The challenges faced by science in the international communication process range from the choice of philosophical and epistemological assumptions used in scientific research to the choice of participants who comprise the sample of the studies produced. There is, in the hierarchy of scientific production, Westernized trends of theoretical assumptions that predominate. The challenge of producing and communicating scientific knowledge is now guided by a review that geographically and philosophically shifts the Western prominent place. The purpose of this article is use a decolonial perspective to theoretically problematize scientific practice and the process of publishing its results. It criticizes the assembly line in which psychology ends, especially in the publication of results as a condition for the constitution of scientific communities. The scientific community can assist in the dissemination of a certain theory, but it can also constitute an obstacle to new ideas. It points to decoloniality as an alternative path as a possibility of breaking with the production-line logic of publications. By presenting the example of González Rey’s theory of subjectivity, it advocates the history-education-time tripod as necessary elements to address contemporary crises studied by psychology. The article demonstrates the possibility of rupture with the market-related scientific status quo.
BaróM. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Harvard University Press.
3.
BaumJ. A. C. (2011). Free-riding on power laws: questioning the validity of the impact factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies. Organization, 18(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403531
4.
BaumgartenM. (2004). Comunidades ou coletividades? O fazer científico na era da informação. Revista Política e Sociedade, 3(4), 97–136
5.
BernalJ. D. (1939). The social function of science. London: Routledge e Kegan Paul.
6.
BhatiaS. (2017). Decolonizing psychology: Globalization, social justice, and Indian youth identities. Oxford University Press.
BlautJ. M. (1993). The colonizer’s model of the world. Geographical diffusionism and eurocentric history. Guilford Press.
9.
DusselE. (1995). The invention of America: Eclipse of the “other” and the myth of modernity. Tradução de Michael D. Barber. Continuum.
10.
FayeJ. (2014). The nature of scientific thinking. On interpretation, explanation, and understanding. Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
FreireP. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. Bloomsbury Publishing.
12.
FreireP. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (30th-anniversary edition). (Myra Bergman Ramos,Trans). (With an introduction by Donaldo Macedo). Bloomsbury Publishing.
13.
González ReyF. L. (1987). Psicología, ideología y política. Un marco conceptual para suanálisis en América Latina. In MonteroM. (Ed.), Psicología política latinoamericana (pp. 105–130). Panapo.
14.
González ReyF. L. (2003). Sujeito e subjetividade: Uma aproximação histórico-cultural. Pioneira Thomson Learning.
15.
González ReyF. L. (2005). Pesquisa qualitativa em psicologia: Caminhos e desafios. Cengage Learning.
16.
González ReyF. L. (2009). Historical relevance of Vygotsky’s work: its significance for a newapproach to the problem of subjectivity in psychology. Critical Practice Studies, 11(1), 59–73.
17.
González ReyF. L. (2011). Lenguaje, sentido y subjetividade: Yendo más allá del linguaje y el comportamiento. Estudios de Psicología, 32(3), 345–357.
18.
González ReyF. L. (2012). O social na psicologia e a psicologia social (3rd ed.). Vozes.
19.
González ReyF. L. (2017). The topic of subjectivity in psychology: Contradictions, paths and new alternatives. Journal of Theory Social Behavioral, 47(6), 1–20.
20.
González ReyF. L. (2019a). Subjectivity as a new theoretical, epistemological, and methodological pathway within cultural‐ historical psychology. In González ReyF. L.Mitjáns MartínezA.GoulartD. M. (Eds.), Subjectivity within cultural‐historical approach: theory, methodology and research (1st ed., pp. 21–36). Springer.
21.
González ReyF. L. (2019b). Methodological and epistemological demands in advancing the study of subjectivity from a cultural-historical standpoint. Culture and Psychology, 26(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19888185
GrosfoguelR. (2013). The structure of knowledge in westernized universities: Epistemic racism/sexism and the four genocides/epistemicides of the long 16th century. Human architecture. Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 11(1), 73–90. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11/iss1/8.
GuimarãesR. (2019). Os desafios éticos da razão empreendedora. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, 24(9), 3583–3594.
27.
HabermasJ. (1975). Técnica e ciência como ideologia. In: Habermas, Vol. XLVIII.São Paulo: Abril S.A (Coleção Os Pensadores).
28.
HagstromW. O. (1974). O Controle social dos Cientistas. In DeusJ. D. (Ed.), A Crítica da Ciência. Zahar.
29.
JecupéK. W. (2001). Tupã tenondé: A criação do universo, da terra e do homem segundo a tradição oral Guarani. Peirópolis editora.
30.
Knorr-CetinaK. (1983). The ethnographic study of scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In Knorr-CetinaK.MulkayM. (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspective on the Social Study of Science. Sage.
31.
LanderE. (2000). Ciências sociais: Saberes coloniais e eurocêntricos A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais. Perspectivas latino-americanas. Edgardo Lander (org). Colección Sur, CLACSO, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Airesna. http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar
32.
LaneS. (1981). O que é psicologia social. Brasiliense.
33.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1997). A vida do laboratório, a produção dos fatos científicos. Princeton University Press.
MarsicoG. (2015). Striving for the new: Cultural psychology as a developmental science. Culture & Psychology, 21(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15623020
37.
MarsicoG. (2020). Accessing otherness: Unity via multiplicity. In GuimarãesD. S. (Ed.), Dialogical Multiplication: Principles for an Indigenous Psychology, Latin American Voices, 2, v-vii. Springer.
38.
MartínezE. (Ed.), (1994). Progreso tecnológico: la economia clássica y la economia neoclásica tradicional Ciencia, tecnologia y desarrollo: interrelaciones teóricas y metodológicas. Nueva Sociedad/Unesco.
39.
MarxK. (1867/2017). O capital. Kindle, lebooks editora.
40.
MertonR. (1942). The normative structure of Science. In The sociology of Science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press.
41.
MignoloW. D. (2011). The darker side of Western Modernity. Global futures decolonial options. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394501
PeterkaS. O.SalihovicV. (2012) What is entrepreneurial university and why we need it? Economy of eastern Croatia yesterday, today, tomorrow (Vol. 1, pp. 98–107). Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.
PolanyiM. (1951). Self-government in science: The logic of liberty. Routledge e Kegan Paul LTD.
48.
PopperK. (1972). A lógica da pesquisa científica. Cultrix.
49.
QuijanoA. (2005). Colonialidade do poder, eurocentrismo e América Latina. In EdgardoL. (org). A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais (pp. 107–130). Perspectivas latino-americanas. Colección Sur Sur.
50.
RosaA. (1994). History of psychology as a ground for reflexivity. In RosaA.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), Explorations in socio-cultural studies. Historical and theoretical discourse (Vol. 1, pp. 149–168). Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje.
SampaioM. I. C.SerradasA. (2009). O movimento de acesso aberto, os repositórios e as revistas científicas. In SabadiniA. A. Z. P.SampaioM. I. C.KollerS. H. (Eds.), Publicar em psicologia: um enfoque para a revista científica (pp. 75–86). University of São Paulo.
54.
SantosB. S. (2000). A crítica da razão indolente: Contra o desperdício da experiência. Cortez.
55.
SavareseG.FasanoO.MolloM.PecoraroN. (2013). From personal identity to pluralism of intercultural identity: A study on the transferability of self-knowledge to the multicultural social contexts. Knowledge Cultures, 6, 1222327–1265731.
56.
Silva FilhoW.TateoL. (2019). Thinking about oneself: The place of reflection in philosophy and psychology. Springer.
57.
StroebeW.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2016). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687
58.
TateoL. (2014). Science at the supermarket: multiplication, personalization and consumption of science in everyday life. Integrative psychological & Behavioral Science, 148(12), 1161–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0004-z.
59.
TateoLucaL.MarsicoGiuseppinaP. (2018) (In this issue). The synthetic and syncretic nature of human culture. Human Arenas, 1(1), 1–8. DOI:10.1007/s42087-018-0004-z.
TaylorC. A. (1991). Defining the scientific community: a rhetorical perspective on demarcation. Communication Monographs, 58(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376238
62.
ValsinerJ. (2010). Why simple lessons from history are recurrently forgotten: The bubble of epistemic markets. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 31(1), 81–94.
63.
ValsinerJ.MarsicoG.ChaudharyN.SatoT.DazzaniV. (Eds.), (2016). Psychology as a Science of Human Being: The Yokohama Manifesto Annals of Theoretical Psychology (Vol. 13). Springer.
