Perceptions of teachers and students of the Faculty of Medical Sciences–UNA on the negotiation process during the 2015 Student Spring
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18004/Keywords:
Perception, negotiation, university conflict, student movement, university governanceAbstract
Introduction: The Paraguayan Student Spring of 2015, organised around the #UNAnoTeCalles movement, represented an institutional milestone at the National University of Asunción (UNA) by exposing corruption, clientelism, and governance inequality. The Faculty of Medical Sciences (FCM-UNA) was one of its main epicentres. Objective: To uncover the perceptions of FCM-UNA teachers and students regarding the negotiation process during the 2015 Student Spring. Methods: Qualitative study with a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach. Twenty participants were selected through purposive sampling (5 authorities, 5 tenured faculty, 5 non-tenured teachers, and 5 students). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using inductive content analysis with source and informant triangulation. Results: Four central categories emerged: tension between institutional dialogue and social pressure; facilitating factors: student unity, media visibility, and citizen support; barriers: distrust, power asymmetry, and absence of formal negotiation mechanisms; and lessons learned: empathetic dialogue, equitable participation, and an institutional culture of accountability. Conclusions: Negotiation in university contexts requires hybrid models integrating structured dialogue, active participation of all academic constituencies, and formal conflict resolution mechanisms.
References
1. Altbach, Philip G. Student politics in America: A historical analysis. Routledge, 2018.
2. Brunner JJ. Educación superior en América Latina: cambios y desafíos. Santiago: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1990.
3. UNESCO. Tendencias de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Paris: UNESCO-IESALC; 2008.
4. Tarrow S. Power in movement: social movements and contentious politics. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2011.
5. Castells M. Networks of outrage and hope: social movements in the internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2012.
6. Tünnermann Bernheim C. Noventa años de la Reforma Universitaria de Córdoba: 1918-2008. Buenos Aires: CLACSO; 2008.
7. Ordorika I. Educación superior y globalización: las universidades públicas frente a una nueva hegemonía. Andamios. 2006;3(5):31-47. doi: 10.29092/uacm. v3i5.340
8. Ferreira Bueno H. Caracterización de los sujetos sociales universitarios movilizados en las luchas de setiembre-octubre de 2015. Estudios Paraguayos. 2015;33(1-2):43-53.
9. Fisher R, Ury W. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin Books; 2011.
10. Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Barry B. Negotiation. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015.
11. Druckman D. Intuition or counterintuition? The science behind the art of negotiation. Negot J. 2009;25(4):431- 48. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00237.x
12. Thompson LL. The mind and heart of the negotiator. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2012.
13. Mintzberg H. Patterns in strategy formation. Management Sci. 1978;24(9):934-48. doi: 10.1287/ mnsc.24.9.934
14. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2018.
15. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/ mzm042
16. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-51. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
17. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2015.
18. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications; 1985.
19. Aranda Sánchez JM. El movimiento estudiantil y la teoría de los movimientos sociales. Convergencia. 2000;7(21):225-50.
20. Gentili, P., Saforcada, F., & Frigotto, G. Editores. Ciencias Sociales, producción de conocimiento y formación de posgrado. Buenos Aires: CLACSO; 2012.
