Systematic Literature Review

The first result contained in this article stems from the survey carried out in the systematic review of the literature. In this sense, the works contained in Table 02 were analyzed and sought to extract from each text clippings to support the elaboration of the questions contained in the questionnaire used in the empirical research.

In addition, such clippings were also used in the analysis of the results obtained in response to requests for information sent to Brazilian federal universities. Based on the content of the excerpts extracted, the texts were organized into categories, as shown in Table 2.

At this stage of surveying the scientific production on the subject, although no time frame was performed, it was identified that 2013 and 2022 were the years with the highest number of papers published, as can be seen in Graph 1. In addition, there is a prospect of an increase in academic production on the subject, as indicated by the trend line.

Source: Prepared by the author (2022)

Graph 1 Distribution of selected academic production by year 

Reading the works, it is identified that from the 1970s onwards, the movements of people with disabilities gained visibility and adherence in the country, being initially promoted by civil society initiatives in the light of an incipient state action (^{SOCHACZEWSKI; TAVARES, 2013}). In this sense, understanding disability as an evolving concept that results from the interaction between people with disabilities and environmental and attitudinal barriers that impair the effective equal participation of these people in society (^{SENNA, 2013}), it is necessary to consolidate inclusive actions that reveal themselves as measures of social justice and that, therefore, must be able to promote effective provision of the State, through access and continuity of public services (^{REBOUÇAS et al., 2011}).

Aside from access, the effectiveness of the public services provided must be guaranteed, which must be integrated and overcome the institutional (^{ZUCCO, 2013})fragmentation typical of a dysfunctional bureaucratic administrative model. Furthermore, the conceptual paradigm of state action should not be based on a retrograde conception of disability as a personal tragedy or a deviant pathology of a body considered "normal".(^{SPOSATI, 2013}).

When addressing the evolution of the concept of disability from a normative and jurisprudential perspective, ^{Costa (2020}) presents a synthesis of the three treatment models of people with disabilities throughout history. The model of dispensation prevailed until the Middle Ages, and conceived disability as a moral or religious punishment and people with disabilities as useless and to be borne by their peers. The medical or rehabilitative model gained strength from the World Wars and understands disability from a medical perspective and therefore needs a cure or rehabilitation. Finally, the social model seeks to understand the combination between the individual's bodily limitations and the possibility of society including him or her. This model, in ^{Sarlet's conception (2019}), is directly linked to the theory and practice of human and fundamental rights.

The evolution of the concept of disability was also incorporated by the United Nations (UN), since in its original definition, the Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons of 1975 focused only on people and did not consider issues related to accessibility and the social and economic situation, as evidenced by ^{Ferreira and Cabral Filho (2013}). Regarding the evolution of normative aspects, ^{Martins et al. (2015}) highlight the relevance of the Salamanca Declaration of 1994 for the realization of the rights of people with disabilities in the educational field, which also reverberated in the inclusion of Special Education as an element of Brazilian educational policy provided for in the LDB.

Likewise, the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2007, signed in New York, brought, in its Art. 1, a concept aligned with the social model comprising people with disabilities as those who have long-term impediments of a physical, mental, intellectual or sensory nature, which, in interaction with various barriers, can obstruct their full and effective participation in society on equal terms with other people.

In addition to the conceptual aspect, the Convention also recognized in its preamble the importance of accessibility in education as an instrument of full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. In this context, when addressing the theme inclusion in the educational field, the contributions of ^{Mendes (2022}) and ^{Bondezan et al. (2022}) regarding the systematization of norms related to people with disabilities and the reservation of vacancies are highlighted, consolidated in Table 3.

Despite the scope of the normative provisions consolidated by ^{Mendes (2022}) and complemented by ^{Bondezan et al. (2022}), it should be added, at this point, that the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), by Normative Ordinance No. 13/2016, established elements for the induction of Affirmative Actions in Postgraduate Studies, including for People with Disabilities. However, on June 16, 2020, the then Minister of Education revoked, by MEC Ordinance No. 545, the CAPES standard that fostered such a reserve of vacancies, weakening, even if momentarily, such a program to foster inclusion.

The establishment of affirmative actions that enable the entry of people with disabilities into Higher Education, both at the Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels, is, under the terms recorded by ^{Ferreira (2017}), an indispensable component for the realization of personality rights, as well as a mechanism to mitigate inequalities, since it provides opportunities for social interaction and favors the self-development of these people (^{PRANDI et al., 2018}). However, ^{Silva and Pimentel (2021}) consider the need to understand the access to higher education of PwDs in addition to the actions that enable only admission.

In this sense, despite the advances resulting from the establishment of quotas in higher education, the inclusion policy still demands the creation, by the government, of programs and actions that ensure the permanence of people with disabilities in the university space, providing a dignified educational experience and, consequently, a satisfactory and pleasurable learning (^{CABRAL, 2018}; ^{MARQUES; BARBOSA, 2022}). This is necessary, since the inclusive access practices carried out in universities are, in many cases, insufficient to ensure the effective participation and permanence of students with disabilities in university life (^{WUO; PAGANELLI, 2022}).

Regarding the challenges of the permanence of people with disabilities in higher education, ^{Brunhara et al. (2019}) highlight the existence of physical, communicational, methodological and attitudinal barriers, which restrict the potential for full participation in the academic training process. In this sense, ^{Alves (2019}) points out the fundamental role of governmental measures, among which he highlights the importance of student assistance and the continuous provision of specialized care/services, as pillars for the support of an inclusive policy in the educational field.

In addition to strategic actions, ^{Guedes (2020}) emphasizes the importance of the engagement and integration of university managers in the development of transversal and continuous actions that involve both the pedagogical aspect and the administrative dimension of the institution. Lara, ^{Tanganelli and (2020}) Sebastián-Heredero also highlight the need for political debates with different segments so that actions can be implemented democratically and according to the needs of the target audience of special education.

Understanding the quotas in Brazilian universities as instruments for reducing inequalities, valuing diversity and training people for professional work (^{BUIATTI; NUNES, 2022}; ^{SILVA; RODRIGUES; RUSCHEINSKY, 2021}), the relationship between the completion of the Undergraduate or Postgraduate course and the insertion of graduates in the world of work becomes inseparable. In this field, ^{Nascimento and Figueiredo et al. (2021}) emphasize that scientific production is scarce regarding the social inclusion of people with disabilities in the labor market, as well as in relation to educational policies directed to this theme.

Finally, another gap found in this stage of systematic literature review is the disproportionate representation of people with disabilities in graduate activities promoted by educational institutions, a fact that does not contribute to democratization in filling organizational spaces, such as those intended for professionals working in higher education (^{PORTE et al., 2022}; ^{VAZ; FERREIRA, 2020}).

Based on such theoretical surveys and seeking to understand the issues and gaps pointed out by the literature regarding the reservation of vacancies for People with Disabilities (PwDs) in stricto sensu postgraduate programs offered by federal public universities in Brazil, empirical research was carried out, which will be presented below.

The Empirical Research

Analyzing the information sent by the 63 federal universities, it was identified that eight feedbacks were answered incompletely or with refusal to fill out the questionnaire. Therefore, the sample considered in this study is composed of 55 federal universities, that is, 87.3% of the institutions of this nature that, together, offer 1949 stricto sensu Postgraduate courses in the five Brazilian regions, being: 222 in the Midwest, 460 in the Northeast, 216 in the North, 584 in the Southeast and 467 in the South of the country.

The first question was elaborated from the synthesis of the revised literature and sought to understand the normative aspect of the theme of reserving vacancies for admission of PwD in postgraduate courses stricto sensu (Master or Doctorate). This issue becomes even more relevant since there was, in 2020, the revocation, for a period, of CAPES Normative Ordinance No. 13/2016, which established elements for the induction of Affirmative Actions in Graduate Studies. Regarding this topic, it was found that 42 (76%) of the federal universities that make up the sample have some normative production establishing such a reserve. In comparison, 13 (24%) do not have such a forecast.

When performing an analysis of the responding institutions segmented by Brazilian geographic regions, it is verified that there are universities without a normative framework in all regions, one in the Midwest, two in the Northeast, four in the Southeast, three in the South and three in the North. Despite the little regional variability, it should be noted that, proportionally, the data show that in the northern region of the country three of the eight responding institutions signaled for the absence of regulations, being, therefore, a finding that demonstrates the need to deepen the studies to understand if there is any specific phenomenon in this region that is contributing to this higher proportion.

Also on the theme of admission, a survey was also made of institutions that have a norm, policy, program or specific action to encourage the accreditation of teachers with disabilities in a stricto sensu postgraduate course (Master and/or Doctorate), since the study of other education workers, was also pointed out as a gap in scientific production. Regarding this questioning, 52 (95%) institutions stated that they do not have an initiative in this regard and only 3 (5%) stated that they have some type of initiative that encourages the insertion of people with disabilities in the faculty of Postgraduate programs.

In addition to the normative issues inherent to the admission of students and teachers to the stricto sensu postgraduate courses, and understanding the relevance of organizing data for the development of programs and actions in the context of public administration, the number of federal universities that have organized and updated records on the number of students with disabilities enrolled in each of their stricto sensu postgraduate courses were also researched. On this point, 35 (64%) institutions stated that they have such data organized and updated, while 20 (36%) reported not having it. Aiming for further detail on the previous question, a survey was conducted to identify Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that have organized and updated records on the specific type of disability of each of the students with disabilities enrolled in the stricto sensu postgraduate courses. Regarding this research, 30 (55%) universities reported having records of such information, while 25 (45%) stated that they do not have such records.

Concerning the organization and accuracy of data, it was also investigated whether the HEIs have a repository that allows to determine the number of professors with disabilities who are part of the faculty of the stricto sensu Postgraduate course(s) (Master's and/or Doctorate). Regarding this question, 34 (62%) universities stated that they do not have it and 21 (38%) answered that they have such records organized and updated. By analyzing this question in relation to the data regarding students, it can be observed that there seems to be a more efficient structuring of student data records compared to faculty members in the stricto sensu postgraduate context. This highlights the need for administrators to take action to create or share tools that enable a more efficient organization of this information for the development of programs or public policies.

Based on the literature review conducted in the second section, which highlighted the relevance of retention as a fundamental axis of educational inclusion policy, efforts were made to also investigate the actions carried out by federal universities regarding this topic, both for students and faculty members in the context of stricto sensu postgraduate studies. Regarding this questioning, 26 (47%) of these Federal Institutions of Higher Education (HEIs) surveyed stated that they have a standard, policy, program or action to support the permanence of students with disabilities enrolled in stricto sensu postgraduate courses (master's and/or doctorate) and 29 (53%) answered that they do not have. Regarding the permanence of PwDs in the faculty, 6 (11%) of the HEIs surveyed reported that they have a specific norm, policy, program or action to encourage the permanence of teachers with disabilities in a stricto sensu Postgraduate course (Master's and/or Doctorate), on the other hand, 49 (89%) pointed out that there is no action regarding the permanence of the faculty.

Apart from issues related to the normative aspect, admission, and retention, the literature also pointed out that the integration of people with disabilities into the labor market is a fundamental aspect of inclusion in Higher Education. In this sense, the researched HEIs were asked if they have any rules, policies, programs or actions aimed at monitoring students with disabilities who have graduated from stricto sensu postgraduate courses (Master's and/or Doctorate). Regarding this question, 50 (91%) participating institutions expressed that there is no action in this regard and only 5 (9%) showed that there is some initiative that covers all students, including people with disabilities.

Analyzing the empirical results in light of the reviewed literature, it is understood that federal universities, for the most part, have normative actions that align with the social model of understanding the concept of disability. Despite the temporary revocation of Normative Ordinance No. 13/2016 by the Minister of Education, there is an institutional effort/response in the production of internal instruments for the admission of people with disabilities into stricto sensu Postgraduate programs. This effort is based on university autonomy, as stipulated in Article 207 of the Federal Constitution of 1988.

Beyond the normative level, the literature also indicates that the effectiveness of a policy for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in higher education requires measures that go beyond admission. It is necessary to implement actions that ensure the retention and support of both students and faculty members. In this regard, there is a need for the development of initiatives by federal universities, as a significant portion of the surveyed institutions lacks programs and actions aimed at ensuring the retention and support of persons with disabilities. Therefore, this theme could be included in the collegiate discussion agenda of the National Forum of Pro-Rectors of Research and Graduate Studies (FOPROP) and the National Association of Directors of Federal Institutions of Higher Education (Andifes), in order to develop shared and inter-institutional projects.

Furthermore, it is also suggested that CAPES, as the agency that supports the Ministry of Education in formulating policies and developing activities to train teaching professionals for basic and higher education, as well as for scientific and technological development in the country, as stated in Article 2 of Law No. 8.405/1992, perfect, update and publish a new normative act to induce affirmative actions in postgraduate school and that includes other dimensions besides admission. It is also suggested, in the terms registered by ^{Ferreira and Motta (2017}), that actions of inclusion and accessibility of PwDs students and teachers in the Master's and Doctorate courses constitute elements considered in the evaluative dimensions of the stricto sensu postgraduate courses.

Finally, regarding actions aimed at monitoring the inclusion of graduates with disabilities from the stricto sensu Postgraduate programs, and their integration into the labor market, a significant gap was identified in a considerable number of the surveyed institutions. In addition, the structuring, granularity and transparency of data regarding the composition of the PwD workforce within federal universities require improvement so that studies can be carried out, and effective actions can be taken.