Política educacional de extensão do IFG de 2009 a 2024: dialogicidade, contradições e limites da institucionalização

Abstract

This dissertation, which is part of the “Work, Policies, and Teacher Education” research track within the Stricto Sensu Graduate Program in Education at the Federal Institute of Goiás (PPGE/IFG), sought to critically analyze the IFG’s educational extension policy from 2009 to 2024, with an emphasis on its structure, management, scope, and funding, in order to identify the contradictions and mediations that characterize it. A qualitative approach grounded in historical-dialectical materialism was adopted. The research was structured around three complementary analytical strands: first, the historical reconstruction of the trajectory of Professional and Technological Education (EPT) and extension in Brazil, highlighting its connection to the contradictions of Brazilian social formation and the struggles inherent to a peripheral and dependent capitalism; second, a systematic review of the academic and scientific literature on extension at Federal Institutes (IFs) between 2009 and 2023 systematic review, systematizing 38 articles into six thematic areas and highlighting trends, gaps and the need for deeper theoretical and conceptual exploration in research in this field; finally, an analysis of the IFG’s extension policy based on configuration, management, scope, and funding indicators, grounded in Boschetti’s (2009) dialectical perspective and in a documentary analysis of the main institutional regulatory frameworks, the Annual Management Reports (AMRs), and data from the Extension Dean’s Office (Proex). The analyses show that the IFG has made significant progress in developing an extension concept aligned with the teaching, research, and extension dialogicity and inseparability principles, and a commitment to social transformation, in addition to regulatory frameworks production aimed at institutionalizing this dimension, notably Consup/IFG Resolutions No. 24/2019 and No. 208/2024, which regulate, respectively, extension activities and the extension curricular integration. However, this policy implementation faces persistent structural obstacles: budgetary fragility, marked by successive budget cuts and dependence on volatile resources such as parliamentary amendments and Decentralized Execution Agreements (TEDs); the asymmetry between normative discourse and administrative structure, which burdens Proex with responsibilities unrelated to its primary function and undermines the extension presence on campuses; the incipient implementation of Local Extension Plans (PLEs), fundamental instruments for the policy territorialization; and the disconnect between extension curricular integration and extension planning. The research indicates that the IFG’s extension policy, although formally grounded in critical and emancipatory principles, is consolidated in a contradictory and limited manner, strained by the Federal Network for Professional, Scientific, and Technological Education (RFEPCT) structural conditions, by educational counter-reforms, and by the capitalist logic determinations. It is concluded that an extension program consolidation that is effectively dialogical and transformative depends on overcoming these contradictions through the public funding expansion and stability, administrative restructuring that grants extension its proper institutional place, the strengthening of spaces for democratic management, and the effective articulation between curricula and the local communities demands, reaffirming extension as a strategic dimension for comprehensive education and for the higher education institutions social function fulfillment.