SUBJECTIVITY, POWER, AND LACK OF CRITERIA: CHALLENGES FOR THE SYSTEMATIZATION OF EVALUATION IN DOCTORAL EXAMINATION COMMITTEES

Abstract

Considering the recurring challenges in the processes of evaluating academic works, especially in doctoral examination committees, the presence of evaluative practices marked by excessive subjectivity, power asymmetries, and inadequate interpretations regarding the scope and function of the doctoral thesis is observed. In this context, this study aims to analyze, in light of the scientific literature, the limits and challenges that permeate the evaluation of academic works within stricto sensu graduate programs, emphasizing the implications of these practices for the legitimacy and quality of the evaluative process. To this end, a qualitative, theoretical study was conducted, based on a narrative literature review, with a critical analysis of national and international scientific productions addressing academic evaluation, evaluative ethics, and the functioning of examination committees. Thus, it is observed that the absence of systematized criteria and clear evaluative instruments contributes to inconsistent assessments, favoring arbitrary judgments and weakening the formative character of evaluation. This allows us to conclude that the systematization of evaluative processes, through structured and institutionally legitimized instruments, constitutes a fundamental strategy to promote greater transparency, equity, and quality in the evaluation of academic works at the doctoral level.