Documentary historical analysis and bibliographic research: study subjects and methodology ^{1 2 3 4}

Abstract

This theoretical essay discusses documentary analysis and bibliographic research methodologies, both in the context of Education, briefly approaching different study subjects and methodologies. The article is divided into four sections: in the first section, we present some introductory notes on the subject; in the second section, we approach the notion of historical documents and the way they can be included in Education research; in the third section, we present the methodologies adopted in bibliographical research; in the fourth section, we make some final remarks. The reflections on the matter are presented in order to contrast these two fields, exposing the theoretical and methodological elements that distinguish them.

Keywords
Methodology; Bibliographic research; Document

Resumo

O presente artigo, de caráter teórico, apresenta uma discussão sobre as metodologias de análise documental e a pesquisa bibliográfica, ambas na área da Educação, percorrendo os seus diferentes focos de estudo e percursos metodológicos. Para uma melhor organização da discussão, o artigo está dividido em quatro seções: na primeira seção, apresentamos algumas notas introdutórias sobre o tema; na segunda, discorremos sobre a noção de documento histórico e sobre como trabalhar com ele nas pesquisas em Educação; na terceira, apresentamos os percursos metodológicos adotados em pesquisas bibliográficas; e na quarta, estabelecemos algumas considerações finais. As reflexões são apresentadas de modo a confrontar essas duas perspectivas, trazendo os elementos teóricos e metodológicos que as distinguem.

Palavras-Chave
Metodologia; Pesquisa bibliográfica; Documento

About the article

This article discusses documentary research through the methodology of documentary analysis of historiographical nature and bibliographic research — both in the area of Education — in order to address the theoretical and methodological steps of each field. We consider discussing this matter essential because, in addition to bibliographic research serving as methodology being often mistaken with literature review or bibliographic review, many studies that should be considered bibliographic research, due to their empirical corpus and the theoretical-methodological trajectories adopted, have been characterized as documentary research. Thus, such discussions aim to motivate advancements in the ways of understanding and developing research in the area of Education. It is also worth noting that the issues we discuss here may not make sense to traditional historians, since in this field of research, as a rule, the methodology is part of a documentary analysis.

Thus, this article presents a theoretical discussion about two methodologies in the area of Education, historical documentary analysis and bibliographic research, following a set of authors and research already carried out on the subject. The reflections described in this article were only possible by understanding that the History of Education, our field of research, is located in the borders between Education and History. We work with theorists, concepts, empiric studies and methodologies that encompass these two territories, which lead to some questions that are the motto of our reflections.

We emphasize that we do not intend to defend this or that type of research. Our goal, as previously stated, is to contribute to the methodological discussions of research in Education. For such, we divided this article into four sections. In the first section, we present some introductory notes on the subject. In the second section, we discuss the notion of historical document and discuss how to work with it in Education research. In the third section, we present the methodologies adopted in bibliographic research. Finally, in the fourth and final section, we provide some final remarks.

Introductory notes

In this article, we chose to add the term “historical” or “archival” to the expression “documentary analysis.” This addition is justified because, in the field of Education, research whose methodology is characterized as documentary analysis is not always historical in nature. Contemporary legal documents can also be analyzed, such as a current law, a political-pedagogical project (PPP) of a given institution, an ordinance, a circular, that is, an endless amount of school documents (or otherwise), whose analysis is configured as documentary analysis — but the objective of the research and its result are not history related.

What differentiates a historical document from a bibliographic source when such materials are taken as empirical material? Can a bibliographic source be taken as a document in a research? Are documents used only in historical research? When can a research be understood as historical? Based on these and other questions, we wrote this article. In this context, we start from the understanding that the central problematization of a research is the guiding thread for the choice of methodological procedures and for the way the data found is processed.

In the field of Education, we realize that what is called documentary research does not always have a historiographical character. Veyne (1998, p. 60) tells us that the development of historical knowledge is delimited “[...] by the appearance of two principles [...] The first comes from the Greeks and says that history is disinterested knowledge, not national or dynastic memories; the second, contemporary, states that every fact is worthy of history.”

Several studies aim to understand certain themes from a historical perspective, that is, observe which conditions have allowed some things to be said and thought of at a certain point in history, and not in another. To this end, they seek to map the “[...] origins (Herkunft), in the form of conditions that make it possible for the emergence (Entstehung) of what is now said, thought and done” (Veiga-Neto, 2003, p. 70). This leads us to reflect that “[...] history becomes a story of what men have called truths and their struggles around these truths” (Veyne, 1998, 268).

It is already known that starting with the years 1929/1930 the decline of political history began, also known as traditional history. It was with the publication, in 1929, of the first issue of the Annales, under the direction of Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, that the historiography domain was expanded, a process that encompassed the search for the redefinition of concepts such as document, historical fact and time.

The new trend insisted on long duration and focused attention on economic activity, social organization, collective psychology and the approximation of history with other sciences. The 1950s and 1960s, above all, explored the grounds of historical geography, economic history and historical demographics (Burke, 2005). Around the 1970s, a theoretical aspect was constituted that became known as the history of mentalities, permeated by many different discussions and conceptions in different countries, which culminated in the nomenclature of New History, or New Cultural History — which, in the present day, is called Cultural History. From this approach emerged new objects, new themes and new problems emerged (Le Goff, 1996). This process broadened the notion of document, bringing to light the problematization of visual, oral and statistical sources; and unofficial written landscapes and artifacts, such as school notebooks, personal diaries, epistolary writing, among other common sources, until then neglected by Historiography.

In the methodological discussions carried out in the process of construction of theses and dissertations in Education, there is always the problem of selecting texts that relate to the research methodology that we call historical documentary analysis. Such a field is also referred to in academic literature as archival documentary analysis, or simply documentary analysis.

Therefore, we emphasize again the option for the term “historical documentary analysis.” Although in the History field, the name “documentary analysis” is enough — since, for a historian, a document will always be analyzed from a historical perspective — in the Education field, the analysis of a document composes a multitude of possibilities and perspectives. Thus, the term document is used for different materials that may or may not relate to a historiography research.

Since disciplinary boundaries are blurred more every day and the boundaries between the fields of research are becoming less specific, some clarifications are necessary regarding research in the human sciences, without the intention of keeping them in “ghettos,” but with the purpose of sustaining the necessary rigor of an academic investigation. In this sense, the objective of this discussion is to more precisely understand what a historical document is, what a historiography operation is and expand the discussions related to the “analysis of historical documents” in Education research, in general, and in the History of Education, with some specific questions.

In addition, we discuss bibliographic research in the area of Education and its methodological path. We could mention here a set of studies that treat bibliographic sources as documents because they have a historiographical character, which answers one of the questions we previously asked: “yes, bibliographic sources can be considered historical documents.” However, when a research, regardless of its time frame, does not have a historiographical dimension and works with bibliographic sources, as the name itself says, it is a bibliographical investigation — an issue that is still little addressed in the area of Education. As previously mentioned, in the next sections, we will discuss in more detail both methodologies — historical documentary analysis and bibliographic research.

But after all, what is a “historical document” and how to handle it in Education research?

Historical documentary analysis is a methodological perspective that has been one of the main ways of constructing historical-academic knowledge since the 19th century. However, just as the theoretical conceptions and interpretative currents linked to historiography production have been transforming and reconfiguring themselves, the concepts of document and its forms of analysis have undergone decisive modifications. As the historian André Cellard (2012, p. 302) notes, even “[...] at the end of the 19th century the notion of a document applied almost exclusively to text, and particularly to official archives.” This definition was connected to the conception of study of history practiced by most authors of the time, that is, “[...] a conjuncture approach, focused mainly on the facts and gestures of politicians and elites” (Cellard, 2012, p. 299).

Throughout the twentieth century, by extending the limits of historiography analysis to the totality of actions and relationships of individuals and human groups, “[...] social history has considerably broadened the notion of document. Everything that is a vestige of the past, all that is considered as testimony, is considered a document” (Cellard, 2012, p. 296). In this sense, Meneses (2003, p. 29) defines documents as “[...] that capable of providing information to an observer question, whatever its typological, material or functional nature.” In turn, Certeau (1982, p. 18) states that, “in history, everything begins with the gesture of separating, of reuniting, of transforming certain objects distributed in another way into ‘documents’.” Thus, in the field of history theory, we find varied views of what a historical document is, although these ideas have expanded and/or have been complemented since the last decades of the twentieth century.

The documentary analysis procedure is one in which the researcher does not participate directly in the construction of the information and data analyzed during the research — except for the context of Oral History. It is up to the documentary analysis procedure, however, to circumscribe what will be considered a document and with what epistemological framework its approach will be performed.

It should also be considered that the already classic warnings of Jacques Le Goff that the document “[...] is, first of all, the result of a conscious or unconscious assembly of the societies that produced it, and of the successive times during which it continued to live, perhaps forgotten, during which it continued to be manipulated, even if just by silence” (Le Goff, 1996, p. 538). Thus, it cannot be forgotten that “the document is a monument,” that is, “[...] it is the result of the effort of historical societies to impose on the future — voluntarily or unintentionally — a certain image of themselves” (Le Goff, 1996, p. 538). Or, put another way, “[...] documents can be interesting both for what they leave out as well as for what they contain. They do not simply reflect, but also build social reality and versions of events” (May, 2004, p. 213).

Thus, it is up to the researcher “[...] to analyze them by demystifying their apparent meaning;” for this, it will be necessary “[...] to begin dismantling, demolishing this assembly, destructuring this construction and analyzing the conditions of production of monument-documents” (Le Goff, 1996, p. 538). This is not a simple task, and the procedures for achieving it vary according to the conditions and definitions of each research.

Cellard (2012) proposes the existence of some interrelated dimensions of the documentary analysis process; among them we highlight: the examination of the global social context in which the document was produced in order to understand the political, economic, social and cultural conjuncture that propitiated its production; to know — through the analysis of biographical data, ideas, motivations, social positions and networks of relationships of those who write — the producers of the discourses analyzed; identify the importance of establishing the type and origin of the document; perform a preliminary reading to observe the internal logic and key concepts of the text in order to identify the meanings and historicity of the terms used by the authors; and, finally, to perform an interpretative analysis that constitutes a process of meeting, classifying and comparing the preliminary information and interpretation of the texts, based on the problematic and theoretical references of the research.

It is worth noting that Cellard (2012), like other historians who work from the perspective of a methodical history, makes a distinction with regard to the importance of documents, separating them into primary or secondary sources — an aspect with which we do not agree, since the contemporary aspects of historiography have sought to avoid the hierarchy of documents, because the “[...] historical narrative begins with the establishment of a coherent corpus, intelligible from the point of view of a precise investigation, and not from the point of view of a past that was intended simply to restore itself in its secluded truth” (Rousso, 1996, p. 88). This would involve distinguishing documents by their degree of proof of the truth.

With these reflections, on the other hand, we corroborate Cellard’s proposal (2012), because we believe that other issues, proposed by him, are central and can help in the design of a research process that includes the use of documentary sources:

1. The conditions of production of the document: Who wrote it? To whom? To what end? At what time? What are the power relations contained within the document?

2. The internal procedures: Which aspects of the writing of the text contribute to its meaning?

3. The conditions of circulation of the document: Where was it located, where was it sent?

4. The materialities of the document: What material is used? What does it say or not say? What can be noticed when analyzing the material?

5. Preservation: Are there marks in the text of the document that refer to other readings? When analyzing the document, what possibilities allow us to perceive the uses of the document? Where was it stored? By whom was it preserved? For which reasons?

Let us think, for example, of a pamphlet mentioning a church feast:

Figure 1
Example of a documentary source

This pamphlet is not an official document; it was not produced to be a document. It even presents a high degree of ephemerality, since it can be immediately disposed. After the festivity, it loses its function — that of publicizing an event — and its usefulness as a cultural artifact is only important to the extent that the festivity takes place.

When viewing the pamphlet as a document, however, a transposition, a displacement, is established in an attempt to translate an artifact “[...] from one cultural language to another.” thus transforming a “social production” into an “object of history” (Certeau, 1982). “This gesture consists of ‘isolating’ a body, as it is done in physics, and ‘disfiguring’ things to constitute them as pieces that fill gaps in a set proposed a priori” (Certeau, 1982, p. 80). The idea is to remake this object — a pamphlet of the fiftieth anniversary — outside its universe of use, trying to develop a historical process of “coherent reemployment” (Certeau, 1982, p. 80). In research in History of Education, the same process can happen when analyzing school notebooks, teacher diaries, newsletters, school minutes and an endless product of the school’s material culture.

The work of a historian, says Duby (1989, p. 161), consists of asking questions about the man of today, “[...] trying to give them answers taking into account the behavior of our own society at an earlier stage of its duration. For that, I interpret traces. These materials come to me already treated by erudition and I have to refine them even more. But when I handle them I have to respect some rules [...].” In this sense, Borges (1994, p. 61) explains: “[...] sources or documents are not a faithful mirror of reality, but are always the representation of a particular part or moment of the object in question. A source often represents a testimony, the speech of an agent, of a historical subject; it should always be analyzed as such.”

Thus, nowadays, we are aware that, among other examples, “[...] a booklet of expenses of a housewife, a theater program, a restaurant menu, an advertising brochure are significant historical documents that reveal their own moments” (Borges, 1994, p. 61). Examples of school artifacts that can be transformed into documents are: school photographs, registration books, student registration lists, exam minutes, questionnaires containing information about the school building, decrees, laws, offices and ordinances, letters, notebooks, diaries, images, reports of teaching inspectors, purchasing notes of the Department of Finance, parish registers, employees’ commitment terms, among many other artifacts produced by and/or for educational institutions, schools or otherwise.

In the same direction as the aforementioned authors, Samara and Tupy (2010, p. 70) also state that the work with a historical document should raise questions such as: “What material form does the document present; what content it makes available for research and what the objectives or purposes of those who have elaborated it are and who reads or interprets it.” The answers found depend on the use of a document as a source of historical research.

In this regard, Bacellar (2005) clarifies that the beginning of a research requires locating sources. When proposing any subject of historiographical investigation, it is necessary to verify which documents can be located in the search for data. In Brazil, especially, there are few archive repositories that make available the list, keywords and dates of documents available via the Internet - like the National Archives.

Contextualizing the identified document is essential for the work of a historian. Moreover, understanding that a document is not neutral, that it always carries with it the conception of the person or body that wrote it, is part of the construction of historical research. In the words of Ragazzini (2001), a source is a construction of the researcher, that is, an acknowledgment constituted by a denomination and an attribution of meaning. The source “[...] is the possible contact with the past, but it is inscribed in a theoretical operation produced in the present, [...] it comes from the past, but it is no longer in the past when it is interrogated” (Ragazzini, 2001, p. 14). Thus, in a methodology centered on historical documental analysis, all effort put into analyzing the sources is related to the implementation of historiography work, that is, it aims to “write a possible history,” in the context of what Hartog (2013) calls the “regime of historicity.”

In the 1970s, the number of works utilizing unofficial prints as a documentary source was still small. The introduction and dissemination of the press in the country, including the itinerary of newspapers and journalists, already had significant bibliography. In the field of history, in Brazil, Tânia de Luca is one of the forerunners in questioning and using printed documents such as newspapers and magazines in her research, as well as in writing the history of the press. According to her, “the importance of such printed mediums was acknowledged and the concern of writing the history of the press was not new, but there was reluctance in using them for the writing of history through the press” (Luca, 2005, p. 111).

In the field of History of Education, only during the mid-1990s that textbooks, student pedagogical magazines and other printed magazines, in general, began to be used as documents. The urban scenario of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries housed a multitude of periodical publications: almanacs, newspapers of recreational associations, papers edited by leagues and labor unions, and magazines with different approaches. In what pertains to education, generally speaking, there are textbooks, civility guides, pamphlets and opuscules of moral and religious prescription. This diversity of publications, over the years, becomes a source of research because, through the historiography work, they become documents, since they allow visualizing the other of history, including groups such as women, the common person, the black man, the indigenous peoples, and the subject without fame that inhabits the social panorama.

To think about the products of cultural industry, in the specific case of printed materials, it is essential to be aware of the aspects that involve their materiality: the printing press that printed them, the number of pages, the type of cover, the type of paper, the size, the number of editions, etc. Among other aspects, these are the ones that refer us to the past, to the uses made of the printed matter, to the circulation, to the forms of appropriation. In the case of printed matter such as newspapers, Luca (2005) draws attention to the need to identify the group responsible for the editorial line, as well as who were the most assiduous collaborators, in addition to considering the choices of titles. These aspects provide clues regarding past and future reading shared by editors.

As already mentioned earlier, the research question is a guiding thread in the choice of methodological procedures to be adopted. In the case of documentary research, we have already discussed throughout the section what “historical documents” are and how we can work with such sources in the research developed in the Education field. In the next section, we will cover bibliographic research and its methodologies.

Bibliographic research methodologies

Bibliographic research should not be confused with literature review or with the state of the art. The literature review is only one step of bibliographic research, whose methodology is presented in this section. This step contributes to the delimitation of the theme; the identification and reiteration of significant contributions of the theories on the research subject; the recognition of the limits and gaps in the dissemination of research on the matter; and the search for potential spaces for new research in its respective field and for the construction of the argument about the importance of such investigation. Particularly, in the constitution of investigative strategies, literature review is essential to identify the main theoretical frameworks that support studies in the investigated area and identify potential works for bibliographic research. In addition, it contributes to the understanding of how researchers appropriate epistemologies to think about education.

The literature review is therefore a step in the investigative process. The state of the art, on the other hand, has as its main objective to balance the existing production on a specific theme in an area of knowledge. According to Romanowski and Ens (2006, p. 39),

States of the art can mean an important contribution in the constitution of the theoretical field of an area of knowledge, as they seek to identify the significant contributions of the construction of pedagogical theory and practice, point out the restrictions on the field towards which the research moves, its dissemination gaps, identify investigated innovative experiences that indicate alternatives for solving the problems of practice, and recognize the contributions of research in the constitution of proposals in the focused area.

With regard to bibliographic sources, they can be used both in bibliographic research itself and in historical documentary research. We could cite, as an example of the use of bibliographic sources as historical documents, the investigations whose production is centered on the historiography work. Otherwise, it is worth pointing out that a bibliography is considered an

[…] area of knowledge that has as its object the description and classification of printed texts through defined systematization criteria (author, historical, geographical, chronological, thematic, etc.), in order to enable and facilitate access to them” and a “list of works edited on a given subject.”

(Michaelis, 2015)

Thus, books, articles in journals and various reports with authorial production can be considered bibliographic sources.

In a study carried out with the purpose of understanding which assumptions can contribute to the constitution of multi-referential curricula, Pereira (2018) adopted a methodology based on bibliographic research. This methodology enabled the mapping of studies in the field of curriculum that dialogued with multi-referentiality and that, through a bricolage⁵ of references, could compose a production rich in ways of constituting curricula. The study carried out by Pereira (2018) presents the methodological step by step of bibliographic research; and the author makes it clear that he opted for this methodology — and not for documentary research — for two reasons already explained in the introduction: the first is related to the fact that the study being carried out is not historiographical in nature and that the sources have not been worked from its monumentality, that is, as document-monument that would need to be deconstructed, disassembled, in order to understand the conditions that made its construction possible. The second reason concerns the fact that it is not an analysis of official or legal documents. In summary, the sources that composed the empirical material were treated as bibliographical. In addition, the conceptual tools for reading the material were stipulated according to the theoretical framework adopted in the investigation.

Bibliographic research is widely used in the field of Philosophy and focuses on: the reading of the text; its understanding, which involves the understanding of the text itself; its analysis, which implies a semantic-grammatical retranslation, a technical retranslation, a semantic taxonomy and a logical retranslation; the veritative modalization of the translation achieved; and the understanding and interpretation for a new version of the text (Porta, 2014). According to the author,

It is necessary to go beyond the text to understand it, and this in various ways and forms. It is clear that every good reading respects it, intending to explain its meaning without deforming it, without adding or subtracting anything. A good reading, however, is never a mere mirror of the text. There are different ways to “be in the text.” There are many things that “are” within it even though they are not properly “said” (and, consequently, cannot be, in a literal sense, read). They are only accessible insofar as we distance ourselves from the text and assume an active stance towards it.

(Porta, 2014, p. 73-74)

In his research, Pereira (2018) came to the conclusion that no theoretical framework on bibliographic research as a methodology — an issue still little discussed in Education research — would bring a prescriptive recipe for the investigative trajectory. Thus, analysis and reflection became imperative for the construction of a trajectory that was being drawn throughout the process, always marked by a movement of (re)construction based on decisions resulting from scientific rigor and registers in the reconstruction of knowledge. According to Campos and Ribeiro (2017, p. 6), “[…] decisions are made throughout the study, and are contained in each element, from the choice and delimitation of the object to be investigated, to the final considerations elaborated from the author’s interpretations.”

For the construction of procedures and steps of bibliographic research, Salvador’s ideas (1986) on this methodology are of great relevance. In addition, even assuming the necessary flexibility for the adequacy of the bibliographic study in relation to the problem and the proposed objectives, the mapping of the works is based on the criteria elaborated from the literature review, the theoretical framework of the investigation and the problem presented as the guideline of the research (Pereira, 2018). The author reinforces that the keywords selected in the literature review and their unfolded terms should also be considered.

Therefore, the first step of bibliographic research consists in the survey of several works on the investigated theme, a procedure that involves the careful evaluation of the potential of each selected text in order to support the study’s propositions (Pereira, 2018).

As previously mentioned, the parameter used by Pereira (2018) for the bibliographic selection was the thematic aspect, in line with the initial keywords identified in the literature review, namely, “curriculum” and “multi-referentiality.” The unfolding of these keywords was also considered, considering other terms and expressions convergent to the theoretical contributions and that emerged throughout the readings made from the literature review. These developments, although semantically linked to the keywords, expanded the possibilities of dialogue and identification of studies that contributed to the research.

The second step consists of the study of the biography of each author and the survey of their potential works on the investigated theme, which will allow the definition of criteria for the selection of bibliographic sources that will compose the empirical corpus of the research (Pereira, 2018). Considering this initial result, it is necessary to read the presentation, abstract or introduction of each text, to confirm which will be more productive for the study. From there, for the maturation of this empirical material and construct a more refined final picture, the most appropriate productions of each author already selected are identified.

After the first contact with each work, with the aim to locate the main key terms and the terms that emerged throughout the readings, we proceed to an analytical, exploratory and selective reading. From there, a critical study is performed for each selected text, analyzing the thematic aspects, identifying the point of view of each author and mapping the ideas presented. In this process, the summarized ideas can be organized according to the relevance of the information, the problem and the objectives of the research.

Thus, the third step consists of the detailed analysis of each work by using a reading script. After the test of productivity and assertiveness of this script — which can be performed with the selection of a work —, this methodological instrument can also be used for the analysis and systematization of the other selected texts. It is worth pointing out that the script is the product of the practice of successive readings and the careful analysis of each material, making a record, without losing sight of the main question of the research. The following are the aspects that constituted the descriptive reading script that was prepared by Pereira (2018):

1. Criteria used for bibliographic selection:

   1. Keywords;

   2. Terms resulting from the implication of the keywords;

   3. Epistemology;

   4. Main sources on the subject.

2. Bibliographic details and location of works.

3. Characterization of works or articles:

   1. Main subject;

   2. Main concepts used;

   3. Theoretical perspective and convergence/approximation between the theoretical frameworks proposed by the research;

   4. Theoretical framework used by each author and approximations with the theoretical framework of the research.

4. Ideas from each work that contribute to the forwarding of the problem proposed in the research and to the objectives presented.

In works composed of many articles or essays by the same author or by different authors, the four aspects of the script (criteria for selection, bibliographic detailing, characterization of the work and ideas that contribute to the resolution of the research problem) can be worked by following a general analysis of the work.

After the preparation of the reading scripts, we proceed to the fourth step of the research, which consists of the preparation of an analytical framework that organizes, systematizes and highlights the uniqueness of each researcher/work (Pereira, 2018). Analytical frameworks are fundamental methodological resources to give greater clarity to the process and ensure that the specificities of each study and researcher are preserved in their irreducibility. The aspects that make up the analytical tables (Pereira, 2018) are:

• author and works;

• thematic aspects;

• key descriptors;

• most important concepts;

• main theoretical references;

• possible contributions/dialogues/approaches to the central problem of the research;

• central theses or hypotheses.

The great challenge of the research carried out by Pereira (2018) was to approximate the studies and theses of the selected researchers, respecting their specificities and what each one contributed, without reducing or amalgamating them. This analysis went beyond the identification of constitutive characteristics of multireferentiality as a theory of Education: it proposed to understand the tensions and conflicts of this bricolage as productive and positive, within the scope of this study.

Thus, during the bibliographic study, Pereira (2018) included a step that consisted of the bricolage between epistemologies and theories, considering purposes, meanings and uses for each theoretical framework presented, in a continuous movement of entertainment — proper to the bricoleur — which encompasses the following principles: self-organization, conditions away from balance, feedback, randomness, spontaneity and bifurcations (Kincheloe & Berry, 2007). It is worth noting that the bricolage process does not concern a simple collage of epistemologies, composing a patchwork quilt — it is, above all, an interweaving of meanings, considering the specificities and forms from which they are produced.

Following the logic of this concept, Kincheloe and Berry (2007, p. 102), authors who helped Pereira (2018) incorporate bricolage into the presented study, recall that rigorous research involves:

• connecting the object of investigation to the many contexts in which it is inserted;

• addressing the relationship between the researcher and what is being researched;

• connecting the production of meaning to the human experience;

• using textual forms of analysis while not losing sight of the fact that human beings who live and breathe are the entities around which and with which meaning is being produced;

• building a bridge between these forms of vision and informed action.

Bricolage requires mapping ideas that, in dialogue with these principles, goes beyond them. Thus, based on the studies by Kincheloe and Berry (2007), which deal with the “structure of complexity and rigor” (p. 128) in this methodology, the principles of multireferentiality were treated by Pereira (2018) as a “gateway” (Kincheloe & Berry, 2007, p. 128) to bricolage, which enabled forms of (re)signifying the curriculum.

In this understanding of bricolage, the fifth step consisted of elaborating a conceptual map. The multiple references of each author were cross-sectioned from the possible approximations. This feature made the connections of studies and theses more visible, allowing for a detailed look at the complex reality that was beginning to bricolate. The step also allowed for a detailed look at each idea, thesis or theory, giving greater clarity of where and why they could be intertwined or not, always respecting the particularities of each one.

This process proved to be rich in dialogical possibilities. This only proves the richness and complexity of the bricolage of references that themselves are open to dialogisms, bringing in their conception a complex approach to educational facts and phenomena.

Pereira (2018) states that bibliographic research involves a series of steps that can be combined or not with bricolage. The steps suggested by the author in the bibliographic research are: a) first step: gathering of potential works for the study and careful evaluation of the potential of each selected text, in order to support the study’s propositions; b) second step: study of the biography of each author and definition of the empirical corpus with the establishment of criteria for selecting the bibliographic sources found; c) third step: detailed analysis of each work from a reading script; d) fourth step: preparation of an analytical framework that organizes, systematizes and highlights the singularities of each researcher/work; e) fifth step: mapping of categories of analysis, assumptions (resulting from the convergences of theories), theses and hypotheses based on the possible dialogues.

Final remarks

Resuming the objectives of this article, we justify the choice of addressing two methodologies — documentary analysis and bibliographic research — in the same discussion space. As already mentioned, bibliographic sources can be taken as documents when treated according to their monumentality, having historiography work as objective. On the other hand, bibliographic research has other specificities in the ways of treating the sources.

Discussions about bibliographic research are still lacking in the Education field; this methodology is often confused with literature review or state of the art. Given the lack of methodological foundation on the subject, we prioritize, throughout the section, the presentation of a bibliographic research that explains the step-by-step approach taken during the investigation.

The objective, therefore, was to confront these two perspectives, exposing the theoretical and methodological elements that distinguish them, which are directly related to the research problem — the guiding thread of the investigator’s choices, including in relation to analytical tools and ways of operating with them.

We end this article hoping to have contributed to the discussions on documentary research and bibliographic research in the area of Education, with the conviction that much can still be said and thought about the topic.

• 2
  References correction and bibliographic normalization services : Andreza Silva (Tikinet) – [e-mail].
• 3
  English version: Thiago Sueto (Tikinet) – [e-mail]
• 4
  Funding: CNPq. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – Bolsa produtividade e pesquisa A2.
• 5
  The notion of bricolage is developed in the fifth methodological step presented in this section. It should be noted that this concept was adopted based on the methodologies followed by Pereira (2018), but that it is not necessarily a step of bibliographic research.

Referências

• Bacellar, C. (2005). Uso e mau uso dos arquivos. In C. B. Pinsky (Org.). Fontes históricas (pp.23-79). Contexto.
• Borges, V. P. (1994). O que é História Brasiliense.
• Burke, P. (2005). O que é história cultural? Jorge Zahar Editora.
• Campos, L. R.G., & Ribeiro, M. R. R. (2017). O método da bricolage em pesquisas em saúde e enfermagem – construindo o caminho ao caminhar. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem, 26(4), 2-8.
• Cellard, A. (2012). A análise documental. In J. Poupart. A pesquisa qualitativa: enfoques epistemológicos e metodológicos (pp.295-316). Vozes.
• Certeau, M. (1982). A Escrita da História Forense Universitária.
• Duby, G. (1989).Diálogos sobre a nova história Dom Quixote.
• Hartog, F. (2013). Regimes de historicidade: presentismo e experiências do texto Autêntica.
• Kincheloe, J. L., & Berry, K. S. (2007). Pesquisa em educação: conceituando a bricolagem Artmed.
• Le Goff, J. (1996). História e Memória UNICAMP.
• Luca, T. R. (2005). História dos, nos e por meio dos periódicos. In C. B. Pinsky (Org.). Fontes históricas (pp.111-153). Contexto.
• May, T. (2004). Pesquisa documental: escavações e evidências. In Pesquisa social: questões métodos e processos (pp.206-230). Artmed.
• Meneses, U.T. B. (2003). Fontes visuais, cultura visual, História visual: balanço provisório, propostas cautelares. Revista Brasileira de História, 23(45), 11-36.
• Michaelis (2015). Bibliografia. In Michaelis Online. Recuperado em 25 mar. 2022 de https://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno-portugues/busca/portugues-brasileiro/bibliografia/
  » https://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno-portugues/busca/portugues-brasileiro/bibliografia/
• Pereira, A. P. M. (2018) Constituição de um currículo multirreferencial: caminhos possíveis [Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade do Vale do Rio Sinos]. Repositório Digital da Biblioteca da Unisinos. http://www.repositorio.jesuita.org.br/handle/UNISINOS/7658
  » http://www.repositorio.jesuita.org.br/handle/UNISINOS/7658
• Porta, M. A.G. (2014). A Filosofia a partir de seus problemas: didática e metodologia do estudo filosófico Edições Loyola.
• Ragazzini, D. (2001). Para quem e o que testemunham as fontes da História da Educação? Educar, 18, 13-28.
• Romanowski, J. P., & Ens, T. R. (2006). As pesquisas denominadas do tipo “estado da arte” em educação. Diálogo Educacional, 6(19), 37-50.
• Rousso, H. (1996). O Arquivo ou o Indício de uma Falta. Estudos Históricos, 9(17), 85-91.
• Salvador, A. D. (1986). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa bibliográfica Sulina.
• Samara, E. M., & Tupy, I. S. S.T. (2010). História & Documento e metodologia de pesquisa Autêntica Editora.
• Veiga-Neto, A. J. (2003). Foucault & a Educação Autêntica.
• Veyne, P. (1998). Como se escreve a história e Foucault revoluciona a história Editora Universidade de Brasília.

Edited by

1

Responsible Editor: André Luiz Paulilo. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8112-8070

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 June 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  12 Nov 2020
• Accepted
  22 Feb 2021