10 anos do mestrado em história da PUC Goiás (2007-2017)

Abstract

This study was developed through a bibliographical and documentary research, distributed into three chapters that seek to understand the valorization of institutional memory and the historical process concerning the consolidation of Brazilian Higher Education institutions. An analysis was carried out regarding the consolidation of Higher Education institutions in the state of Goiás, prioritizing the history of the Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás and its Master’s Degree in History. The aim of this research is to support studies related to the theme of institutional memory importance and archive valorization, seeking to articulate the scientific knowledge allied to the historical process of the creation of the Master 's Degree in History in 2007. During the research the following main authors were used Baldino (1991), Balbachevsky (2004), Barros (2009), Boaventura (1989), Cordeiro (2010), Cunha (1980), Halbswachs (1950), Martins (2002), Nora (1993), Pollak (1992), Saviani (2008) and Teixeira (1976), among other scholars in this field. The data collection was carried out through reading books, articles, dissertations, theses, the Sucupira Platform and institutional sites that provide data concerning the course and an understanding of the moment of creation of the Master's Degree in History, passing through the creation story of the University itself in Brazil, Goiás. Throughout history, it is clear that government rulers have encouraged private higher education mainly during the military regime, where it has undergone several international influences, including regarding postgraduate program evaluation and creation conceptions in Brazil. Faced with the analysis of the institutional data of the Master's course in History, it is evident that, after 10 years of operation, there have been numerous changes, which have been in place since the formation of the faculty with fewer doctors in history in relation to the student body. The same is evident in the initial formation of masters with a reduced number of historians. Such movements should be considered because, given the current scenario, they can produce effects that may de-characterize the initial proposal of the program that emerged in 2006. We hope that this study can contribute to the institutional memory of the course, the institution itself and of researchers in the history field.