Since 2002 graduate programs of Brazilian public universities began gradually to create affirmative action for students from vulnerable groups such as blacks and browns (pardos), indigenous, people with disabilities, transgender, among others. However, the institution of these measures for postgraduate studies is little known and suffers from the lack of analysis by the academic literature, with few studies devoted to studying how these measures work in practice and how they were structured as public policies.
The research seeks to explain which factors were determinant for the issue (affirmative actions for graduate students) has transcended the scope of the concern of student organizations and entered the decision-making agenda of federal agencies such as Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Ministry of Education (MEC) (KINGDON, 2013; COBB & ELDER, 1995). The role played by the various participants in this process and in the activities of the working group will also be addressed (KINGDON, 2013, BAUMGARTNER & JONES, 1993, 1999). In addition, the research will analyze the decision-making process that led to the publication of Normative Ordinance 13/2016 by MEC, in order to understand the rationale behind its approval and, mainly, the reasons why MEC and CAPES decided not to follow recommendations of the working group.
The first hypothesis is that, unlike affirmative action for undergraduate studies in which the policies’ creation was based on a confluence of pressures coming from international agencies, academia, the black movement and the government itself (HTUN, 2004), in the case of graduate studies the pressure comes from student organizations and part of the black movement. Another premise is that the main argument against the creation of affirmative actions for graduate studies will be the meritocracy, which will be even more intense than in the debates about undergraduate courses and related to concerns about the reduction of the programs’ quality and excellence, the impact on the programs’ evaluation by CAPES and consequently the granting of aid and resources by national agencies and international organizations. Finally, it is assumed that ordinance has played a fundamental role in the diffusion of affirmative actions across the country’s graduate programs, but that this diffusion will occur less intensely in the courses of exact and health sciences as a result of the meritocracy argument.
The research will be developed alongside from both theoretical and empirical efforts, with the use of various evidence sources. The empirical research will involve: (a) a search of all postgraduate programs and public universities that created affirmative actions; (b) semi-structured interviews with representatives of CAPES and MEC, with the participants of the working group and with others involved in the process of formulating the final report and the normative ordinance; (c) analysis of the policies’ documents and regulations; and (d) a survey with coordinators of the graduate programs to verify the degree of influence of Normative Ordinance 13/2016 in the diffusion of these policies (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; Coelho, Cavalcante & Turgeon, 2016).
The research has already found more than 160 programs that have created affirmative action on their own and 11 public universities that have instituted such measures as a result of state laws or resolutions valid for all courses, which corresponds to approximately 20% of all graduate programs of public universities.
The preliminary data confirm the hypothesis that the entry of affirmative action into the CAPES and MEC decision-making agenda was due to pressures from student organizations, especially the National Association of Graduate Students (ANPG). The preliminary results indicate that the organs were opposed to the edition of federal norms that make the adoption of affirmative action mandatory for the graduate programs. The main arguments to sustains such positions are: meritocracy and the autonomy of the programs to define its criteria of selection.
The argument most often used to justify the creation of such policies is diversity, especially racial, an argument that has appeared to a lesser extent in discussions about undergraduate courses. However, in invoking the promotion of diversity, the issue of whether the individual deserves differential treatment due to past injustices is of no importance (WARIKOO, 2016), and the question of inequality and discrimination is diluted by the appreciation of difference in terms of culture and ethnicity (FERES JÚNIOR, 2006).
Finally, although Normative Ordinance 13/2016 did not establish that affirmative action was mandatory, this instrument has been mentioned as an incentive for several programs and the number of policies increased significantly after its issuance.

REFERENCES:
BAUMGARTNER, Frank R & JONES, Bryan D. (1993), Agendas and instability, in American politics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
_________. (1999). “Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in American policymaking”, in Paul A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the policy process, Oxford, Westview Press.
COBB, R. W.; ELDER, C. D. (1995). Issues and Agendas. In: In: THEODOULOU, S. Z.; CAHN, M. A., Public Policy. The Essential Readings, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
COÊLHO, Denilson Bandeira, CAVALCANTE, Pedro, & TURGEON, Mathieu. (2016). Mecanismos de difusão de políticas sociais no Brasil: uma análise do Programa Saúde da Família. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 24(58), 145-165.
DOLOWITZ, D., & MARSH, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13, 5–23.10.1111/gove.2000.13.issue-1.
FERES JÚNIOR, J. (2006). Aspectos normativos e legais das políticas de ação afirmativa. In: FERES JÚNIOR, J.; ZONINSEIN, J. (orgs.) Ação afirmativa e universidade: Experiências nacionais comparadas. Brasília: Editora da UnB.
FUKS, M. (2000). Definição de agenda, debate público e problemas sociais. BIB — Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, nº 49, pp. 79-94.
KINGDON, John. W. (2013). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Second Edition. Pearson.
WARIKOO, N.atasha K. (2016). The diversity bargain: and other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at elite universities. Chicago;; London: The University of Chicago Press.