R&D Institutions

Resultado da avaliação 2007 na área de Ciências e Politicas da Educação

Unidade de I&D

Centro de Investigação em Educação e Psicologia da Universidade de Évora [EDU-Alentejo-Evora-4101] visitada em 03/12/2007

Classificação: Fair


Na sequência da publicação em Dezembro de 2008 da classificação que lhe foi atribuída pela FCT sob recomendação do painel de avaliação, esta unidade apresentou reclamação e solicitou à FCT uma nova avaliação. Embora não estivessem reunidas as condições necessárias, expressas no ponto 4 do art. 9º do Regulamento do Financiamento Plurianual, a FCT decidiu promover nova avaliação por um painel distinto, uma vez que das 15 unidades da área científica de Ciências e Políticas da Educação para além desta unidade outras 11 apresentaram igualmente reclamação e solicitaram nova avaliação. A classificação acima, que já foi superiormente homologada, é a que resultou desta nova avaliação, em que das 12 unidades envolvidas 2 viram a sua classificação subir de Muito Bom para Excelente, 1 viu a sua classificação subir de Bom para Muito Bom, e 2 viram a sua classificação subir de Regular para Bom.

Os comentários do painel original e os respectivos comentários da unidade são apresentados a seguir a esta secção relativa à reapreciação.

Comentários do Painel de reapreciação

This was a difficult Unit to evaluate in that, in their reappraisal request, the Unit indicated that they had been allowed to submit additional information to the Panel but that this was not taken into account in their final evaluation. We did not have access to this additional information and therefore had to judge the Unit in relation to the information we received.

On the evidence available we agreed that the performance of this Unit is ‘fair’. We agreed with most of the comments made by the Evaluation Panel. However, we note that this was a very new Unit that was established only one year before the Evaluation.

Comentários do painel de avaliação
Sobre a unidade
The Unit consists of four research groups. The average size of the research groups is 7 researchers per group. The main weakness of the unit is their publication record in peer-reviewed international research journals. Three research groups (specifically research groups 4101-67, 4101-68 and 4101-69) are particularly weak while group 4101-3070 performs relatively better.
A second aspect that needs improvement is the relevance and feasibility of their research projects. Again, the group with the better performance relatively is group 4101-3070. However, training of new researchers is in general a matter for concern.
In summary, the Unit consists of groups that need to strengthen their publications record in peer-reviewed international research journals and improve the relevance and feasibility of their research projects.
The panel recommends that:
1. The international profile of the RGs should be enhanced by emphasis on publications in peer-reviewed international research journals and heavier involvement in international networking activities.
2. The relevance and the feasibility of their research projects should be improved in connection to a sharpening of their stated research objectives.
3. External funding should lead to higher levels of productivity, especially in terms of international publications.
4. The research techniques employed should be broadened so as to reflect a right balance between qualitative and quantitative methods.
5. Research groups should be restructured by merging. The pairs of research groups a. 4101-3070 and 4101-3067 and b. 4101-68 and 4101-69 could benefit from being merged.
Sobre os grupos de investigação
This group has 7 PhD level investigators.
It has ambitious, rather abstract, aims that may need clearer focussing.
This group has achieved a modest success with no external funding.
At first sight of the return prepared for FCT there has been a little international dissemination, and no obvious conference or international network activity, However there have been international publications by Eca that are not listed, in particular one jounal publication in a high status English language journal 2 research conference proceedings and an English language book in press. Taking these into account for an arts group boosts the research productivity score to 3, which is possibly generous.
The work of the group appears to have considerable relevance to professional development in their research and geographical area. They have been moderately successful in translating plans into reality.
It appears that there are 2 PhD completions although these are listed under publications and not under Master and PhD completions. It is unclear if there are any master’s completions.
This research group has 6 PhD level investigators.
There has been some international impact, which is primarily through publication in Brazil and there is 1 English-language research journal publication.
Its most notable achievement is in research training.
Research training has been very successful and the PhD completions are 5 with 1 other in collaboration with a Spanish university, which is excellent. This group appears to have suffered in previous years but is coming to the fore with a new management structure in the department. The ambitions previously may have appeared limited, but there are signs of increased vitality. There has been some external funding for evaluation work in the local region, which could be the basis of an international research publication.
This research group has 6 PhD level investigators.
This group appears to have had an impact within the local region of Alentejo, and has received substantial external funding for this work. However there is little evidence of impact beyond the region, despite substantial funding. International research publication does not appear to be a priority, and publication by the University of Évora dominates, which may inhibit more international publication. There is 1 publication outside of Portugal. As the FCT criteria stress international impact productivity is low and the rating of 2 might be generous.
The relevance of the work is high for the local region, but it is unclear how far this relevance generalises beyond the region. It is likely that lessons learned within the region might have relevance internationally but there is no clear evidence of this. It is disappointing that the high level of funding has not produced more international research journal publications, but it appears likely that the developmental nature of the work inhibit this, but this need not be the case. Development work of the kind undertaken by the group still deserves and can attain international journal publication.
Training success is clear at masters level and there are 2 PhD completions listed but these are at other universities, not Evora.
This group has 9 PhD level investigators.
It has ambitious aims that may need clearer focussing.
A moderately high level of research funding has been received and yet this group has achieved only 1 international publication (a book chapter). There are plenty of publications within Portugal, but it is unclear if these have international impact or relevance, which are mentioned in evaluation criteria. There does appear to be substantial impact nationally with some publications by the government of their work. There should be better performance in terms of international publications and there should be some international journal publications for a higher evaluation rating. Publication by the university of Évora may inhibit publication in more widely read places and in particular international research journals. Research training appears to be moderately successful with many masters level completions and 2 PhD completions. There has been a lot of conference organization activity in Évora.