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 Ciências do Comportamento [EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273] visitada em 08/01/2008

Classificação: Good


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 large research Unit that had gone through considerable reorganization of its research groups shortly before the evaluation. However, we would agree with the Evaluation Panel’s assessment that most of the groups had not changed substantially; it was therefore possible to look at new and old groups together.

The quality of the different groups varied considerably. One group we judged to be ‘very good’ but two other groups were only ‘fair’ while the remainder were ‘good’. In our judgment it does, just, reach the level of ‘good’ overall; it is certainly significantly better than other Units that have a grade of ‘fair’.

In reaching their original judgment the Evaluation Panel laid great emphasis on the lack of strength in international publications. We would agree that the profile of the Unit was not strong in this regard but that it was perhaps somewhat better than the original review stated. We saw evidence of publication in Brazil, and in Spanish and English languages, although perhaps too often these were conference proceedings rather than more formal academic publications.

Comentários do painel de avaliação
Sobre a unidade
This Unit appears to consist of 10 research groups. However, the Unit presumably is in the process of re-organization with five research groups ie. the groups 273-1759, 273-1760, 273-1761, 273-1762 and 273-1763 being replaced by the groups 273-2611, 273-2612, 273-2613, 273-2614 and 273-2616 respectively.
Three remarks seem to be relevant here:
-Firstly, the principal investigators remain the same in the newly formulated groups as in the corresponding old ones.
-Secondly, the size of the newly formulated research groups vary considerably from 17 researchers to 4 researchers.
-Thirdly, the evaluation of the old and the new research groups were quite similar. This remark has a relative value because the referees knew of the restructuring and their comments took this into account. There exist however one case ie. group 273-1763 being replaced by group 273-2616 where the evaluation fell significantly ie. from very good to good.
The main weakness of most of the research groups is their publications record in peer-reviewed international research journals. Three of the newly formulated research groups, specifically research groups 273-2612, 273-2613 (as rated in relation to group 273-1761), and 273-2614 fall below the threshold. Even groups 273-2611 and 273-2616, which perform relatively better, attain only marginally better.
Summarising, the Unit undertook a re-organization but the research groups still need to strengthen their record publications record in peer-reviewed international research journals.
The panel recommends that:
1. Since many of the research agendas of the research groups coincide with research agendas of international interest there must be more emphasis put on publications in peer-reviewed international research journals (not only in Portuguese language).
2. The research units should become more extroverts in their research activities through international networking with other research groups of similar research interests.
3. Experience and extra resources from the other groups should be transferred to the newly formed research group 273-2613.
4. Research students should be encouraged (perhaps through adopting relevant criteria for funding) to several methodological approaches, including quantitative methods.
Sobre os grupos de investigação
Becomings in Education: identities and citizenships [RG-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-2614]
This group continues the work of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1762, with very small changes in personnel and with a similar name. It is appropriate to consider the achievements of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1762 as the basis for the evaluation.
The research theme of the group is not very well communicated through the name of the group “Processes of Becomings in Education: identities and citizenships”, nor are the general objectives very clear. This apparent lack of focus affects the evaluation of the outcomes of the work that has been done. The productivity with respect to books and certain other activities is good, and in fact exceeds what had been planned, but the main indicator, the number of articles published in well-established international journals falls short in comparison. The relevance of the work to international trends in educational research suffers from the inaccessibility of the research reports in combination with the lack of focus in the objectives of the group. In view of the many potentially important perspectives (for the development of the educational system of Portugal) that are touched upon by the group, its overall research ambitions seems too high in relation to its capacity, and its impact on the educational system of Portugal remains unclear. Studies on citizenship in environmental education would be particularly interesting from an international perspective, if they were to form a significant part of the research of the group in the future. The number of doctoral theses produced is fair.
Childhood - Education, Social and Psychological Processes [RG-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-2613]
This is a plan for the future - there is little about anything pre-2007. Therefore cannot be evaluated in the same way as other groups. No ratings given.
Early Childhood Education - Implementing Pedagogical Practices of High Quality from Training to Intervention [RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1761]
Educational Administration and Policy: leadership, evaluation and local policies [RG-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-2612]
This group basically continues along the lines of research of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1760, with very small changes in personnel and with a similar name. It is appropriate to consider the achievements of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1760 as the basis for the evaluation.
School leadership, evaluation and local politics combine into an important triad for school improvement. With problems of similar types being faced in many countries, the theme of this group is an important theme for educational research internationally. The research of the group should therefore benefit, as well as benefit from, research elsewhere. The actual level of interaction is lowered, however, by the fact that the work of the group is not communicated well enough through influential research journals. The strong focus on the educational scene of Portugal carries national importance, but interested international colleagues will know very little about it. In relation to the size of the group, its overall output is good. The emphasis and outcome of the training of future researchers can similarly be evaluated as good.
Health Family and Community [RG-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-2616]
To a certain extent this group continues the work of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1763 (Psycho-educative intervention with families of older people with chronic disease), but the group is larger and the research perspective somewhat broader. It is appropriate to consider the achievements of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1763 as the basis for the evaluation of RG-EDU-Centro-Aveiro 273-2616. However, the relevance of the planned research and the feasibility of it can be evaluated somewhat higher than for the previous group.
Higher education. Being between two transitions: Secondary School and Professional life [RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1759]
Psycho-educative intervention with families of older people with chronic disease [RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1763]
Research, Teaching, Innovation and Evaluation in Higher Education [RG-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-2611]
This group basically continues along the lines of research of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1759, with slight changes in personnel and with a broader perspective that is reflected in the new name of the group. It is appropriate to consider the achievements of RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1759 as the basis for the evaluation. The group can boast a good record of educational research in an important area of educational research, and it has shown capacity to contribute to theoretical knowledge about the transitional processes involved in higher education. Unfortunately many of its achievements are basically inaccessible to an international audience, primarily because the results of the research appear not to have been published with this in mind. The productivity of the group is otherwise good, as is the relevance of the research to similar international research. There is also a record of participation in and organization of conferences, but the level of the impact of the research on society appears not to be high. The number of doctoral and master’s theses produced is excellent.
School Improvement: leadership, evaluation and local policies [RG-X-EDU-Centro-Aveiro-273-1760]

Comentários da unidade

Para os responsáveis desta Unidade de Investigação a avaliação do painel enferma de falta de clareza e rigor em vários itens, o que pode ter influenciado a avaliação, como a seguir se demonstra:

Por exemplo, na avaliação do plano 2007/10 para o grupo 273/2613, se lê «… there is little about anything pre-2007. … No ratings given», quando foram submetidos os resultados de produção do quadriénio 2003/06 do grupo. Este erro repercutiu-se negativamente na apreciação global e recomendações (cf. ponto 3 – «Experience and extra resources from the other groups should be transferred to the newly formed research group 273-2613»). A apreciação do trabalho realizado no período em análise (2003-06) não pode ser confundida com os planos de realização futura (2007-2010) – o que parece acontecer, nitidamente, na análise da produção da referida linha. Esta linha teve projectos internacionais, o que se articula com a recomendação 2 («international networking»”) e que não terão sido valorizados. Parece-nos um erro grave.

Desde 1994 a 2002 houve um crescimento significativo na produção nos diversos itens. No fim do quadriénio 1999/02 a Unidade foi avaliada com “Very Good”, pelo que não se entende como foi agora avaliada com “Fair” quando o número de artigos passou de 78 para 154 (dos quais 61 em revistas internacionais), os livros duplicaram, as teses de doutoramento passaram de 6 para 24 e as de mestrado de 62 para 84. Os dados evidenciam um crescimento em praticamente todas as rubricas de análise. Paradoxalmente, a classificação decresceu 2 níveis (fair)!

A concluir, não nos parece aceitável que os limiares de produtividade que servem de critério à definição de patamares de avaliação (excellent, very good, good, fair e poor) não tenham sido claramente definidos e conhecidos no início do período em avaliação (2003). Aliás, ainda hoje não são conhecidos.

Assim sendo solicitamos REAVALIAÇÃO da Unidade.