In recent decades, researchers and academic institutions have been warning about critical issues that profoundly impact society
*By Marcelo Batista Nery
I speak based on my trajectory, the institutions I worked in and the partnerships I established: the signs were there, and we warned them.
We warned about the rise of the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) when security officials insisted that the faction was overrated – long before the 2006 attacks. We warned about the imminent risk of a pandemic and its social consequences when influential voices downplayed the possibility – long before COVID-19. We warned about global warming and the impacts of extreme weather events when few in government prioritized the issue – long before the devastating floods and heat waves that have ravaged major Brazilian urban centers.
Yet, our warnings have not been heeded. We could point fingers, criticize the rise of anti-intellectualism, neglect, and resistance to acknowledging scientific evidence. However, it is also necessary to reflect from an academic perspective: why, despite all our efforts, have our voices not been heard enough?
In academic response: Our voices have not been heard because we believe that our arguments are sufficient – that all that authorities, influencers and rulers need is to be enlightened. For centuries, we have believed that we can evolve through education and science, combating ignorance and superstition. That is why we believe that reason is the primary tool for understanding the world and solving scientific, social and moral problems.
Evidence-based knowledge is undoubtedly essential and serves as an indispensable starting point for any field of knowledge. It provides the solid foundations on which we build our understandings and practices. However, especially in Brazil, an emotional catalyst is needed to provoke, connect ideas, explore new perspectives and, thus, develop deeper understandings about the world and the consequences of actions and inactions.
Here, our main catalyst has been affection and/or violence.
Factualness alone is not enough. Information transfer, therefore, is not limited to the simple transmission of valid information. It involves the ability to make the interlocutor care or fear.
When analyzing data related to social issues, information can be presented through visual resources, maps and infographics, making the issues more tangible and understandable to the general public. For example, showing how mortality is distributed in different areas of a city, its evolution over the years and the causes of concentrations of deaths can raise awareness about the profile of victims and the risks to the most vulnerable groups.
But this may not be enough. We cannot assume that analyzing, proving and showing the determinants of a social problem imply empathy, even when that problem involves preventable deaths caused by criminal factions, diseases or climate phenomena.
Today, there are new ways to make ourselves heard. Campaigns can be disseminated through social media, websites and other digital platforms, reaching audiences in a personalized way. For example, a campaign about violence can be adapted for different age groups, raising awareness among young people in one way and adults in another.
Technologies such as mobile apps and online platforms can be used to disseminate academic knowledge on social issues in real time. Augmented reality or virtual reality technologies can create immersive experiences, placing people in situations analogous to those experienced by those facing the most serious social problems. Data science can be used to create tools that offer support and guidance on critical social issues, such as human rights, health, the environment and citizenship. However, social, educational and digital inequalities still prevail over these alternatives.
In light of this, we face a reality in which technology only partially meets pressing communication needs, while emotional discourses predominate in the dissemination of knowledge and hatred prevails over scholarly dialogue. Furthermore, the limited scope of academic communication also contributes, to a large extent, to the formation of a generation that does not see the academic space as worthy of attention.
A generation that is increasingly averse to the idea of dedicating their time to undergraduate, master's, doctoral and similar degrees. Young people who believe that academia and science can be replaced by faster paths and solutions.
And there is some truth to this belief! The high cost of higher education leads young people to question whether the investment will be worth it in terms of future financial returns. For many, the prospect of starting work as early as possible or gaining practical experience seems more appealing than investing years in a university degree.
The digital environment, where informal learning, the exchange of experiences and access to content are abundant, makes many young people feel that they can learn on their own. The desire to be independent and build something of their own, without the need for a conventional academic background, is stronger than ever. The transformation of the job market, with emerging professions, has led many young people to seek alternative careers, in which university is not a fundamental requirement.
Furthermore, many young people perceive universities as outdated institutions, distant from the reality of the job market or disconnected from contemporary social and technological needs. Academia, perceived as a conservative space, generates disinterest. For many, it is seen as a space focused on theory and ideology, while the job market demands practical and immediate skills.
I don't know if I will be heard. However, I need to make another warning: higher education still plays a fundamental role. For example, in the formation of critical citizens.
Only these citizens will realize that, despite all the legitimate questions that can be raised about academia and academics, the cultural and cognitive capital gained at university makes all the difference – and that, generally, young people from wealthier families are less willing to forgo university and more willing to listen to evidence-based results than young people from poorer families.
I don't know if knowledge and emotion should go hand in hand in academia. I understand that this is not always the case. Despite everything, when we talk about it outside, the distance between academic discussions and the real problems of society can be reduced by connecting emotions to the content studied. It is this integration between reason and affection that can lead to a deeper understanding and, who knows, to more effective changes in our society, especially our violent one.
*Marcelo Batista Nery is a researcher at think tank from ABES and the Oscar Sala Chair at the Institute of Advanced Studies at USP (IEA-USP), coordinator of Technology Transfer and Head of the PAHO/WHO Collaborating Center (BRA-61) at the Center for Violence Studies at the University of São Paulo .
Notice: The opinion presented in this article is the responsibility of its author and not of ABES - Brazilian Association of Software Companies
Article originally published on the IT Forum website https://itforum.com.br/colunas/nos-avisamos-e-nao-fomos-ouvidos/
EN 
PT 
