INTRODUCTION

If Distance Education (DE) was constantly expanding in recent decades, the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus certainly intensified this process. Due to the necessary measures of social distancing and isolation, many institutions have resorted to emergency remote teaching⁴ and, consequently, to the use of different digital technologies as a way to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic scenario in the educational scope. Distance education, considering its specificities of separation in time and/or space, came to be seen as an alternative or, in several experiences, a necessity to adapt to the new configurations of the teaching-learning process. Those courses that were already carried out through this modality generally had less significant changes, adapting better to the pandemic period. On the other hand, all face-to-face courses were adapted, causing institutions to expand the use of DE tools.

Given these considerations, the main objective of this article is to examine causal relationships in the process of organic incorporation of distance education in public universities. For that, we start from data collected with professionals who work or have worked in the scope of the Open University System of Brazil (UAB - Sistema Universidade Aberta do Brasil). As an epistemological matrix, we have the comprehensive Weberian sociology. The goal is to understand institutionalization under a recursive character, in which the attribution of subjective meaning to social action is constituted as a founding characteristic. Furthermore, we understand this incorporation of modality as an essentially dialectical phenomenon, driven by immanent contradictions.

The structure of the text begins with a general presentation that contextualizes the concept of institutionalization from which we start. Then, we briefly present the methodology and methodological procedures of the research. After that, there is a discussion based on the data collected, on the fundamental characteristics of the institutionalization of DE, on the typical contradictions and the consequent internal debates. Subsequently, we follow with the definition of dialectic, together with a causal explanation for the phenomenon investigated. Finally, we present some considerations to complete the text and place our study in the midst of discussions in the area.

WHY AND HOW TO ANALYZE THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

The institutionalization of DE is an essential condition for the continuity of the modality. Generally, the Brazilian experience with this modality is part of a bureaucratic apparatus that, historically, is accommodated to the regular offer of face-to-face education only. As we see in ^{Mill and Veloso (2021}), the insertion of distance education represents innovation and generates estrangement or even destabilization of a culturally incorporated order. Many institutions, with all their resources, organization and structure traditionally adequate and directed to face-to-face education, are faced with an effervescence when the incorporation of distance courses that, in different measures, subvert the institutional order, effervescence that, related to perception of the subjects, it generates many resistances. Due to lack of knowledge or even the dispute for resources, those more engaged with face-to-face education tend to be prejudiced against distance education, rejecting it or, in different ways, resisting it. That is why, after the initial period of estrangement and with the consequent dissemination of the practice and culture associated with the modality, naturalization is sought as a way to cool down resistance and then ensure its assimilation.

In the case of public universities, discussions about institutionalizing distance education take on other contours that, in many ways, are more complex. In recent years, the UAB System has been the main public policy for distance higher education in the country (^{FERREIRA; CARNEIRO, 2015}). Responsible for exerting coercive pressure on the configuration of distance education, the UAB System ends up standardizing actions in the modality, through funding related to specific public notices. With the role of stimulating the offer of distance courses, this policy certainly brought significant changes at the heart of universities, such as the hiring of professors, structuring of managing bodies, incentive to research, investment in infrastructure, induction of offers, among others. However, even today, it is discussed to what extent the fundamental experiences in the institutions germinated and how this has led to the organic incorporation of distance education. After almost 15 years, does the modality still depend to a large extent on the UAB System to continue to exist in universities?

Certainly, the pandemic intensified this debate, especially because, with the social distancing and isolation measures, institutions had to adapt to emergency remote teaching. Now, how did the presence of distance education and all its cultural apparatus contribute to mitigating the impacts of the pandemic scenario? The answer to this question is extremely intricate and demands investigations focused on the reality of universities. Anyway, the discussion about the need to effectively institutionalize distance education was brought up, in addition to pointing out the mishaps that persist in this process. If the modality were organically incorporated into institutions, permeating the organizational culture, it is certain that the needs to adapt to social distancing and isolation would have been faced in different ways. As ^{Nascimento and Vieira (2016}) emphasize, institutionalizing distance education is currently important, because it would enabledecision-making regarding the inclusion of this modality as an institutional alternative for teaching and learning, among other things.

Thus, in this text, we seek to review the understanding of the phenomenon to identify its functioning and the specificities that shape it. Our focus is on public universities (state and federal) from all regions of the country that work within the UAB System. We start from the understanding that institutionalizing distance education represents crystallizing procedures and practices, guaranteeing its ability to reproduce and, consequently, its legitimacy. Strictly speaking, it is a continuum, composed of levels or gradations that are constituted and allow the evaluation of degrees of development of the process that does not occur in a binary way (^{FERREIRA; CARNEIRO, 2015}). Therefore, the incorporation of the modality is considered to overcome the qualifiers “face-to-face” and “distance” (^{FERREIRA; MILL, 2014}). By institutionalizing, we also understand the ability to reproduce, so that, for that, legitimacy must be guaranteed. Therefore, the interpretation that the people make and, consequently, the focus on social action become essential elements to understand recursion (^{MACHADO-DA-SILVA; FONSECA; CRUBELLATE, 2005}).

To understand the dynamics and organizational culture that affect subjectivity and allow the reproduction of institutional practices - as in the case of distance education -, we resort to comprehensive sociology. The focus on the subjective meaning attributed to social action is the mainstay of our analytical enterprise. We emphasize that this article is a part of a doctoral research that has Weberian sociology as its epistemological matrix. Therefore, this analytical perspective shapes the entire structuring of the methodological procedures, and the way of approaching the data. For ^{Weber (2016)}, the understanding of human behavior obtained through interpretation generates qualitatively specific evidence, considered sui generis. According to ^{Colliot-Thélène (2016)}, action can be considered social when there is a relationship to another. However, its heuristic capacity is associated with the researcher's understanding, through the interpretation of the subjective meaning attributed by the agents. This means that Weberian postulates bring to the discussion the understanding of social structures from the collective practices that constitute them. Organizations, including universities, come to be understood as “developments and intertwining of specific actions of individual people, since only these can be subjects of an action that is oriented in a direction” (^{WEBER, 2016}, p. 623). ).

In other words, the Weberian perspective that underlies our analysis concerns the understanding that the object of study is profiled, ultimately, by the intertwining of actions between the subjects. ^{Weber (2016)} understands that socially oriented and meaningful action concerns the expectations that result not only from the actions of other individuals, but also from a rationally elaborated statute, in the case of so-called associations. Regarding the universities, the behaviors that guide institutional practices are guided: on the one hand, by the reciprocal expectation generated by social action, whether based on consensus or guided by dissent. On the other hand, by bureaucracy and, more precisely, by the rationally elaborated statute that engenders institutional expectations responsible for influencing action. Thus, our Weberian approach starts from the premise that institutions have an organizational culture and a bureaucratic apparatus that exert a certain coercive pressure to ensure the probability of an action attentive to institutional expectations. However, the conduct of the act depends on the interpretation made by the subjects. It is in this sense that resistance, prejudice, the ethos that permeates universities, etc. are at the heart of the process that we will detail later.

With these considerations, we move on to our theoretical effort, based on empirical evidence, to start from a notion that is already settled on the institutionalization of distance education and through this, move towards a causal explanation of the phenomenon that has the dialectic as a conceptual instrument. Since the organic incorporation of the modality involves institutional clashes - that is, movements of resistance and destabilization of the order -, we seek to understand how the antagonisms shape the process. With the Weberian epistemological matrix, we conceive institutions as clusters of subjects who act by attributing meaning to their action. This is important, because, although we present, further on, a structural view of the process, referring also to the bodies, sectors, departments, etc., we are not disregarding that all these structures, even though they form sets that transcend the mere result of the sum of individuals, they are, in the last case, people who give them shape, in their actions. We will see that the contradictions immanent in the apprehension of distance education and face-to-face education as dichotomous modalities, denying each other, constitute the basis of the struggles that move institutionalization as an essentially dialectical process. However, without losing sight of the historical-social conditions that make any actions possible, we are always aware that institutionalization is, to any extent, a human phenomenon, that is, driven by and dependent on subjects, who interpret reality and, thus, act in different ways.

METHODOLOGY

Before proceeding to the analysis of the data, we summarize our methodology. A synthesis, because, as we said, this article is part of a larger undertaking, involving several steps and methodological procedures. As the results presented here constitute the researchers' view of the totality, there is no way to get rid of the larger research, which would give a false character of partial analysis, when the interpretations of this text were only possible due to the contact with all data, including the collection processes. But the presentation of the methodology in its entirety, without being synthetic, would tend to consume too many pages, leaving us less space for what we understand to be the main contribution of this article; that is, the causal explanation of the phenomenon. Therefore, this text is an excerpt from the doctoral research carried out within the scope of the Graduate Program in Education at the Federal University of São Carlos (PPGE-UFSCar), developed as part of the efforts of the Study and Research Group on Innovation in Education, Technologies and Languages ​​(Horizon-UFSCar Group). This is an investigation submitted to the Ethics Committee for Research on Human Beings of UFSCar, which was approved through opinion number 2,647,439. In this sense, we used methodological triangulation in the research as a way of collecting and analyzing data from different instruments and strategies. We seek to apprehend the phenomenon in view of its large scale, using, specifically, the methodological procedures indicated in Chart 1.

Source: the authors.

Chart 1 - Methodological research procedures. 

To conceptualize the instruments in Chart 1 without incurring in excesses that would be counterproductive to our further analysis, given the limited space of this text, we emphasize that virtual focus groups can be defined as a collection method that is similar to the face-to-face focus group, with the difference of being carried out in virtual environments, without the need for the physical presence of the participants (^{ABREU; BALDANZA; GONDIM, 2009}). Despite the limitations, this format has some advantages, such as the possibility of bringing together participants from different regions, overcoming spatial barriers. We also mention the versatility in the production of data, since tools such as WhatsApp - used in our study - allow the creation of a document with the entire conversation recorded in text, in a practical and simple way.

As for the Delphi technique, it “is based on the selection of a group of informants socialized with the theme or context to be investigated, to which a questionnaire is applied, with exploratory characteristics, assembled to collect preliminary information that will be analyzed, defining the first round” (^{ANTUNES, 2014}, p. 66). This strategy can be used for different purposes, including the creation and validation of data collection instruments. The Delphi technique is a selection of experts to submit several rounds of an instrument (such as the questionnaire). At each new round, the researcher must present a summary of previous analyses, ensuring anonymity. The proposal is to seek a consensus, as the participants have the chance, at each new round, to review their answers, in view of the information presented by the other participants.

Regarding the semi-structured interview adopted, the collection was organized from a comprehensive perspective. According to ^{Kaufmann (2013}), the comprehensive process aims to interpret and explain reality through the data collected. The author states that the understanding of the subject is just an instrument, and the comprehensive explanation of the social is the main objective of the researcher (^{KAUFMANN, 2013}). Focusing on intropathy, the interpretation of the data was directed to the attempt to understand the reality through the eyes of the interviewed individuals. Data appreciation was centered to propose causal explanations for the phenomenon, considering the subjective meaning attributed to social action.

For the analysis, we used qualitative and quantitative approaches. For ^{Valerio and Paniago (2020}), adapting the analysis method and procedures to the research objectives is essential to reach the proposed questions. According to ^{Abreu, Baldanza and Gondim (2009}), the combination makes it possible to delve into issues that sometimes cannot be measured numerically. That is why complementarity, according to these authors, is perhaps the path most aligned with the needs of social phenomena. Thus, we emphasize that our study starts from a multifaceted approach, based on different collection instruments to understand the object in all its complexity. We understand the methodological triangulation as a way of using different approaches, methods and sources of collection, reaching more in-depth results and under different perspectives.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PUBLIC DISTANCE EDUCATION

First, we analyzed the data collected in our research to define the empirical characteristics that make up institutionalization. We know that, in public universities, the UAB System is the main driver of distance education (^{FERREIRA; CARNEIRO, 2015}). Through it, many institutions had their first or most significant experience in the modality. Others, even though they had participated in distance courses considered pioneers, adapted to the UAB as a way to raise resources and invest massively in distance education, as shown by ^{Barrera (2018}) in the case of the University of Brasília (UnB). In this sense, as soon as the modality enters the institutional bosom from a specific public policy, we witness the beginning of the resistance processes. According to ^{Mill and Veloso (2021}), institutionalizing a DE system involves the movement of reception and naturalization beyond the design of courses, going through aspects such as structuring subjects, teacher training, monitoring students, process management, etc. These authors also claim that, while it is inserted in the context of the institution, sometimes already accommodated and established in terms of face-to-face courses, it generates the destabilization of the structure. This precedes the DE integration and accommodation processes.

In the case of public institutions, due to their notably bureaucratic character, based on consultative and deliberative bodies that, representing the different instances of the university community, direct the actions, it is clear that the concern generated by the presence of distance courses is accompanied by strong movements of debate imbued with prejudice. This may be related to several factors, such as reluctance with regard to innovation or even fear about the quality of courses (^{NASCIMENTO; VIEIRA, 2016}). Therefore, in addition to external obstacles, related to elements such as cutting resources or linking to projects, the modality also faces internal problems, such as the resistance of agents and structures (^{BARRERA, 2018}). In any case, the UAB System invested massively in the expansion of distance education, contributing to the structuring of managing bodies, expansion of infrastructure and technologies, hiring technical-administrative staff, and the selection of professors to work in distance courses. This public policy of induction was the main driving force responsible for distance courses in universities. Even though there have been resistance movements in the face of the disquiet and destabilization provided by the presence of distance education in the structure, UAB funding boosted the modality, and, throughout the internal debates, important advances were achieved, such as insertion in the bureaucratic apparatus ( Table 1).

With the exception of resolutions referring to the offer of distance courses in face-to-face education, DE is already included in most other normative documents of the 25 institutions represented by the managers participating in the investigation. This data indicates an advance in institutionalization, which, in different ways, can contribute to reducing prejudice and resistance, which is crucial to ensuring the ability to reproduce. Other important processes have also erupted within the institutional framework, such as debates related to the incorporation of teaching effort in distance courses within the bureaucracy. In some realities, as we identified in the interviews, it was possible to equate the work in distance education with that of face-to-face education. In the questionnaire, we found that 11 universities represented by the managers in the study (44% of the sample) already consider the teaching effort in distance education as an element of performance evaluation for career progression. The same amount (44%) also considers the work in distance education as a responsibility of the teacher to fill the weekly workload.

In addition to the gradual insertion of the modality in the bureaucratic apparatus, the induction of the UAB System provided the creation of management bodies. Structuring as nuclei, secretariats, directorships or superintendencies, these bodies have been responsible for taking the lead in distance education actions in the institution, being responsible not only for offering and structuring distance courses, but also for offering training and support to professors, organization of scientific events in the area, production of research, development of teaching materials with digital technologies, dialogue with other institutions to establish partnerships, among others. Despite the specificities regarding each experience, it appears that these management bodies have become fundamental in the process of insertion of the modality, moving institutional debates and contributing decisively to advances in institutionalization. When we agree that institutionalizing represents reducing resistance and ensuring the accommodation of new practices, such bodies, constituted as the vanguard, it has been essential in the process of incorporation of distance education.

In any case, if the data show us that some steps were climbed, this did not occur without intense struggle within the universities. In the interviews, the word “struggle” appeared in the speech of several participants to define institutionalization as a process of overcoming prejudices, involving internal conflicts. Let's see examples:

We... we have, it's... struggled [sighs showing a certain tiredness when thinking about it], in this sense of achieving this inclusion [of distance education in the university's budget matrix], why? We, as professors of... of this academic unit, often, we end up hearing, from some people who are resistant to distance education, that our salary is paid by the budget matrix and that it is paid by face-to-face courses [... ] So, our struggle is for it to be equated [the performance in distance education with that in face-to-face education in terms of progression in the teaching career], because we work in the same way, we work with... also with research, with, yeah... outreach, and we also work in the administrative part, we have... we do everything in the same way as those who work in the course are... face-to-face, right. So we always ask for this equivalence (MANAGER A⁵).

We have [DE representation in the higher councils], it was a struggle, right? [...] Huh. So, it was a struggle, like, to get the coordinators, mainly from the UAB offer, to participate, to have a seat on the campus council, on the teaching commission. So, there is an ordinance, for these coordinators, you know, an internal ordinance, they have a seat in the meetings of... council, of the teaching committee, ok? [...] And... a struggle for these distance education courses, is... offered by... by the Open University of Brazil, to be recognized as courses of the institution too, right? So, it was always the struggle, the ordinance, you know, seats, it's... it's... the... the institution also absorbs the student's records, like the face-to-face, right (TRAINING TEACHER/APPLIER M).

Look, first of all it was this big struggle that we had, oh, six months on the board. Six months. We took it off the agenda several times when we felt it was dangerous, we took it off the agenda, it's... because we changed the university regiment. We took the words “distance education” out of the regiment. It doesn't have the word "distance”, ok? Why? Because we match the courses. Whether the course is distance learning or face-to-face, it is a course. So, the university treats it as a course, it's a course. Just like... so that was a struggle, you know? [...]. So, we matched, so matching distance education to face-to-face and transforming everything into teaching was a great struggle. It was not easy (MANAGER B).

An issue that we took some time, and still has outstanding points, concerns the internal normative acts in HEIs [Higher Education Institutions]. In the ***⁶ what I saw, and I fought hard to change, was to call institutionalization only the initial approval to create a course and approve them in the superior councils. This is not institutionalizing. It's just the first step. Give an institutional character to distance education and give it all the legal instruments for its progress and full success. It seems obvious, but it was only after a long time that attention was paid to things such as: deadlines for dismissals, forms of internal transfer from the distance course to the face-to-face course or vice versa, consideration of the right of students to vote in elections for dean, academic calendars compatible with distance education, in short... (TRAINING TEACHER/APPLIER B).

When describing the advances in the incorporation of distance education, including important movements to include the modality in the bureaucratic apparatus, the participants reveal, in some speeches, the struggles that constitute the process. These are clashes that are recurrently linked to the prejudices and resistance that the modality faces as it becomes part of the institutional routine. Although the development of the DE has contributed to reduce some of the contradictions, especially due to the institutions' successful experiences in training distance students, prejudice persists and has not been entirely overcome. To measure this resistance, we addressed the issue in the questionnaire, and the managers indicated their perspective on a scale from 1 (no prejudice/resistance) to 5 (a lot of prejudice/resistance) for each of the listed contexts. We quantified the answers and calculated the arithmetic mean, excluding those managers who, in each item, indicated “I don't know how to inform” (Table 2).

In the view of managers, prejudice among professors who work in face-to-face education is still great, followed by that prejudice among students in face-to-face courses. In other contexts, prejudice is below level 3; that is, below the level considered median on the scale from 1 to 5 presented to the research participants. To deepen the data, we approached this theme in the interviews, allowing us to demonstrate that resistance still exists in the institutions, although, in the perception of some professionals, it has decreased over time.

There is an institutional prejudice, it's... because, for example, of... the lack of representation that we talked about at the beginning, there's no representation in the councils, right? DE doesn't... doesn't dialogue as it should with the Dean of Education, with the Dean of Extension, Dean of Research... it doesn't have one, right... there is no greater interaction. It could have... and that ends up... it's still something, right... in a smaller dose of prejudice, right? (TRAINING TEACHER/APPLIER F).

Because, well... this I see at *** and at other universities like ***, there are areas that are very prejudiced against distance education, at *** there are many professors who are absolutely against distance education, at ** * Also... so, what happens... as these universities did not truly incorporate distance education as their own, they leave it to Cederj... nobody thinks, nobody looks into it, nor... to... to dialogue to develop these projects [together with professors from different universities that participate in Cederj] (TRAINING TEACHER/APPLIER L).

Yes. It was big [prejudice before the pandemic] because of what I'm telling you. Because, part of the prejudice, it didn't come from the guy thinking that doing distance education was bad. It's from the mix that it brought. Additional work, lack of control over what is happening. A... a lack of knowledge of what was there in that... in that distance education action, because it was very focused and very on top of a group that was the same group that was repeating itself for... from the beginning, with few new additions, right? So, she had this prejudice... the student who doesn't... thinks... is... and... and the following thing is something, very connected to the labor issue, right, in the case of teachers, with speeches that there was no discussion, that... then the guy doesn't like it, because he didn't have experience, he thinks, you know, that it has to be like this, that it's only the face-to-face that solves, right (MANAGER D).

No, in general, there is no department, therefore, that is against [DE]. There are professors who are against it. Not department as a whole. So much so that in... in science and technology, already... the subjects, when they are reformulated, they already include the use of distance education in part of the course. They're already so reformulating leaving the gap. Although many are not using it, but the subject is already able to... to use it (MANAGER B).

The persistence of prejudice in universities demonstrates an important facet of institutionalization. We refer to the attempts to reject distance education, resisting it, leading to struggles that are fundamental in the movement of the process. In this sense, our data also show critical aspects, such as the representation of distance education in university councils, since the modality does not have this representation in 13 (52%) of the universities whose managers answered to the questionnaire. When discussing the presence of distance education in the councils or about the inclusion of distance courses in the budget matrix, for example, Manager A and Manager B even stated that, at certain times, they had to step back and withdraw the subject of the agenda, since the clashes could incur greater reluctance. If distance education still faces prejudice and resistance, promoting institutional struggles, we believe that this stems, at least partially, from the dependence on public notices adopted by the UAB System, as seen in Tables 3 and 4.

Adding two points from Table 3, we observed that, in 72% of the universities participating in the study, there is either no budget forecast or this forecast is linked only to the courses offered under the UAB System. In 23 (92%) of the institutions, the main financial subsidies for the modality come from this public policy, so that other sources of resources are scarce in the vast majority of realities. Thus, in approximately 15 years of specific support for distance education through the UAB, the almost total dependence of universities on external funding, outside the universities' budget matrix, is still observed. In the interviews with managers and professors, the need for more resources and/or linking the resources to the budget matrix was also recurrent.

In our view, this dependence on the UAB System not only weakens the continuity of distance courses and makes the institutionalization of distance education difficult, but also reveals that the modality is still linked to a specific model. The need to resort to external funding as a way to ensure distance education practices makes universities maintain the larger structure established by a public policy. Selection of tutors (distance and face-to-face) through public notices, granting of scholarships to professors who work in the courses, use of face-to-face support centers, greater targeting of proposals for training teachers and managers, among others, are just some of the characteristics that define the UAB. Even though progress has been made in some ways regarding the incorporation of distance education, experiences in public universities are still largely dependent on external funding and, consequently, on an established model that acts coercively in the materialization of course proposals. Coercive pressure within the organizational environment, which includes State action (^{DIMAGGIO; POWELL, 2005}), plays an important role in the configuration of public distance courses.

The way how this UAB model was conceived and as it is lately maintained in universities brings a series of contradictions that directly contribute to the maintenance of dichotomies between realities. In the first place, as it is a public policy that ensures distance courses in a project nature, distance education is assigned a status of activity parallel to the institutional routine. The problems that permeate the costing format established by the UAB, granting scholarships to professors and tutors and making work precarious, are also decisive in the contradictions that feed prejudice and resistance. ^{Pesce (2007}) discusses the contradictory elements of the institutionalization of distance education in Brazil, addressing issues such as training proposals less interested in critical capacity than in technical-instrumental training, dependence on multilateral organizations in education conceptions, democratization of access without concern for quality, etc.

From our analyses, we can list, without exhausting the discussion, other contradictions specifically deriving from the UAB model: inclusion of professors - tutors and other external professionals - in a highly excluding work regime - without employment relationship, with precarious remuneration, without direct insertion in the bureaucracy etc.; the use of face-to-face support centers that, in practice, constitute, for many students and courses, spaces for formal evaluation with the loss of the ideals of decentralization of university activities; the model instituted by public promotion policy in contrast to attempts at institutional adequacy - are they UAB or university courses?; consideration of students as students of the institution, however, without the due equalization of opportunities such as research grants, student aid and others; etc.⁷

Given this, our data reveal the driving force of institutionalization as an essentially dialectical phenomenon. The dichotomous visions between distance education and face-to-face education, which permeate the routine of universities, is established as a central point of the institutional struggles that move and outline the advances, but also setbacks in the incorporation of the modality. We understand that, when distance courses are inserted in the light of the model established by the UAB, realities are conceived in a kind of antagonism. The precariousness of teaching (^{VELOSO, 2020}), the fear that the modality may decrease the quality of public higher education, the fear that distance education may “steal” students from face-to-face (TRAINING TEACHER/APPLIER K), among others reasons that lead to the view that both realities would be antagonists in a struggle for resources and survival. It is as if distance education, given its condition as an emergency project and policy, conceived as alien to the institutional routine, incurs contradictions that culminate in the attempt to deny face-to-face education, however, rooted in universities due to its historical presence, the face-to-face education reacts to the inclusion of distance courses with resistance. Often, these two modalities are mistakenly conceived as substitutes, and not as complementary.

With all these characteristics, we reaffirm that, in the manner in which it has been developed, public distance education, linked to the UAB System, is involved in contradictions, given that distance courses are positioned, in many ways, in an antagonistic way when it comes to respect to face-to-face education. Links to projects and partial or total dependence on external resources give the modality a status of activity parallel to the institutional routine. Contradictions also permeate the antagonistic visions between the specificities of distance education and face-to-face education, as if they were irreconcilable realities or that need to fight for sovereignty. The clashes over resources, which were intensifying while the UAB's funding was dwindling, also intensified the antagonisms. Sometimes, resistance and prejudice relate precisely to this conception that realities would be contradictory, not being able to coexist in a harmonious and fruitful way. This reciprocal negation between distance education and face-to-face education not only generates institutional tensions, but also moves the entire dialectical process of institutionalization. The data from the interviews demonstrate these dichotomies, which, even today, persist.

Because it's as if distance education wasn't something from the university... it's from Cederj⁸, and the university endorses it. It is something that is still very distant... so, although it is in the IDP, in pedagogical, research and extension terms, it is still one thing, it is... very distant from... because internally universities already have difficulties in dialogue between the different areas. Some more, some less... well, you know (TRAINING TEACHER/APPLIER L).

And this is not just for the ***, no, this happens in all federal and state universities, because they all work within the scope of public notices, right, even so, we already have... we end up having this periodicity, because all... every four, five years there is a new public notice, the university ends up offering the same course, so this gives the false illusion that the course is from... the university, but not, like, the course itself... it's only there with... with the university's seal of approval, but the course is promoted by another body, in this case by Capes. So, this ends up being bad, and people who are not part of the environment say: “well, it's not from the university, oh so this is a course without value, oh this is a course that is just for, it's... for the student to enter, it's easier, it's something like that”. It's a lot of prejudice and little knowledge (MANAGER C).

So, yes, prejudice, but this prejudice, it was... it was changing the way, right. The prejudice before was because you had a lot, “ah, it's the guy... the bad guy [DE student] who can't pass, who doesn't have time to study, and... if he was really good he would be in the night [course], right”. Without understanding the profile of the guy who is studying. This migrated to a problem of a mixture between...a competition between DE and face-to-face education, within the university (MANAGER D).

Constituted as an eminently human phenomenon, the institutionalization of distance education has the founding characteristic: it fights to overcoming resistance and prejudice, and these result from contradictions, that is, from the dichotomous visions between the two realities. In view of the data, we realize that there have been advances in some aspects, such as the inclusion of distance courses in an important part of the bureaucratic apparatus, with special attention to normative documents. Prejudice, at least in the perception of managers, has also decreased in strategic sectors, such as rectory, pro-rectories and departments. However, if the dependence on external support still persists, as well as the prejudice among professores that contributes to the maintenance of contradictions and antagonisms, how will the effective incorporation of distance education occur? We understand that this path converges to the notion of hybrid education. For that, we propose dialectics as a conceptual instrument to explain the development of the phenomenon. We will address this in subsequent sections.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION AS A DIALECTIC PHENOMENON

We previously demonstrated those specificities that make up the institutionalization of distance education in public universities. By placing contradictions at the heart of the process, we use dialectics as a conceptual instrument to explain causal relationships. Our focus remains on the action of subjects, as we understand institutions as an intertwining of individuals who act. All structures are, in the final analysis, agglomerations of people who, interpreting concrete reality, attribute meaning to their actions. But we will seek, from here, to discuss the larger structures of the DE institutionalization process. We begin with a definition of dialectic, clarifying the concept used, and then we present the way in which this concept is linked to the organic incorporation of distance education in institutions. Finally, we seek to explain the modus operandi of the process, paying attention to what, in dialectics, we understand as double negation.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In this article, we seek to show how the institutionalization of distance education can be seen as an essentially dialectical phenomenon. Given the contradictions that permeate the UAB System, there are intense institutional debates that not only outline but also materialize and move the process. While they deny each other, the modalities sustain struggles arising, to a large extent, from the prejudice that persists in universities. If face-to-face education, due to its historical presence in the midst of institutions, starts to deny distance education, it cannot eradicate it. Especially because the maintenance of external financing, over time, guarantees the historical, social and material conditions for the struggles that give movement to institutionalization. However, dependence on the UAB not only highlights the fragility of distance education courses, but also demonstrates that dichotomies persist in the institutional routine. We assume that the apogee of the process, in which distance education can be organically incorporated into universities, is when the model established by an emergency public policy is overcome, culminating in the harmony between realities. It means that the synthesis, in a structural view, results in hybrid education, in which the qualifiers “face-to-face” and “distance” become secondary, with a greater focus on the educational process.

However, if we understand the overcoming of the UAB model as a sine qua non condition for the effective institutionalization of distance education, we must be careful not to generate confusion. Our data show us that, although hybrid education is possibly the synthesis of the entire process, this apogee of organic incorporation of the modality can only be reached when the institutional conditions are duly ensured. Each university has its development, depending on the historical-social reality, but also on the institutional actions of the subjects. We want to say that rejecting the UAB, without having reached the dialectical conditions of the process for its real overcoming, tends to lead to the dissolution of distance education. The dialectic understood here is not simply a rational process, in which subjects, at a given moment, decide to abandon the external financing of distance education courses. It is a whole conjuncture, resulting from the internal processes of thesis, antithesis and synthesis that ultimately lead to the overcoming of the UAB, insofar as, given the historical-social conditions, in addition to the structure and organizational culture, overcoming funding policy becomes a somewhat natural action. Overcoming the UAB System means reaching the dialectical conditions that culminate in the breakdown of dichotomies, reaching the superposition of realities, which is different from simply denying external funding which, in many institutions, is still the only way to maintain distance education.

There are several implications of this dialectical process. The model instituted by the UAB, for example, introduced a vision in the subjects that contributed to the maintenance of antagonisms. Furthermore, overcoming these dichotomies must take into account possible strategies to reduce prejudice and resistance. No less important is the discussion of how the focus on social action can be decisive in directing institutional practices to advancing the institutionalization of distance education. These and other analyzes are part of our research enterprise, but will later be considered and shared in other studies and reflections. We recognize that, in addition to the proposition presented here, as a way of explaining the phenomenon, many other questions and unknowns arise. Our intention in this article is simply to share a new look at institutionalization. Based on our definitions, we hope that other debates can be part of the research on distance education.

Preprint

DOI: www.scielo.org