Acceso usuarios
El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar comparativamente a estudiantes de Agronomía y Ciencias Ambientales (n = 149) de la Facultad de Agronomía (UBA) en base a sus jerarquías de valores. Se los reconoce como dos grupos sociales que comparten un espacio académico común, pero que pueden tener objetivos profesionales diferentes, y el estudio adquiere relevancia puesto que podría ayudar a comprender sus futuras prácticas profesionales en el sector rural. La investigación se basó en los Valores Individuales Básicos de Schwartz (encuesta PVQ de 57 ítems), quien postuló que existe un continuo de 19 valores universales y que los grupos sociales difieren en las formas en que los jerarquizan. Los resultados obtenidos indican diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la priorización en función de la carrera: los estudiantes de Agronomía priorizaron valores de protección personal (Continuidad), a diferencia de los estudiantes de Ciencias Ambientales que priorizaron valores de crecimiento (Trascendencia y Apertura al Cambio); contrariamente, no hubo diferencias en la priorización de valores del orden Promoción Personal. Investigaciones anteriores han propuesto diferentes modelos que relacionan las jerarquías de valores de las personas con sus actitudes y comportamientos proambientales, y las diferencias encontradas sugieren mayor interés proambiental en los estudiantes de Ciencias Ambientales. Sin embargo, la bibliografía no es aún concluyente y el reconocimiento de las diferencias a nivel jerarquías no implica taxativamente que se expresarán a nivel de actitudes y/o comportamientos proambientales. Por lo tanto, en futuras investigaciones será necesario trabajar con instrumentos específicos que permitan dar cuenta de cada una de estas variables de forma individual.
The objective of this article is to analyze the hierarchies of values of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences students (n = 149) at School of Agriculture (University of Buenos Aires). They are considered two distinct social groups sharing an academic space, but they may have different professional goals; therefore, it is relevant to inquiry about the differences in their hierarchies of values because it could be helpful to understand their professional practices in rural areas once they graduate. The research was based on the theoretical-methodological scheme of the Basic Individual Values as developed by Schwartz (57-item PVQ survey), who argued that there is a continuum of 19 universal values and social groups differ in ways in which they hierarchized them. The statistical procedures supported the validity of the theory. The theoretical structure of Schwartz's values is replicated in the surveyed population of students: 4 orders of values composed of 19 values are distinguished in the study population, and the structure and order of the continuum is ratified. The means of the centered scores of the 19 values show a similar pattern in the continuum for both groups of students. The value scores for both groups follow a similar trend, except for two of them; thus, there is a similar tendency to weight certain values more than others. However, we found statistical differences in how students of each careers prioritize them: Environmental Sciences students give higher scores to the values of the higher dimension Growth, composed of the orders Transcendence (p < .001) and Openness to change (p = .008), and Agricultural Sciences students prioritize those of the higher dimension Personal Protection, composed by the order Continuity (p < .001). Regarding the order Personal Promotion, however, no differences were found (p = .832).
Some authors argue that the way we relate to the environment is closely related to our values, and previous research has revealed a relation between individuals’ values and the pro-environmental attitudes and behavior (although through different models, which in turn refer to different variables included on them and different types of relations between them).
Under those premises, the differences in the hierarchies of values could imply a greater pro-environmental interest among Environmental Science students. However, literature isn’t conclusive, and the recognition of differences at the hierarchical level does not necessarily imply that these differences will be expressed at the level of pro-environmental attitudes and/or behaviors. Besides, as highlighted, no differences were found in egoistic values (Personal Promotion) between both populations.
To further explore the similarities and differences between Agriculture and Environmental Sciences students, future studies should consider a comprehensive analysis of biospheric, altruistic, egoistic, and hedonistic values within both social groups, in addition to Schwartz's continuum of values. Therefore, in future research it will be necessary to work with specific instruments that allow accounting for each of these variables (values, attitudes, and behavior) individually. It would also be interesting to analyze possible changes in value hierarchies through time: although they are expected to be stable systems over time it does not mean they are fixed, and research focused on the evolution of the scores assigned to each value by students over the years of training could reveal changes in them. If we consider that it is mandatory to find interdisciplinary solutions to the country's rural and environmental problems and that there is a risk of falling into tribalism (where beliefs and arguments are guided by emotions), then the divergences found between those two groups could be seen as diversity in the hierarchy of values and should be recognized as an opportunity to avoid solutions that respond to a single interest and to produce new, more complex answers.
