiated social positions within the field and forming networks that arise from the scientific activities of these specific individuals (Bourdieu, 2011). As this is a research subfield, we analyzed the networks of social agents produced from their papers published in academic journals with ISSN.
Individuals’ actions are guided by the social sphere rules in which they operate, seeking to acquire symbolic capital that generates social distinction. In the academic environment, agents aim to occupy relevant social spaces, converting these achievements into “scientific capital;” a term coined by Bourdieu (2004). This capital can be pure, coming from scientific production (articles, patents, innovations, etc.), or institutional, resulting from political strategies (cooperation networks, laboratories, periodicals, financing, publishers, management positions, etc.). Both require different strategic approaches to achieve them (Bourdieu, 2004).
The third “principle” is related to a strategy adopted by social agents within the scientific field, which aims to create a type of capital that favors them in the search for social distinction: Social capital. In the case of our analyses, we examine, in an interconnected manner, aspects related to pure and institutional scientific capital, originating from social networks of collaborations in the production of papers, which, in turn, involve social capital. This is conceptualized by Bourdieu (2015, p. 57) as being...
[...] a set of current or potential resources that are linked to the possession of a durable network of relationships, more or less institutionalized, of interknowledge and inter-recognition, or, in other terms, to the link to a group, as a set of agents that are not only endowed with common properties (capable of being perceived by the observer, by others or by themselves), but are also united by permanent and useful links.
Social agents’ interest in preserving the social structure of the countryside is linked to the amount of symbolic capital they hold (Bourdieu, 2004). When they possess capital that gives them prestige, they adopt conservation strategies – “those that, in the fields of cultural goods reproduction, tend towards the defense of orthodoxy” (Bourdieu, p. 111). If marginalized, but seeking distinction, they adopt subversion strategies. Social fields, therefore, represent arenas of conflict in which disputes occur to maintain or transform their rules and distinct and socially recognized positions (Bourdieu, 2004). In the academic context, these capitals materialize in the form of research, collaboration networks, coordination of Working Groups (WGs), links with stricto sensu graduate programs, publication of scientific articles, participation in associations with important institutions, as well as the number of citations received by their papers, among others.
Our analysis is centered on what we have conventionally called the “Sociology Teaching field,” which is a community committed to its practice in the production, consumption, and promotion of a Sociology applicable to schools, involving different social agents, but with interests converging with the Teaching of Sociology, such as basic education teachers, undergraduate students, and researchers in Sociology Teaching (Mocelin, 2020a, p. 57), also including spaces and agents involved in the training of Sociology teachers. As for the “Sociology Teaching research subfield,” defined by Mocelin (2020b, p. 397-398),
[...] differs from the ‘Sociology Teaching field’ concept, as it is delimited by a concern around scientific production on the teaching of Social Sciences. This ‘Sociology teaching scientific subfield’ expresses research efforts instituted in the academic environment, in which social scientists study different dimensions of the Sociology trajectory in secondary education.’
It is important to emphasize that the “Sociology Teaching research subfield” constitutes an intrinsic part of the “Sociology Teaching field.” This field is deeply influenced by the structures and practices of the subfield, while also exerting influence on it. This interdependence becomes evident when we observe the data presented by Bodart and Cigales (2016), which demonstrates how the inclusion or exclusion of the Sociology class from the high school curriculum has a significant impact on the quantity and nature of research carried out on the Sociology Teaching in Brazilian graduate courses.
In contrast to Oliveira’s (2023) interpretation, who argues that there is no research subfield within the Sociology Teaching field but agents who occupy dominant positions in this field, we argue that the subfield constitutes a distinct social sphere, characterized by a variety of attributes that do not extend to the entire Sociology Teaching field. Researchers, for example, do not compete for the same kind of social prestige, resources, or capital as professionals in basic education3. Thus, the Sociology Teaching subfield constitutes a social space with its own dynamics, whose forms of symbolic capital are predominantly academic and whose norms and structures differ substantially from those that govern social positions in the basic education sphere.
We have adopted both concepts to designate the social spheres in which the researchers in question are inserted, which we consider to be analytically productive, especially since we deal with networks of collaborations and interests from a part of the academic community, which is organized based on a set of elements directly related to the Sociology Teaching as an object of study. We draw attention to the fact that, although the focus is on the “Sociology Teaching research subfield,” we will seek, whenever necessary, to observe the insertion of researchers in the field of Sociology Teaching, since their collaborations may have origins in other spaces.
Researchers’ engagement in the “Sociology Teaching field” or the “Sociology Teaching research subfield” is motivated by a particular habitus. Bourdieu (2019, p. 115) understands habitus as:
[...] a system of dispositions acquired through implicit or explicit learning, which function as a system of generating schemes and generating strategies, which can be objectively in accordance with the interests and objectives of their authors, without having been expressly conceived for this purpose.
In the case of researchers, we observe the existence of academic habitus, a kind of disposition to “play” the rules of the scientific field, such as publishing papers, participating in scientific events, competition panels, etc. This arrangement system encourages engagement in micronetworks of researchers, which, in turn, depends on the reproduction of social capital for its maintenance.
In procedural terms of collecting and systematizing the research corpus, a survey of papers published between January 1, 2013 and July 31, 2023 in academic journals with ISSN was carried out, considering articles, reports of teaching experience, interviews, and dossier presentations. Regarding interviews, we understand the interviewer and the interviewee as authors, since granting interviews is an indication of social recognition. We also included dossier presentations as they are also indicative of social capital. We considered the reports of teaching experiences, as they are commonly found in the Sociology Teaching subfield. For these works, we will adopt the term “papers.”
The collection of papers took place through the Google Scholar search system. For this purpose, a set of descriptors was used (see Table 1), observed in the work titles. The volume of descriptors aimed to ensure that indexed papers on Teaching Sociology were found and comprised this research corpus. By papers on Sociology Teaching, we refer to works on the teaching of Social Sciences, as well as on the training of Social Sciences/Sociology teachers, curriculum, teaching resources, professional identity, practices and teaching working conditions. Although we focus on “Sociology Teaching,” we also consider other dimensions related to the teaching of Social Sciences in basic and higher education, especially when directly linked to the Sociology class.
Set of descriptors used in the Google Scholar search for papers indexed between Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023*.
To organize the data found, we created an account with two folders on Google Scholar. One was named “collected data,” and the other “deleted data.” Table 1 shows the 5,121 records found. Not all of them were part of our research corpus. Duplicate records, papers not published in journals with ISSN and/or outside the research scope were excluded. In-scope records were saved in “collected data;” out-of-scope results were saved in “excluded data.” When saving items in one of the folders, a mark (bold star) was added to the items/results, allowing efficient verification, which was performed by reading the titles and abstracts. The survey took place between July 30 and 31, 2023. With this procedure, we found 979 papers. We imported the data in a .ris (Information Systems Research) file extension4 and we opened it in the Zotero5 program to standardize the names of authors6 and paper and journal titles to ensure that they were not computed twice. After these filters, the research corpus was consolidated with 818 papers on Sociology Teaching. Data was again exported to the .ris extension and then imported into the VOSviewer program7, in which we produce the co-authorship networks.
In VOSviewer, we produce an initial network with all researchers to show the full composition. However, this visualization makes a more systematic analysis difficult. Therefore, subsequently, we only considered researchers with three or more papers published between January 1, 2013 and July 15, 2023. We performed two procedures, the first with all authors with three or more papers. In the second, we considered only researchers with three or more collaborations, which allowed us to better observe the links, that is, researchers who make connections between micronetworks.
Data was visually presented in graphs, which are mathematical model structures consisting of a set of elements called “vertices” (or “nodes”) and a set of “edges” (or “arcs”). In Table 2 we present the corresponding visual elements to facilitate the reading of the produced graphs.
The formation of clusters (micronetworks) in graphs occurs based on two variables: a) authors who published in co-authorship; and b) compatibility of the themes most present in the papers from the researchers in question, which occurs based on the keywords that were highlighted after the abstract. Thus, if a researcher is in partnership with two different clusters, the VOSviewer program considers the papers’ keywords and groups them into the cluster whose themes of the works are closest, representing them through colors. To visualize the graphs, we use the following configuration parameters in VOSviewer:
To observe co-authorship practices repeated three or more times, we changed the visualization of lines, modifying the sinze variation from 1 to 3, which will help us observe whether the initial partnership has generated enough social capital for co-authorship to occur other times.
For the cases of researchers more central to graphs, we searched in their curricula on the Lattes Platform8 for information to identify elements that would allow us to formulate some explanatory hypotheses of their co-authorship relationships. Specifically, we aimed to understand the structures and place occupied in this subfield, that is, the conditions that favored co-authorship collaborations and the reproduction of social capital. In the following section, we present and discuss the results regarding the identified micronetworks and the researchers with the greatest centrality in relation to the volume of co-authorship, with researchers who also published three or more papers on the theme over the past 10 years.
2 Micronetworks and network of researchers in Sociology Education
In this section, we present the identified micronetworks and the reflection on their constitutions, aiming to explore auxiliary aspects in understanding the Sociology Teaching subfield configurations. It is worth highlighting that we are facing a social structure in recent development, which began after the gradual process of reintroducing Sociology into Brazilian secondary education and, more intensely, after Law No. 11,684/08 (Brazil, 2008), which made it mandatory at this stage of education. The empirical object (Sociology Teaching) existence has engendered a set of dynamics, among them the expansion of research on the theme (Handfas, 2020), the expansion of the Degree in Social Sciences (Bodart & Tavares, 2018, 2019; Oliveira, 2017), the creation of academic events (Oliveira, 2022) and specialized journals, as well as the presence in Graduate programs (Antunes et al., 2018; Bodart & Cigales, 2017) and the creation of the Master’s Degree in Professional Social Sciences for High School (MPCS/Fundaj)9 and the Professional Master’s Degree in Network Sociology (ProfSocio) (Pimenta, 2020). It is in this context of dynamic academic activities that we examine partnerships between researchers and the possible existence of social capital. Graph 1 presents the set of researchers who have published at least one paper about Sociology Teaching in journals with ISSN.
Micronetworks of researchers with one or more articles about Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023**).
Graph 1 allows us to observe the existence of several clusters formed by collaboration among researchers, such as co-authors in papers about Sociology Teaching. These agents are members of what we have called the “Sociology Teaching research subfield,” although in this subfield there are also agents who participate with other types of scientific production, such as dissertations, theses, and articles in event proceedings. This data reiterates Handfas’ (2020) assertion that we are facing a period of expansion for academic research on Sociology Teaching, including efforts to analyze the area configuration itself.
As observed in Graph 1, the intensities of connections among researchers are variable, with many of them not having co-authored papers. As we seek to observe relatively long-lasting (or repeated) relationships and more central researchers, we consider the volume of published articles and co-authorship relationships. Both aspects can allow us to observe the disparities in social capital accumulated by researchers. The vertices scale ranges according to the number of edges, so that they are larger as the number of co-authored collaborations is greater, allowing us to observe which researchers have the greatest centrality in the projected graph.
Micronetworks of researchers with one or more articles about Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023**).
In Graph 2, by excluding researchers who did not publish as co-authors, we have a better visualization. Analyzing micronetworks is important for our purposes because they are the result of social capital, which often provides participants with better conditions to maintain their productivity, making it more likely that they will receive invitations to establish new partnerships, enabling new scientific productions.
The 10 researchers who most interacted with other researchers through co-authorship of papers published in journals with ISSN (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023).
Chart 1 shows the number of researchers with whom the authors were in contact, without considering reiterations of partnership. From this data, we can infer that Cristiano das Neves Bodart, Amurabi Oliveira, and Marcelo Pinheiro Cigales are the most central researchers in a broader network that constitutes the “Sociology Teaching subfield” and that involves researchers from the Northeast (Bodart), South (Oliveira), and Central-West (Cigales) regions of Brazil, an aspect that reinforces the interpretation that this subfield has a national characteristic. Another aspect to be observed is that most of the main researchers are not linked to nationally renowned universities, suggesting that these researchers have managed, to a certain extent, to transcend the logic of power in the Brazilian academic field, which tends to privilege authors with institutional origins in more prestigious institutions, where greater amounts of economic capital circulate, giving the Sociology Teaching research subfield distinct dynamics if they occur, to some extent, outside of these academic centers of greater social prestige. We believe it is necessary to explore, in future research, whether this phenomenon implies a lower conversion rate of symbolic capital from this subfield into other types of capital or in its mobilization in other academic fields.
In theory, researchers with larger networks usually have better production conditions10, especially if they have institutional support, such as professors or students from universities that encourage research. On the other hand, as Bourdieu (2015, p. 77) highlighted, social capital presupposes “a specific competence (knowledge of genealogical relationships and real connections and the art of using them, etc.) and an acquired disposition to obtain and maintain this competence, a constant expenditure of time and effort, and also, very often, of economic capital [...],” such as being considered for research notices, having assistants with scholarships, and having research as a paid activity. We observed that integration into micronetworks is a scarce resource, which may result in prestige advantages among researchers. Some have greater centrality in the networks than others, requiring an analysis of other elements for the subfield under analysis.
Another issue to be considered is the structural conditions present in stricto sensu Graduate programs for the practice of co-authorship, especially regarding professors linked to such programs, who are encouraged to publish in collaboration, especially with their advisees. This also implies the need to consider the asymmetries of existing conditions, since researchers who are not affiliated with stricto sensu Graduate programs, in theory, may face greater obstacles to publishing in co-authorship, given that they are not involved in supervising research at the graduate level. On the other hand, the Sociology field in Brazil has a long tradition of valuing authorial and monographic work. Thus, we could understand that those more aligned with the production logic of the Brazilian Sociology field would tend to opt for individual publications. This dichotomy demands more in-depth future research exploring the different ways in which social agents produce their articles, as well as the motivations underlying their choices.
Using Graph 3, aiming to better visualize the relationships, we only considered researchers who, in the last 10 years, published three or more papers on Sociology Teaching in academic journals with ISSN.
Micronetworks of researchers with three or more articles about Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN and indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023*).
Graph 3 shows 24 clusters with distinct volume of vertices. In total, there are 65 researchers and 60 co-authorship links. There is a considerable number of researchers who have three or more papers on Sociology Teaching, especially if we consider that the research subfield has a recent origin, as highlighted by Ferreira and Oliveira (2015).
There is a set of micronetworks that form a larger network, composed of three clusters (represented in red, green, and blue), and the existence of six other smaller ones, two of which are composed of three vertices and four of just two vertices. We also noted that 14 researchers did not publish as co-authors, so they will not be subject to analysis. For our purposes, it is sufficient to highlight that there is a considerable group of researchers, with three or more published papers, who are not included in the “Sociology Teaching research subfield” network, even though they gravitate around this social sphere. The most emblematic case is Valci Melo, who have published 12 articles, but only one of them was co-authored (with Lavoisier Almeida dos Santos, a researcher who is not part of the adopted framework).
By observing the edges’ thickness, we identify the different intensities of collaboration between researchers. The most intense relationships occur between the following social agents in the subfield under analysis: Bodart and Caio dos Santos Tavares, with 10 collaborations; Bodart and Cigales, with seven collaborations; and Cigales and Oliveira, with five co-authorships.
When producing the graph, we noticed the prominence of some researchers in relation to the publication volume of papers indexed on the Sociology Teaching; they are, respectively: Oliveira, with 58 papers; Bodart, with 47; Cigales, with 40; Pereira, with 17; Joana Elisa Röwer & Melo, with 13; and Tavares, Azevedo and Ileizi L. Fiorelli Silva, with 11 papers. By observing the Lattes Curriculum of these agents, we note that they had institutional support and induction to carry out their research, as teachers or Graduate students, which highlights the importance of the existing subjective (habitus) and objective structures to insert with distinction in the aforementioned research subfield.
As for the two researchers who stand out most when it comes to partnerships (Bodart and Cigales), we will note the existence of practices and structures that, to some extent, explain their centralities. The first of them concerns the volume of works published on the theme. A second explanation, which adds to the first, concerns the presence of these researchers in the coordination of WGs of important scientific events and in entities specialized in Sociology Teaching, as well as institutional support from the universities where they work, making research a paid activity (and the demand for productivity resulting from this). Bodart was previously vice-president of Abecs, and Cigales is the current secretary of this entity. The two were part of the editorial committee of the Café com Sociologia Journal, which, although not specialized in the theme, is one of the most receptive spaces to the “Sociology Teaching ”11 theme in Brazil, where the two organized dossiers, which are privileged spaces for the production and reproduction of social capital, as highlighted by Brunetta and Cigales (2018).
We can therefore infer that the Sociology Teaching research subfield is made up of social agents who interact through co-authorships, made possible by the social spaces they occupy, although few maintain a considerable volume of authorial cooperation. The creation of collaborative networks is essential for scientific production on Sociology Teaching to expand and reach a larger audience, including extrapolating to the “Sociology Teaching field,” benefiting undergraduate and high school students, as well as teachers of the subject.
Graph 3 shows that there is a group of linked clusters, forming a network of researchers that allows us to infer that we have a “Sociology Teaching research subfield” in constitution and strengthening process. The evidence of this subfield existence allows us to broaden our understanding on the academic actions of researchers on the theme, so that we can begin to understand it as a social sphere that is organized based on some relatively autonomous structures and rules, which we have already noted in the existence of other spaces disputed by these agents. For a better analysis, we individually examined the micronetworks found in our analytical section.
Cluster 1: Micronetwork of researchers with three or more papers about Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN and indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023).
In Graph 4, we notice the cluster (in red) with the largest volume of vertices, representing 15 researchers. The focus here is on Bodart, a researcher who has partnered with 12 researchers from the network, having published 47 papers. Cigales also stands out for collaborating with 10 researchers from the same network, having published 40 papers.
Bodart’s most intense partnership was with Tavares (10 co-authorships), Cigales (seven co-authorships), and Pereira (three co-authorships). The collaboration between Bodart and Tavares was facilitated by the mentoring relationship during the master’s degree and co-participation in a research group, both cases with geographical proximity and institutional support from the university. The relationship between Bodart and Cigales, without geographical proximity, may be related to the coordination of events and participation in the editorial committee of online scientific journals. The relationship between Bodart and Pereira, also without geographical proximity, is explained, in part, by the relationship established through Abecs. In the case of these relationships, co-authorships were the result of collaborations with and without geographical proximity, as well as more symmetrical and asymmetrical power relationships, in the latter case involving guidance between a teacher (Bodart) and a student (Tavares). However, it is important to highlight that, in general, many of the researchers in Sociology Education, when producing their papers, are also, directly or indirectly, campaigning for this discipline, since their work highlight this curricular component potential and expose the attacks it has been suffering and the conditions of teaching work, as well as point out didactic-pedagogical possibilities for qualifying the discipline. However, this does not mean that research is not guided by what Weber (2016) called “axiological neutrality.” On the other hand, it seems evident that we need to consider that research on Sociology Teaching must “make the positioning explicit, and the positioning must be for a ‘Sociology as an instrument of criticism and intervention in education policies’” (Moraes, 2023, p. 83), since the description alone does not seem to be insufficiently collaborative for the “Sociology Teaching field” development. Faced with the constant threats of Sociology being removed from secondary education, it is important to think of the field and the subfield as spaces that are articulated, in order to “[...] recognize it as ‘School Sociology’, assuming that it not only deals with the school and its circumstances, but that it articulates it with the academic environment, generating a new area, an intersection, a space with its own characteristics” (Pereira, 2022, p. 172).
In the case of the relationship between Bodart and Pereira, the social capital originated in the overlap between their activities: In the “Sociology Teaching research subfield,” as researchers, and in the “Sociology Teaching field,” as activists in defense of Sociology, more specifically through Abecs.
Cigales’ most intense relationship was with Bodart, with seven co-authored productions, and with Oliveira, with five partnerships. The relationship between Cigales and Oliveira originates from the geographical proximity and is marked by the typical asymmetry of PhD supervision, since Oliveira was his supervisor during the production of these articles, having been the first author in three of them. Although Oliveira stands out for the volume of papers published in the period, 58 in total, his co-authorship relationships on the network are not evident, with many of his partnerships being carried out with researchers who have not published three or more papers. This is largely explained by his practice of working in partnership with Undergraduate and Graduate students.
Cluster 2: Micronetwork of researchers with three or more papers on Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN and indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023).
In Graph 5, we observe a micronetwork in green, with 11 vertices, highlighted by Pereira, author of 17 papers, who co-authored with six researchers, who published three or more papers. Pereira’s most intense relationship occurred with a researcher from another cluster, Bodart, as mentioned when analyzing Graph 4.
By analyzing Pereira’s co-authorship relationships, we can see that he collaborated with Bodart on three occasions, and with Leandro Raizer and Celia Elizabeth Caregnato on two. The two collaborations with Raizer may have been facilitated by their connection as Undergraduate colleagues at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). This relationship may have been a “bridge” for the partnership with Caregnato, since they work at the same teaching and research institution, UFRGS.
We also observed that two researchers from this micronetwork, Ileizi Luciana Fiorelli and Caregnato, were co-authors with four other researchers who also published three or more papers. In this micronetwork, the most intense relationship occurred between Caregnato and Raizer, and between Daniel Gustavo Mocelin and Raizer, in both cases with three partnerships. The relationship between these three researchers can also be explained by their geographical proximity and their work as professors at the same teaching and research institution (UFRGS), highlighting, in this case, the university importance as a collaborative resource for the production of social capital, as Bourdieu (2015) already highlighted.
Cluster 3: Micronetwork of researchers with three or more papers on Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN and indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023).
In Graph 6, we observe the third cluster, in blue, consisting of 10 researchers. Regarding the volume of co-authorships, the highlight is Julia Polessa Maçaira, who has produced seven papers with seven researchers. However, the most recurring partnership in the cluster was between Mosca Junior, Vinícius Mayo, and Camila Lamarão. As co-authors, they published five interviews that they conducted as part of a historical recovery project, which involved students who worked in the Federation of the Social Science Student Movement (FEMECS). The publication took place in issue 27 of the Perspectivas Sociológicas journal, from Colégio Pedro II, in 2021. One of the interviewees was Maçaira. Although this researcher shared co-authorship with seven researchers who published three or more papers, in none of the cases was the partnership repeated. Of the seven co-authorships, three were in a single paper in the interview mentioned. This cluster has two characteristics: Geographic proximity, as everyone works professionally in the state of Rio de Janeiro, and relationships formed predominantly by a single connection between researchers, except for those involved in the FEMECS recovery project.
Graph 7 presents two micronetworks, each made up of just three researchers.
Clusters 4 and 5: Researchers with three or more papers on Sociology Teaching indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023).
Cluster 4, in lilac, demonstrates co-authorship activity between Röwer and Jorge Luiz da Cunha, a relationship that can be explained by Röwer having been his advisee during master’s and PhD. The three papers signed by Cunha were as second author, with Röwer being the first. Röwer has already produced 13 papers. With Brena Kécia Andrade de Oliveira, who was her Undergraduate advisor, she also participated in the co-authorship of three papers. We note, in both cases, a geographical proximity relationship and university institutional support.
Looking at cluster 5, in yellow, we see the relationship between Walace Ferreira and Ana Beatriz Maia Neves, as well as between Ferreira and Rodrigo de Souza Pain, both cases with only one co-authorship. There is a geographical proximity relationship between the three, since they all work professionally in the state of Rio de Janeiro, and this proximity involved the Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, where Ferreira and Pain work as professors and Neves as a preceptor (scholarship holder) from the Pedagogical Residency Program. We note, in this case, the importance of economic capital coming from the public university.
In addition to these micronetworks analyzed, there are partnerships between two researchers with at least three published papers. These relationships are between Joel Haroldo Baade and Alessandra Krauss Wieczorkievicz, who produced three co-authored papers; Alexandre Jeronimo Correia Lima and Fagner Carniel; as well as Silvana Maria Bitencourt and Francisco Xavier Freire Rodrigues, who also share three co-authorships. In these cases, we do not have a micronetwork, but isolated collaborations.
In the co-authorship activity between Baade and Wieczorkievicz, we observe geographic and institutional proximity, since Wieczorkievicz has participated, since 2018, in a research group coordinated by Baade, in addition to the latter having participated in his defense committee in 2019, before the co-authored publications. Although Lima and Carniel, like Bitencourt and Rodrigues, are not integrated into a micronetwork, we noticed a reiteration among them in the creation of partnerships, which indicates that there is a stock of social capital in the relationship. Considering that social capital is stronger the more it is mobilized, we sought to observe which researchers have published in co-authorship three or more times. The data is presented in Graph 8.
Micronetworks of researchers with three or more articles about Sociology Teaching published in academic journals with ISSN and indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023*).
Graph 8 shows that few researchers have repeated the production in co-authorship three or more times. The highlights are Bodart and Tavares (10 co-authorships), Bodart and Cigales (seven co-authorships), Cigales and Oliveira (five co-authorships). In these cases, we find relationships of supervision in Graduate programs; Bodart having supervised Tavares, and Oliveira having supervised Cigales. This importance of Graduate studies for the constitution of Sociology Teaching research subfield was also demonstrated by Antunes, Garcia and Alves (2018) and Souza (2022), when highlighting the growing presence of the theme in dissertations and theses. We note that Graduate studies are also relevant in promoting co-authorship, since advisory relationships tend to produce joint work between advisors and advisees.
Lima and Carniel share three co-authorships. Looking at the Lattes Curriculum from both, we hypothesize that the connection is related to a “bridge” created by Simone Meucci, Lima’s master’s advisor and co-author of some works presented at events with Carniel, an aspect that highlights the importance of other scientific spaces for the reproduction of social capital and for the expansion of micronetworks. Bitencourt and Rodrigues share three co-authorships, indicating a relationship that began in 2016, with co-participations in research groups, when their first paper was published, reinforcing that other spaces have been collaborative for the reproduction of social capital.
In this article, although we focus on the production of authorship collaborations, we believe that developments should continue to aim to observe researchers’ trajectories, as Moraes (2015, 2016) did when analyzing the undertakings and disputes for social distinction of a group of researchers in Sociology Education.
We cannot ignore that the subfield structure involves a state of power relations, as Bourdieu (2019) states, even though we are emphasizing cooperative relations. By analyzing these cooperations, it becomes clear that objective and subjective structures play an important role in making these relationships viable, whether through the centrality of universities, as we have shown, or the willingness of those involved in co-authorship micronetworks to engage in academic activity. In this case, we highlight the importance of the academic habitus of researchers, especially the most productive ones, for the development of the research subfield in question.
3 The links between the micronetworks of Sociology teaching researchers
In this section we observe which researchers have been enabling the construction of a broader network, aggregating micro-networks in a configuration that we can call the “Brazilian network of Sociology Teaching researchers”. For better visualization, we produced Graph 9, with highlights from these researchers.
Clusters with links: Sociology Teaching researchers with three or more works* indexed in Google Scholar (Jan. 2013 - Jul. 2023**).
The network presented in Graph 10 consists of 36 vertices, three clusters, and 51 edges. Among the researchers, seven are links between clusters, although only Bodart is linked to the three existing ones, which means that five researchers are located in other clusters. The remaining six researchers are linked to two clusters.
Bodart, in the red cluster, is the link between the green and blue clusters. In the case of the connection to the green cluster, it is done through co-authorship with Pereira, Fiorelli Silva and Fernanda Feijó. Regarding the blue cluster, this occurs through co-authorship with Anita Handfas and Azevedo. He, in turn, being co-authored with Tavares, is also linked to the micronetwork represented in red. Thus, the connections between the red and blue micronetworks occur through four agents, namely Bodart, Azevedo, Handfas, and Tavares. It is important to highlight that Handfas recently retired, which raises expectations as to whether the relationship will be weakened or whether the role of liaison will be replaced by another researcher.
Cigales, being in the red cluster, is responsible for the connection with the green cluster through the co-authorship with Pereira and Silva. Pereira also connects to the red cluster from Bodart. Silva, being in the green cluster, links to the red one through co-authorship with Bodart and Cigales. The connections of the seven researchers are not limited to the geographical proximity situation, as they are researchers who work in the Northeast (Bodart, Tavares and Feijó), South (Pereira and Silva), and Southeast of Brazil (Azevedo and Handfas).
These agents, in addition to connecting with social agents in their micronetwork, are enabling the existence of a Brazilian network of Sociology Teaching researchers, which goes beyond geographic proximity and institutional links. Of these seven researchers, we will observe that all have been involved in other forms of scientific production, especially participating in events specialized in the Sociology Teaching. Bodart, Cigales, Pereira, and Handfas have acted as WG coordinators at important events in the area. Bodart’s greatest achievement can be explained by his participation in several editorial projects, such as acting as managing editor of periodicals12 with broad openness to the theme in question, as well as its work on projects by Editora Café com Sociologia, the publisher with the largest volume of books published on Sociology Teaching in Brazil. The analyses regarding the papers and CVs of researchers demonstrate that the most prominent agents are holders of pure and institutional scientific capital.
We note that micronetworks are interconnected by social agents engaged in the “Sociology Teaching field,” whose actions go beyond co-authorship relationships in papers. Scientific entities, such as Abecs and the SBS Research Committee, as well as the events they promote, have been important structures that allow relationships between researchers from various parts of Brazil. The technical and scientific context also needs to be considered, given that many of these relationships are facilitated by the internet.
The data found in this research allow us to infer that the university institutional support, the academic habitus from researchers, and their actions as activists are important explanatory elements of the social capital obtained, which is related to their productivity and has allowed the existence of a Brazilian network of researchers in Sociology Education. It is important to highlight that this structure is changeable, since the relationships between social agents are marked by interests in occupying better positions within the research subfield, whether by adopting conservation strategies, aiming to maintain their positions, or by seeking to implement subversion strategies, as highlighted by Bourdieu (2019).
Final considerations
If on the one hand we observe the existence of a relatively connected Brazilian network of Sociology Teaching researchers, on the other hand, we observe that there are researchers who work without connection to this network, at least regarding co-authorship in papers. Some of them join this network in other ways, especially through Abecs and events specialized in Sociology Teaching, where they present papers and coordinate WGs. It was evident that integration into micronetworks is a scarce resource, which can result in prestige advantages among researchers, reproducing the established structure; although in continuous disputes over rearrangements of rules, capital, and social positions. On the other hand, individual production is still valued in the Sociology field. Given this dichotomy, it is crucial that future research explores the motivations behind the choice between co-authored or individual production, as well as the benefits perceived by the social agents involved.
Since the centrality in the network of Brazilian Sociology Education researchers is marked by relationships of interests and, therefore, disputes, it is important that its analysis is continued, in order to observe changes in the network structure and even in the game rules of the subfield in question. Therefore, this article is limited to being a partial portrait – like any other – of this network. Portrait meaning being able to outline the figuration of a specific moment. Partial because it recognizes that the dynamics of this network are not limited to co-authorship relationships in papers published in journals with ISSN and indexed in Google Scholar. It is important that future research considers other dimensions and strategies of the Sociology Teaching research subfield, and those adopted in the broader sphere – in the field of Sociology Teaching –, which generate symbolic capital valued in the educational field outside the university and which convert into valued capital in the academic field.
Roughly speaking, the data allowed us to visualize three micronetworks that connect, predominantly made up of researchers from the South, Southeast, Central-West, and Northeast regions. The relationships come from other spaces linked to the “Sociology Teaching research subfield,” as well as the “Sociology Teaching field.” In other words, these are not strictly academic relationships, as they also occur within political and academic spaces.
The important role of universities was highlighted, providing economic capital (through salaries and research grants) to social agents, in order to allow their lasting engagement in scientific production, a fundamental aspect for the production of social capital. It is true that such engagements depend, in addition to objective conditions, on the interest in participating in the Sociology Teaching research subfield. Although, in many cases, geographical proximity helps to explain the relationships between social agents, the network of researchers is not limited to this factor, especially if we consider that there are repeated relationships between researchers who work in different Brazilian regions. The recent expansion of online events, including course completion panels, is a phenomenon that we will need to observe in future research, as they can help micronetworks become increasingly interconnected. National events, especially the National Meeting for the Teaching of Sociology in Basic Education (Eneseb) and the Abecs Congress, are also relevant in the process of establishing partnerships that result in co-authorships.
Several partnerships have occurred between advisors and advisees, highlighting the importance of Graduate studies and how this generates an asymmetry between researchers linked and not linked to programs. Time series analyses would allow us to examine whether these relationships convert into social capital and allow for repeated partnerships after the end of the guidance; this is an agenda demand if we wish to understand how the dynamics of these networks will occur in the coming years.
Other qualitative dimensions of the researchers’ productions were not explored, which highlights the need for new research efforts. We recognize that the social position of agents is not fully explained by examining social capital or networks alone, and that it is essential to consider other forms of capital. In the context of a research subfield, articles represent academic capital with different values, depending on the social prestige of the journal in which they are published. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of future research highlighting other dimensions of the Sociology Teaching subfield dynamics, such as the social prestige of productions and their impacts on the academic community. This study not only offers meaningful insights but also opens up new questions to be explored.
Certainly, the analyses carried out here do not account for all the relationships that (re)produce social capital, nor do they allow us to identify their origins, but they do allow us to observe the constitution of micro-networks of interactions and the tendency to expand a Brazilian network of researchers in Sociology Education, as well as to identify which agents have been presenting themselves as dynamizers and links between the micronetworks. Due to the dynamic nature of micronetworks, it is necessary to consider the results presented here as temporally situated (in addition to being a sample of other possibilities); a kind of portrait that no longer represents the present, as it certainly no longer is. This dynamism does not invalidate the undertaken efforts, but rather confirms that we currently have a research subfield in formation and expansion, which is interconnected with other non-academic dynamics, such as professional and political ones.
-
1
We chose to use the initials in capital letters to use the term as a noun with a broad meaning, encompassing not only the Sociology “teaching” issues, but also research related to several other aspects linked to the theme, such as teacher training, curriculum, didactic works, teacher identity, the state of the art, among others.
-
2
In the latest Qualis-Capes classification (2020), journals began to be evaluated by a parent area, and the evaluation assigned is replicated for all other areas.
-
3
However, we cannot ignore that researchers also seek social recognition from basic education professionals, considering that they are often not only the object of research, but also interlocutors and potential consumers of researchers’ academic productions.
-
4
It is a file extension used for implementing citation and bibliography features.
-
5
Zotero is a bibliographic reference management program that allows you to easily collect, organize, and cite bibliographic sources.
-
6
Many authors – over the 10 years of analysis – ended up using different ways to refer to themselves. We also found journals that abbreviate the authors’ names differently.
-
7
VOSviewer is a bibliometric map and network visualization program used to analyze large bibliographic data.
-
8
Available at: https://lattes.cnpq.br/
-
9
Stricto sensu course that was offered by the Joaquim Nabuco Foundation between 2012 and 2016, the starting point for the creation of the Professional Master’s Degree in Sociology in Network (ProfSocio), in 2017.
-
10
Here we hypothesize, as it is not a relationship that we tested in this paper, although it is an offshoot and part of the broader ongoing research on the figurations and dynamics of the Sociology Teaching research subfield in Brazil.
-
11
The Café com Sociologia journal has published, until July 2023, 70 works on Sociology Teaching.
-
12
Notebooks of the Brazilian Association for the Teaching of Social Sciences (ISBN: 2594-3707), Café com Sociologia (ISSN: 2317-0352) and Latitude (ISSN: 2179-5428) journals.
-
Support and Funding:
Universidade Federal de Alagoas (Ufal)
References
-
Antunes, K. C. V., Garcia, E. A. S., & Alves, A. F. (2018). O ensino de Sociologia retratado nas teses e dissertações entre 1996 e 2015: um estado da arte. CSOnline, 28 287-298. https://doi.org/10.34019/1981-2140.2018.17481
» https://doi.org/10.34019/1981-2140.2018.17481 -
Bodart, C. das N., & Cigales, M. P. (2017). Ensino de Sociologia no Brasil (1993-2015): um estado da arte na pós-graduação. Revista de Ciências Sociais, 48(2), 256-281. http://www.periodicos.ufc.br/revcienso/article/view/19500
» http://www.periodicos.ufc.br/revcienso/article/view/19500 -
Bodart, C. das N., & Tavares, C. dos S. (2018). Programas de fomento a expansão do ensino superior e oferta de cursos de Ciências Sociais no Brasil (1999-2017). Cadernos da Associação Brasileira de Ensino de Ciências Sociais, 2(1), 7-29. https://cabecs.com.br/index.php/cabecs/article/view/135
» https://cabecs.com.br/index.php/cabecs/article/view/135 -
Bodart, C. das N., & Tavares, C. dos S. (2019). Configurações territoriais dos cursos de formação de professores de Sociologia no Brasil (1934-2017): disputas e implicações. Ciências Sociais Unisinos, 55(2), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.4013/csu.2019.55.2.10
» https://doi.org/10.4013/csu.2019.55.2.10 - Bourdieu, P. (2001a). Meditações pascalinas (S. Miceli, Trad.). Bertrand Brasil.
- Bourdieu, P. (2001b). Para uma Sociologia da ciência (P. E. Duarte, Trad.). Edições 70.
- Bourdieu, P. (2004). Os usos sociais da Ciência: por uma Sociologia clínica do campo científico. (P. Champagne & E. Landais, Colab.). UNESP.
- Bourdieu, P. (2011). Homo academicus (I. R. Valle & N. Valle, Trads.). Editora da UFSC.
- Bourdieu, P. (2015). Escritos da educação (M. A. Nogueira & A. Catani, Orgs., 16ª ed.). Vozes.
- Bourdieu, P. (2019). Questões de Sociologia. Editora Vozes.
- Bourdieu, P. (2023). Sociologia geral: As formas do capital, curso no Collège de France (1983-1984) (Vol. 3). Vozes.
- Brasil. Lei nº 11.684, de 2 de junho de 2008. estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional, para incluir a Filosofia e a Sociologia como disciplinas obrigatórias nos currículos do ensino médio. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 3 jun. 2008.
-
Brunetta, A. A., & Cigales, M. P. (2018). Dossiês sobre ensino de Sociologia no Brasil (2007-2015): Temáticas e autores(as). Latitude, 12(1), 148-171. https://doi.org/10.28998/lte.2018.n.1.7416
» https://doi.org/10.28998/lte.2018.n.1.7416 -
Ferreira, V. do R., & Oliveira, A. (2015). O Ensino de Sociologia como um campo (ou subcampo) científico. Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences, 37(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascihumansoc.v37i1.25623
» https://doi.org/10.4025/actascihumansoc.v37i1.25623 - Mocelin, D. G. (2020a). O ensino de Sociologia e seu campo. In Brunetta, A. A.; Bodart, C. N.; & Cigales, M. P. (Org.). Dicionário do ensino de Sociologia. Editora Café com Sociologia, pp. 57-61.
- Mocelin, D. G. (2020b). O ensino de Sociologia e seu subcampo. In Brunetta, A. A.; Bodart, C. N.; & Cigales, M. P. (Ogs.). Dicionário do ensino de Sociologia. Editora Café com Sociologia, pp. 397-402.
-
Moraes, A. C. de. (2014). Ciência e ideologia na prática dos professores de Sociologia no ensino médio: da neutralidade impossível ao engajamento indesejável, ou seria o inverso? Educação e Realidade, 39(01), 17-38. http://educa.fcc.org.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0100-31432014000100003&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt
» http://educa.fcc.org.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0100-31432014000100003&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt - Moraes, A. C. de. (2023). “Ciência e ideologia na prática dos professores de Sociologia no ensino médio: da neutralidade impossível ao engajamento indesejável, ou seria o inverso?” In Moraes, A. C. de. Ensinar Sociologia: formação de professor, pesquisa e ação política. Editora Café com Sociologia, 2023. pp. 51-84.
-
Moraes, L. B. P. de. (2015). Por uma Sociologia Relacional da História do ensino de Sociologia: cientistas sociais e espaço social acadêmico. Revista Café com Sociologia, 4(3), 21-40. https://revistacafecomsociologia.com/revista/index.php/revista/article/view/552
» https://revistacafecomsociologia.com/revista/index.php/revista/article/view/552 - Moraes, L. B. P. de. (2016). Representando disputas, disputando representações: cientistas sociais e campo acadêmico no ensino de Sociologia (Dissertação de mestrado). Faculdade de Ciências e Letras, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, SP.
-
Oliveira, A. (2017). A expansão e o perfil dos novos cursos de formação de professores de Ciências Sociais no Nordeste. Teoria e Cultura, 12(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.34019/2318-101X.2017.v12.12354
» https://doi.org/10.34019/2318-101X.2017.v12.12354 -
Oliveira, A. (2022). Mapeando o debate sobre o ensino de Sociologia no Brasil: uma análise dos temas e agentes presentes nos GTs do Eneseb (2013-2021). Acta Scientiarum. Education, 44 e61857. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3033/303371539027/
» https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3033/303371539027/ - Oliveira, A. (2023). O campo do ensino de Sociologia no Brasil: gênese, agentes e disputas. Editora Café com Sociologia.
-
Pereira, T. I. (2022). A centralidade do campo do ensino de Ciências Sociais/Sociologia brasileiro: notas para um debate crítico. Cadernos da Associação Brasileira de Ensino de Ciências Sociais, 6(2), 155-175. https://cabecs.com.br/index.php/cabecs/article/view/401
» https://cabecs.com.br/index.php/cabecs/article/view/401 -
Souza, L. O. (2022). Aprendizagem em Sociologia: o que discutem as dissertações do ProfSocio (2020-2021). Sociologias plurais, 8(2). 267-283. https://revistas.ufpr.br/sclplr/article/view/87025
» https://revistas.ufpr.br/sclplr/article/view/87025 - Weber, M. (2016). O sentido da “neutralidade axiológica nas Ciências Sociais e Econômicas”. In WEBER, M. Metodologia das Ciências Sociais. Campinas, SP: Editora da Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
-
Responsible editors:
Associate Editor: Wivian Weller https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1450-2004.Editor-in-Chief: Chantal Victória Medaets https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7834-3834.
Note: (**) Collection carried out between July 9th and 15th, 2023. Composition: 999 vertices, 425 clusters, 1,365 edges. Labels: Sinze variation: 0.6 Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (**) Collection carried out between July 9th and 15th, 2023. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Composition: 136 vertices, 10 clusters, 206 edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (*) Collection carried out between July 9th and 14th, 2023. Composition: 65 items, 24 clusters, 60 edges. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (*) Collection carried out between July 9th and 14th, 2023. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (*) Collection carried out between July 9th and 14th, 2023. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (*) Collection carried out between July 9th and 14th, 2023. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (*) Collection carried out between July 9th and 14th, 2023. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Note: (*) Collection carried out between July 9th and 14th, 2023. The scale of items is related to the number of edges. Composition: 65 items, 24 clusters, 60 edges. Source: Prepared by the authors.
