Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por eng |
Título da fonte: | Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482 |
Resumo: | This article discusses the adoption of the abbreviation LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, and transsexual), questioning the representativeness of the groups contained in this acronym in Administration research. Some authors in Brazil state that, although there is the intention to construct a field of research on the subject, the agenda is mostly aimed at research on gay people (CARRIERI, SOUZA, and AGUIAR, 2014). Therefore, the research question is: Is it possible to treat identity categories that are so different under the same prism? The article is grounded on (1) a historical version of the constitution of LGBT groups, showing how they are organized and fragmented in Brazil (FACCHINI, 2005); (2) a discussion on the adoption of the LGBT acronym as a universal category, based on the debate about contingent identities (BUTLER, 1998); (3) a literature review of Brazilian Administration using the SPELL database. A total of 34 articles approaching LGBT groups were found. Research on gays predominates while groups of lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals are underrepresented. It is perceived that, although there are similarities from the point of view that all the identity categories are targets of discrimination and violence (which is justified because they are categories considered deviant), the articles mark the differences between them. It is in these differences that there are possibilities for Administration research to question the adoption of acronyms, such as LGBT, as a universally representative and unified concept. |
id |
FGV-9_52a68b49889312456abf7f2dcdaae81c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/73482 |
network_acronym_str |
FGV-9 |
network_name_str |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in AdministrationEntre la emergencia, la inmersión y el silencio: LGBT como categoría de estudio en AdministraciónEntre a emergência, a submersão e o silêncio: LGBT como categoria de pesquisa em AdministraçãoLGBT. Diversity. Inclusion. Sexuality. Gender identityLGBT. Diversidad. Inclusión. Sexualidad. Identidad de género.LGBT. Diversidade. Inclusão. Sexualidade. Identidade de gênero.This article discusses the adoption of the abbreviation LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, and transsexual), questioning the representativeness of the groups contained in this acronym in Administration research. Some authors in Brazil state that, although there is the intention to construct a field of research on the subject, the agenda is mostly aimed at research on gay people (CARRIERI, SOUZA, and AGUIAR, 2014). Therefore, the research question is: Is it possible to treat identity categories that are so different under the same prism? The article is grounded on (1) a historical version of the constitution of LGBT groups, showing how they are organized and fragmented in Brazil (FACCHINI, 2005); (2) a discussion on the adoption of the LGBT acronym as a universal category, based on the debate about contingent identities (BUTLER, 1998); (3) a literature review of Brazilian Administration using the SPELL database. A total of 34 articles approaching LGBT groups were found. Research on gays predominates while groups of lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals are underrepresented. It is perceived that, although there are similarities from the point of view that all the identity categories are targets of discrimination and violence (which is justified because they are categories considered deviant), the articles mark the differences between them. It is in these differences that there are possibilities for Administration research to question the adoption of acronyms, such as LGBT, as a universally representative and unified concept.Este trabajo discute la adopción de la sigla LGBT (lesbianas, gays, bisexuales, travestis y transexuales) cuestionando la representatividad de los grupos contenidos en ese acrónimo en las investigaciones en Administración. En Brasil, aunque se pretenda construir un campo de investigación en el asunto, su agenda es mayoritariamente destinada a los estudios sobre gays (CARRIERI, SOUZA e AGUIAR, 2014). De forma más específica, el cuestionamiento es: ¿será posible tratar bajo el mismo prisma categorías identitarias tan distintas? La construcción del trabajo se basa en: (1) una versión histórica de la constitución de los grupos LGBT mostrando cómo se han organizado y fragmentado en Brasil (FACCHINI, 2005); (2) una discusión sobre la adopción de la sigla LGBT como categoría universal basada en el debate sobre identidades contingentes (BUTLER, 1998); (3) un levantamiento de literatura nacional sobre grupos LGBT en Administración en la base de datos Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL). Se han encontrado 34 artículos sobre los grupos incluidos en la sigla LGBT. Los estudios sobre gays predominan mientras que grupos de lesbianas, travestis y transexuales están subrepresentados. Se percibe que, aunque haya similitudes desde el punto de vista de que todas estas categorías identitarias son blancos de discriminación y violencia, lo que se justifica por tratarse de categorías tenidas como desviantes, los estudios planteados demarcan las diferencias entre ellas. Es en esas diferencias que yacen las posibilidades de que del estudio en Administración cuestione la adopción de siglas (como LGBT) como concepto universalmente representativo y unificado.Este artigo discute a adoção da sigla LGBT (lésbicas, gays, bissexuais, travestis e transexuais), questionando a representatividade dos grupos que fazem parte desse acrônimo nas pesquisas em Administração. No Brasil, afirma-se que, embora se almeje construir um campo de pesquisas no assunto, sua agenda é majoritariamente destinada às pesquisas sobre gays (CARRIERI, SOUZA e AGUIAR, 2014). De modo mais específico, o questionamento é: será que é possível tratar sob o mesmo prisma categorias identitárias tão distintas? A construção do trabalho está embasada em: 1) uma versão histórica sobre a constituição dos grupos LGBT, principalmente no Brasil, evidenciando de que modo eles se organizaram e se fragmentaram (FACCHINI, 2005); 2) uma discussão sobre a adoção da sigla LGBT como categoria universal, embasada no debate sobre identidades contingentes (BUTLER, 1998); e 3) um levantamento de literatura nacional sobre grupos LGBT em Administração na base de dados Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL). Foram encontrados 34 artigos sobre os grupos incluídos na sigla LGBT. Pesquisas sobre gays predominam enquanto grupos de lésbicas, travestis e transexuais estão sub-representados. Percebe-se que, embora haja similaridades do ponto de vista de que todas essas categorias identitárias são alvos de discriminação e violência – o que se justifica por se tratarem de categorias tidas como desviantes, as pesquisas levantadas demarcam as diferenças entre elas. É nessas diferenças que se encontram as possibilidades de a pesquisa em Administração questionar a adoção de siglas (como a LGBT) como conceitos universalmente representativos e unificados.Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas2020-01-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/7348210.1590/1679-395173482Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 18 No. 1 (2020); 13-27Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 18 Núm. 1 (2020); 13-27Cadernos EBAPE.BR; v. 18 n. 1 (2020); 13-271679-3951reponame:Cadernos EBAPE.BRinstname:Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)instacron:FGVporenghttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482/77314https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482/77318Copyright (c) 2020 Cadernos EBAPE.BRinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPaniza, Maurício Donavan Rodrigues2022-07-08T20:19:17Zoai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/73482Revistahttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebapehttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/oaicadernosebape@fgv.br||cadernosebape@fgv.br1679-39511679-3951opendoar:2024-05-13T10:00:07.829395Cadernos EBAPE.BR - Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)true |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration Entre la emergencia, la inmersión y el silencio: LGBT como categoría de estudio en Administración Entre a emergência, a submersão e o silêncio: LGBT como categoria de pesquisa em Administração |
title |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration |
spellingShingle |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration Paniza, Maurício Donavan Rodrigues LGBT. Diversity. Inclusion. Sexuality. Gender identity LGBT. Diversidad. Inclusión. Sexualidad. Identidad de género. LGBT. Diversidade. Inclusão. Sexualidade. Identidade de gênero. |
title_short |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration |
title_full |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration |
title_fullStr |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration |
title_full_unstemmed |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration |
title_sort |
Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration |
author |
Paniza, Maurício Donavan Rodrigues |
author_facet |
Paniza, Maurício Donavan Rodrigues |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Paniza, Maurício Donavan Rodrigues |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
LGBT. Diversity. Inclusion. Sexuality. Gender identity LGBT. Diversidad. Inclusión. Sexualidad. Identidad de género. LGBT. Diversidade. Inclusão. Sexualidade. Identidade de gênero. |
topic |
LGBT. Diversity. Inclusion. Sexuality. Gender identity LGBT. Diversidad. Inclusión. Sexualidad. Identidad de género. LGBT. Diversidade. Inclusão. Sexualidade. Identidade de gênero. |
description |
This article discusses the adoption of the abbreviation LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, and transsexual), questioning the representativeness of the groups contained in this acronym in Administration research. Some authors in Brazil state that, although there is the intention to construct a field of research on the subject, the agenda is mostly aimed at research on gay people (CARRIERI, SOUZA, and AGUIAR, 2014). Therefore, the research question is: Is it possible to treat identity categories that are so different under the same prism? The article is grounded on (1) a historical version of the constitution of LGBT groups, showing how they are organized and fragmented in Brazil (FACCHINI, 2005); (2) a discussion on the adoption of the LGBT acronym as a universal category, based on the debate about contingent identities (BUTLER, 1998); (3) a literature review of Brazilian Administration using the SPELL database. A total of 34 articles approaching LGBT groups were found. Research on gays predominates while groups of lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals are underrepresented. It is perceived that, although there are similarities from the point of view that all the identity categories are targets of discrimination and violence (which is justified because they are categories considered deviant), the articles mark the differences between them. It is in these differences that there are possibilities for Administration research to question the adoption of acronyms, such as LGBT, as a universally representative and unified concept. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-01-03 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482 10.1590/1679-395173482 |
url |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/1679-395173482 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por eng |
language |
por eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482/77314 https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/73482/77318 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Cadernos EBAPE.BR info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 18 No. 1 (2020); 13-27 Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 18 Núm. 1 (2020); 13-27 Cadernos EBAPE.BR; v. 18 n. 1 (2020); 13-27 1679-3951 reponame:Cadernos EBAPE.BR instname:Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) instacron:FGV |
instname_str |
Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
instacron_str |
FGV |
institution |
FGV |
reponame_str |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
collection |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR - Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cadernosebape@fgv.br||cadernosebape@fgv.br |
_version_ |
1798943211792629760 |