ITGO Quality letter presentation-Miedes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

ITGO Quality letter presentation-Miedes

on

  • 374 views

Evaluation of the quality of the research-action

Evaluation of the quality of the research-action

Statistics

Views

Total Views
374
Views on SlideShare
366
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

http://www.territorial-intelligence.eu 8

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    ITGO Quality letter presentation-Miedes ITGO Quality letter presentation-Miedes Presentation Transcript

    • CaENTI quality letter on action-research WP5-CAENTI discussion Dr. Blanca Miedes Ugarte Associated Professor of Applied Economy Observatorio Local de Empleo www.ole.uhu.es Universidad de Huelva (Spain) miedes@uhu.es Research-Action Line “Governance” European Network of Territorial Intelligence www.territorial-intelligence.eu
    • Particular aspects of CAENTI research action processes: 1. Territorial focus (actors’ needs). 2. Multidimensionality (sectors, disciplines). 3. Mix qualitative and qualitative analysis (methodological rigorousness). 4. TICs more than a single mean, central tools. 5. Territorial pedagogy. 6. Long term projects. 7. Participation involve all levels not only institutional heads. 8. Balanced relationship researchers-actors. 2
    • WP5 Objectives.  First year Objective: • To reach a consensus on the formulation of a series of basic principles the members think they should be observed by the protocols of Action- Research applied to territorial development, in such a way that the processes and results of the research allow promoting good governance.  Second year Objective: • The issue of specific protocols has been tackled by drawing up the proposal of a quality letter for Action-Research applied to territorial governance of sustainable development.  Third year Objective: • Catalogues and video. • Analysis of CAENTI A-R regarding the quality letter (wp6u) 3
    • CONTEXT CAENTI research action -Sustainable Development as a multidimensional experience issue. - Action-Research as a link between territorial - Political decentralization and emergence of intelligence and governance. territorial projects. - Principles of A-R favoring territorial governance of - Higher complexity of territorial decision-making, sustainable development: formal and informal networks: territorial • Transformation, Multidimensionality, Partnership, governance. Participation, Sustainability, Transparence, Co- - Knowledge Society as a Learning Society. responsibility, Co-learning, Co-evaluation. - ICT’s as a development key factor. - Participation as an Action-Research key factor. Reflection on the Quality of Action-Research Quality criteria Participation as a key factor of quality What partipation process is made of? Pillars of participation 4
    • Principles Transformation: it is an implicit principle in the research-action concept; it consists in fostering the transformer role that research can performed on social reality. Social needs as departing point. Multidimensionality: focussing research object using a multidimensional and multisectorial well balanced approach. Partnership: fostering and involving territorial partnerships in the research-action processes. Participation: assuring that territorial actors’ participation (those who are directly confronted with territorial problems) is carried out in an effective way. 5
    • Principles Sustainability: it consists in carrying out long term action-research processes which are needed to obtain a more evolutionary knowledge in order to generate sustainable territorial development dynamics. Transparency: the research-action processes must lead to a higher transparency of the results regarding to both knowledge and policies, facilitating and democratizing the processes of decisions making. Co-responsibility: the component “action” and the component “research” are equally responsible for the evolution of the process. Co-learning: the research-action processes must facilitate the cooperative learning of all the participants, improving the capacity of the territorial system to look for solutions to the future problems keeping in mind their past experience. In other words, they ought to strengthen the development of the territorial intelligence. 6
    • Quality? Quality criteria Outcome : •Better knowledge of territorial dynamics (theory, models, indicators) and research methods appropriate to territorial features and dynamics. Territorial •Ability of Action-Research project to originate a territorial Actors action which are more adjusted to the inhabitants’ real needs. Empowerment Process:  Better ability to mobilise and mutualise the territorial actors’ competences in the long term. 7
    • Quality Durable Collaborative Participation How to construct this DCP? 8
    • CaENTI Quality Letter Pillars. PILLAR 1: PILLAR 2: Territorial Resources Mobilisation Knowledge and Abilities Mutualisation - Research on the target territory’s resources - Multidimensionality of Action-Research. (knowledge and actors mapping). - Co-learning. - Organising actors/researchers partnerships. Durable Collaborative Participation PILLAR 3: PILLAR 4: Participants’ Responsibleness Common Mastery of Results - Organisation of collaborative management - Continuous assessment of Action-Research of the project. impacts on territory. - Deontology and autonomy of participants. - Durability of developed actions. 9
    • DURABLE COLLABORATIVE PARTICIPATION ADDED VALUES. ICTS: - Information gathering, manage and use of information. - Communication easiness. - Generation of virtual working spaces. Added Values - Action-Research representativeness within territory. - Generation of trustable networks. - Mutual learning between action and research fields. - Introduction of continuous systemic assessment in territorial action. - Reorient research objectives in terms of territorial needs. - Valorisation and recognition of social action and research. 10
    • Huelva debate • The quality letter is a proposal which takes as its reference an ideal (Balanced) model of territorial action-research project was raised. • Most real projects do not have a comprehensive nature, nor are the processes that originate them as linear as the reading of the letter may intend. • Thus, the letter is a set of general guidelines and recommendations for actors and investigators to approach participatory processes from a global perspective. • Its application must be oriented by the participants in action- research projects to the specific characteristics of each case. 11
    • Huelva debate • Two crucial questions: – Quality may be assessed, giving rise to the corresponding plan of improvements to feedback the process. – Its an instrument thought for the teams’ internal use, as a reference for self-assessment, It not might be used in a decontextualised way by external funders. 12
    • After Huelva • A self-assessment template on the quality of participatory processes in territorial action- research projects was elaborated (UHU and UFC). • Participative process of vatuation by CaENTI wp5 teams. 13
    • Steps for implementation a) Choice of work team responsible for quality and planning. – Equilibrated composition – Awareness about needed resources (time). b) Adaptation of the template to the specific features of the action-research project. – More research oriented or more action oriented. – Context. 14
    • Content • The template is made up, firstly, of a number of statements related with the achievement of activities performed in the project which are directly involved in quality improvement. The statements have been arranged around the four pillars. • The teams must show to what extent they agree with the statements included in the template, which are always written indicating that each activity has been performed correctly. – They can value from 1 (“totally disagree with the statement”, therefore, the worst with respect to the project quality) to 5 (“totally agree with the statement”, therefore, the best with respect to the project quality). • It is important is that the final valuation reflected in the template will be the result of agreement. 15
    • REFLECTION GRID ABOUT THE PARTICIPATIVE PROCESS IN ACTION -RESEARCH Please, cross the section considering the degree of agreement of the group with each expression. If possible, please, specify the objective elements or circumstances (evidences) that you have considered in your valuation. (5 means “we totally agree”, 1 means “we totally disagree”). Pillar 1. Mobilization of the territorial actors and resources. Objective 1.a. Investigation of the target territory’s actors and resources. Mean 1.a.1: Compilation and analysis of existing documents and data Aspects in which (scientific and technical, political, legal, etc.) on the target problems. 1 2 3 4 5 valuation is based The documentation used to define the project of action -research is sufficient (considering quantity and quality) to give a global initial vision of the target problems. It is based on coherent theoretical grounds. The documentation used to define the project of action -research is sufficient to give an historical perspective of the target problems. The diversity and quality of documentary sources allows the main dimensions of the object of action-research to be considered, and to build a theoretical framework of the links between them. The documentation has been jointly analyzed by all the project promoter team. 16
    • Content • It is not an instrument for quantitative but rather for qualitative analysis. • A the second element of the template is another box, arranged by pillars identifying main strengths and weaknesses of the project. • Once the self-assessment has been completed, the team may decide to submit the results of the opinion to an external committee . • The idea is that the instrument can feed the reflexive process of the action research teams on their own practice. 17
    • CONCLUSIONS and AUTOASSESMENT Pillar 1. Mobilization of the territorial actors and resources. (Name those aspects of the project which have the better performance) Main Strengths Describe Positive effects of these Strengths Main (Name those aspects of the project which have the worst performance) Weakness Describe Negative effects of these Weakness Improvement Result Objective Responsible Deadline Actions indicators Name Action 1. 1 Name Action 1. 2 Name Action 1. 3 …. 18
    • 19
    • QL enhances EFQM main principles • Direction towards results. • Direction to the “client”. • Leadership. • Management by processes. • Development and implication of people. • Continuous process of learning and improvement. • Development of alliances. • Social responsibility of the organization. 20
    • CaENTI quality letter on action-research WP5-CAENTI discussion Gracias Dr. Blanca Miedes Ugarte Associated Professor of Applied Economy Observatorio Local de Empleo www.ole.uhu.es Universidad de Huelva (Spain) miedes@uhu.es Research-Action Line “Governance” European Network of Territorial Intelligence www.territorial-intelligence.eu
    • Work Activities Job Prospects Quality Social Life Innovation Systems Gouvernance Education, new Info-com: new culture, work cultural models Dissemination Nantes 2010 22
    • Work concept Job Prospects Quality Social Life Territorial Innovation Job Systems Gouvernance Education, new culture, work Info-com: new cultural models Dissemination Nantes 2010 23