Evaluation of the quality of the research-action

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Quality
Durable
Collaborative
Participation
How to construct this DCP? 8

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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. 19

20. 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

21. 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

22. Work
Activities
Job
Prospects
Quality Social
Life Innovation
Systems Gouvernance
Education, new Info-com: new
culture, work cultural models
Dissemination
Nantes 2010 22

23. 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