O ensino formal universitário tem considerado a etnobotânica?

• Autores: Quaresma, Miani Corrêa, Vieira, Eduardo Paiva de Pontes
• Formato: objeto de conferencia
• Fecha de Publicación: 2023
• Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Repositorio: PUCP-Institucional
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorio.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.14657/199302
• Enlace del recurso: https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/199302
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Botany; Ethnocultural; Science Teaching; Botánica; Etnocultural; Enseñanza de las Ciencias; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.03.00

The term Ethno is conceptually used to refer to how subjects interpret, interact and relate to the world. In this sense, Ethnobotany is referred to as the study of human-plant relationships, and, in disciplinary terms, relatively new with regard to systematization with other sciences. For the teaching of biology, this can be analyzed as a curricular component, as a discipline or academic content, within the scope of constructed/developed subjects on ecology, botany and zoology, for example. In this way, the curricular matrices within this theme reflect pedagogical intentions in the classroom; in theory, these are rooted in the conception that the student's particularities, needs and life stories are essential for the construction of knowledge, thus being able to question or certify teaching practices, and, thus, build a significant scientific knowledge for students. In general terms, this research questions: Has formal university education considered ethnobotany? What dimensions of ethnobotany are or can be taught and what can we infer about it? As an empirical analysis, we analyzed the curricular matrices of the Licentiate in Biological Sciences course at the Federal University of Pará, in the disciplines of Living Beings and Environment - 102h (1st Period), Study of Natural Populations - 102h (3rd Period), Living Beings III: Plantae I - 68h (5th Period), Man and Environment - 102h (7th Period), Living Beings VI: Plantae II - 153h (9th Period) and Living Beings VIII - Plantae III - 102h (10th Period) ), as its contents include plants and social relations as issues to be developed. We used the theoretical framework of Michel Foucault, based on the concepts of statements (being these elements that allow us to say something about a certain object, attributing meaning in time and space, emerging according to the rules of discourse formation, therefore, in its singularity, in their space of action), discourses (as a set of conditions of existence, not being words distributed in sparse times, but that have historicity, such as a discontinuity and, in itself, a web of events that are linked to power relations ) and devices (defined as control mechanisms, such as regulatory decisions and guidelines, that maintain social control – the said as true). As a result, it is possible to state that ethnobotany is not described as a curricular element, subject or topic to be developed in the Licentiate in Biological Sciences course, either in disciplinary components of the matrices of disciplines whose title is the intersection of man - environment or of the specific about plants, such as what occurs in Plantae I, which has classification and taxonomic keys as a priority in its menu; Plantae II when it directs the contents to specific subjects, such as biological components; and, finally, Plantae III, whose scope is classification, systematic coordination, phytotaxonomy, taxonomic hierarchy, nomenclature, groups and categories of the plant kingdom. What we have are subjects focused on a taxonomic, classificatory and control reality of what can be said, planned for the practice of a (supposedly) licensed professional, but which in their statements refers to a discourse of professional practice in biological sciences. It is disregarded, in these terms, that the degree, especially in natural science courses, should encompass subjects, terminologies and themes that build the appreciation of knowledge in different categories, but this is found in a discursive order that does not include other forms of knowledge beyond the technical-scientific. We conclude that teaching must include knowledge specific to each segment, be it ethnic, popular and/or scientific, not with an antagonistic function to academic spaces, but as something that considers the identity, ethnicity and historical paths of different populations.