Competências de avaliação participativa

Paula Ochôa, Leonor Gaspar Pinto

Resumen


Objetivo. Discutem-se as competências necessárias para os processos de avaliação participativa, apresentando-se o conceito de coavaliação proveniente da área de Investigação em Avaliação e o seu papel emergente na Ciência de Informação e na Ciência Aberta.

Desenho/Metodología/Enfoque. Sendo cada vez mais pertinente uma discussão em torno das práticas de avaliação em colaboração, adota-se uma perspetiva de meta-avaliação, contextualizando a pertinência e trajetória do conceito emergente de coavaliação e dando especial destaque aos contextos de desenvolvimento e transferibilidade de competências necessários à sua implementação.

Resultados/Discussão. Os resultados da investigação realizada destacam o papel das competências de coavaliação agrupadas em seis dimensões: a prática reflexiva, a prática de base técnica, a análise situacional, a gestão, as competências interorganizacionais e as competências interpessoais.

Conclusões. Conclui-se que a larga experiência da Ciência da Informação em práticas de avaliação pode constituir um fator distintivo para a discussão em torno destas competências.

Originalidade/Valor. O artigo apresenta uma abordagem inovadora que, capitalizando o contributo da Ciência da Informação, propõe um quadro de competências de coavaliação, realçando a transferabilidade de competências entre avaliadores/as e stakeholders em varios contextos.


Palabras clave


Avaliação participativa; Ciência da Informação; Ciência Aberta; Competências

Texto completo:

PDF (Português (Brasil))

Referencias


Alkin, M. C. (2011). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Alkin, M. C. (2012). Context sensitive evaluation. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (2nd ed.) (pp.283-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alkin, M. C., Vo, A., & Christie, C. A. (2012). The evaluator's role in valuing: Who and with whom. New Directions for Evaluation, 133(Spring), 29-41.

Asociación Ibérica de Profesionales por la Evaluación (2017). Declaración de intenciones. Recuperado de https://aproeval.org/wp.../2016/.../Declaración-de-intenciones-200617

Barros, D. M. V. (2014). Estilos de coaprendizagem e alguns indicadores das competências digitais. Educación, 45(septiembre), 91-105.

Recuperado de https://repositorioaberto.uab.pt/handle/10400.2/3618

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.

Canadian Evaluation Society (2010). Competencies for Canadian evaluation practice. Renfrew: CES. Recuperado de http://www.evaluationcanada.ca/txt/2_competencies_cdn_evaluation_practice.pdf

Choo, C. W. (2013). Information culture and organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 775-779.

Chouinard, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (2015). The journey from rhetoric to reality: participatory evaluation in a development context. Educ Asse Eval Acc. 27, 5–39. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9184-8.

Council of Europe (2016). Competences for democratic culture: living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Cousins, J. B., Whitmore, E., & Shulha, L. M. (2013). Arguments for a common set of principles for collaborative inquiry in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 7–22.

Cullen, A., & Couryn, C. L. S. (2011). Forms and functions of participatory evaluation in international development: A review of the empirical and theoretical literature. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(16), 32-47.

Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

European Commission (2017). Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open Science. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Recuperado de https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/report.pdf

European Evaluation Society (2016). 12 EES Biennal Conference – Evaluation futures in Europe and beyond: connectivity, innovation and use. Maastricht, 26-30 september 2016.

Eval Partners (2016). EvalAgenda 2010: Global Evaluation Agenda 2016-2020. Recuperado de https://evalpartners.org/sites/default/files/files/Evalagenda2020.pdf

Fitzpatrick, J., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. (2009). Evaluation in action: Interviews with evaluators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Furtado, J. P., & Laperrière, H. (2010). Parâmetros e paradigmas em meta-avaliação: Uma revisão exploratória e reflexiva. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 17(3), 695-705.

Haller, J. B.A., Velamuri, V. K., Schneckenberg, D., & Möslein, K. M (2017). Exploring the design elements of open evaluation. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10(1), 40-65.

Hofer, H. (2016). Co-designing research projects: Citizen Science meets stakeholder involvement. First ECSA Conference 2016 Citizen Science - Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, 19-21 May 2016, Berlin.

International Development Evaluation Association (2012). Competencies for Development Evaluation Evaluators, Managers, and Commissioners. Recuperado de http://dmeforpeace.org/sites/default/files/114_IDEAS%20Competencies%20Booklet.pdf

International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation (2017). Professionalization. IOCE Professionalization Task Force: DRAFT Roadmap. Recuperado de https://www.ioce.net/professionalization

Ioannidis, J.P.A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D.D. & Goodman, S.N. (2015) Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol, 13(10). Recuperado de http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264

ISO 16394. (2014). Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries.

King, J. A., & Stevahn, L. (2013). Interactive Evaluation Practice: Mastering the interpersonal dynamics of program evaluation. Los Angeles: Sage.

King, J. A., & Stevahn, L. (2015). Essential competencies for program evaluators. Recuperado de http://www.cehd.umn.edu/OLPD/MESI/spring/2015/KingStevahn-EssentialCompetencies.pdf

King, J. A., Stevahn, L. Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of essential evaluator competencies. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 229-247.

Klein, J. T. (2007). Interdisciplinary approaches in Social Science research. In W. Outwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds) The Sage handbook of Social Science methodology (pp 32-49). Los Angeles: Sage.

Kusters, C., Van Vugt, S., Wigboldus, S., Williams, B., & Woddhill, J. (2011). Making evaluations matter: A practical guide for evaluators. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research Centre.

Ochôa, P., & Pinto, L. G. (2015). Informação e cultura na agenda pós-2015: análise das dinâmicas de convergência na avaliação de impactos. Páginas A & B, 3(3), 37-51.

Ochôa, P., & Pinto, L. G. (2017a). Cocriação e avaliação de impactos em organizações culturais. In M. Gama & H. Sousa (Eds.), Contributos do Congresso Internacional “Redes de Cooperação Cultural Transnacionais: Um olhar sobre a realidade lusófona” (pp. 269-292). Braga: CECS. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/10362/25461

Ochôa, P. & Pinto, L.G (2017b). O conceito de coavaliação: uma visão transdisciplinar. En M. M. Borges, & E. Sanz Casado (Eds.) A Ciência Aberta: o Contributo da Ciência da Informação: atas do VIII Encontro Ibérico EDICIC. Universidade de Coimbra. Centro de Estudos Interdisciplinares do Século XX - CEIS20 (pp. 929-941). Recuperado de http://sci.uc.pt/eventos/atas/edicic2017.pdf

Ochôa, P., & Pinto, L.G. (2018, no prelo). Competências e métricas de coavaliação: novos contextos na gestão e motivação. Revista Ciências e Políticas Públicas, Número especial Gestão do Talento: do conceito às práticas na gestão de pessoas.

Patton, M. Q. (2008a). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2008b). Advocacy impact evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 1-10.

Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2016). State of the art and practice of developmental evaluation: Answers to common and recurring questions. In M. Q. Patton, K. McKegg, & N. Wehipeihana (Eds.), Developmental evaluation exemplars: Principles in practice (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Pettibone, L. et al. (2016). Citizen science for all – a guide for citizen science practitioners. Leipzig: Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Museum für Naturkunde. Recuperado de http://www.buergerschaffenwissen.de/sites/default/files/assets/dokumente/handreichunga5_engl_web.pdf

Pinto, L. G., & Ochôa, P. (2017). Public libraries' contribution to Sustainable Development Goals: gathering evidences and evaluating practices. En Proceedings of 83rd IFLA General Conference and Assembly, 19–25 August 2017, Wrocław, Polónia.

Scriven, M. (1969). An introduction to metaevaluation. Educational Products Report, 2, 36- 38.

Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluation theory and metatheory. En T. Kellaghan & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 15–30). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Scriven, M. (2012). Conceptual revolutions in evaluation. En M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Serrano Sanz, F., Holocher-Ertl, T., Kieslinger, B., Sanz Garcia, & Silva, C. G. (2014). White paper on Citizen Science in Europe. European Commission. Recuperado de http://www.zsi.at/object/project/2340/attach/White_Paper-Final-Print.pdf

Stevahn, L., & King, J. A. (2016). Facilitating Interactive Evaluation Practice: Engaging stakeholders constructively. New directions for evaluation, 149(Spring), 67-80.

Shulha, L. M., Whitmore, E., Cousins, J. B., Gilbert, N., & Al Hudib, H. (2015). Evidence based principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation: Technical report. Ottawa: Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services, University of Ottawa.

Stern, E. D., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani, B. (2012). Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Working Paper 38. London; DFID. Recuperado de http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/pdf/outputs/misc_infocomm/DFIDWorkingPaper38.pdf

Town, J., & Stein, J. (2015). Ten Northumbria Conferences: the contribution to library management. Library Management, 36(3). Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-11-2014-0135

Urquhart, C. (2015). Reflections on the value and impact of library and information services. Part 1: Value identification and value creation, Performance Measurement and Metrics, 16(1), 86-102. doi: 10.1108/PMM-02-2015-0005.

Warta, K. (2016). The changing challenges of RTI evaluation in Europe - experience, observations and Outlook. Open evaluation 2016. International RTI policy evaluation conference. Vienna, 24-25 november 2016.

Wenger, E., Mcdermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Widén, G., Steinerová, J., & Voisey, P. (2014). Conceptual modelling of workplace information practices: a literature review. Information Research, 19(4). Recuperado de http://InformationR.net/ir/19-4/isic/isic08.html

Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. En Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Hawai’ International Conference on System Science (HICSS-44), Koloa, HI, 1/2011. Recuperado de http://andreawiggins.com/research/Wiggins2011HICSS.pdf


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Licencia Creative Commons
Este trabajo está licenciado bajo una Licencia Internacional Creative Commons 4.0 Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual .

 Revista indizada en: Web of Science (Emerging Sources Citation Index), DIALNET, EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, 
Academic Search Premier, Academic Search Ultimate, Fuente Académica Plus), PROQUEST (Library and Information Science
Abstracts, Library Science), REDIB, CLASE, BIBLAT, INFOBILA, Ulrichs Web, Latindex, DOAJ, Index Copernicus, JournalsTOC,
ERIH Plus, E-LIS, MIAR, e-Libros, BASE,
Google Scholar, y otros.


                           Redes Sociales
 
              
  
Indicadores de impacto según Google Scholar:
Índice h: 8; Índice i10: 3
Revista certificada por el CITMA


           Revista. Bibliotecas. Anales de investigación by Biblioteca Nacional de Cuba José Martí is licensed under aCreative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional License.  

Creado a partir de la obra en anales.bnjm.cu

 ISSN: 0006-176X, EISSN: 1683-8947   
                               Licencia de Creative Commons