The proposal to create a new district at the University of Costa Rica requires reflection, analysis and debate. This idea proposes to separate the Faculty of Economic Sciences from the field of Social Sciences, which is made up of the said faculty members and also by the Faculties of Social Sciences, Law and Education.
So far, what has been proposed by the Faculty of Economic Sciences is not convincing at the academic level. This level should include at least a rigorous economic analysis, an examination of the organizational level and an epistemological reflection.
Focusing on the economic and financial aspects, it is worth asking about the costs incurred by the university to establish a new district. I suspect this could be the stratosphere and, in contrast, the benefits may be minimal. This is because it is not completely transparent, what is the benefit to the university of making this transformation. We still don’t know if this is an investment, nor is it clear why one new college area would benefit the community overall.
Regarding the organizational approach to the issue, the university did not ask for or discuss what is necessary, and to form its general will, to mobilize change in the organizational model. Because that is exactly what is at stake on this plane. By creating a new area, other new individual fields of study can be created and thus the sense of sectoral division is lost by similar university faculties. This purpose of division seeks to bring together areas of knowledge, which can create collaborative links. It also seeks to give an epistemological meaning to the division by placing the different areas of knowledge in the same environment of management, organization and academic performance.
In fact, various examples from the School of Economic Sciences already have important organic links with examples from the School of Social Sciences. There is no doubt that in economic sciences there must be links with other examples of other university faculties. Thus, contemplating whether a university should blow up this aspect of its academic organization model seems to be glassy. Especially if this pressure is put on the decision makers in order to respond to the desire of one college to become a district. That is: interest in raising their hierarchy and their position in the context of power relations within the university.
In the face of the desire to increase stakes and abilities in the exercise of power, knowledge, as such, has a great effect. However, there is still no known reflection to justify and establish this movement on the organizational model of the university. This has dire consequences. At least one of them consisted in realizing the peculiarity of our academic environment, which would pretend to progress by making a hiatus caused by a lack of justification and an epistemological foundation.
Indeed, from the point of view of the structure of scientific knowledge, the separation of economic sciences from the general scope of social sciences is peculiar. It is clear that the objectives of study and research are not quite the same as in other specific areas of the social sciences. Yet they possess an undeniable familiarity. If we think of just a modest example, such as that of a sub-discipline known as “psychology” or economic psychology, which is of great importance today, it is quite clear that models for measuring economic behavior maintain enormous cross-overlap not only with measurement and evaluation, but also with Sociology and Economic History.
I consider the interest in establishing a new area at the University of Costa Rica a regrettable initiative. It has significant financial and organizational costs, with very cautious expectations for its benefits. At the epistemological level, we may be seeing an inappropriate scenario regarding the general scope of the science architecture.
