Impacto multidimensional da pesquisa: desenvolvimento e teste de um modelo para avaliação
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Nas últimas décadas, as mudanças na ciência foram caracterizadas pela internacionalização e pela busca do impacto. Este artigo apresenta o processo de avaliação de impacto de 23 projetos de pesquisa do Programa Capes prInt, voltado para a internacionalização da ciência brasileira. O objetivo deste trabalho foi desenvolver um modelo de avaliação de impacto, aplicando-o experimentalmente. O desenvolvimento fundamentou-se nos textos científicos sobre modos de produção de conhecimento científico e avaliação de impacto. A avaliação revelou que, mesmo diante da pandemia da COVID-19, os projetos avançaram em suas metas de internacionalização. Os resultados indicaram a predominância de impactos relacionados à ciência e à educação, com um número significativo de projetos também indicando impactos sobre políticas públicas e práticas organizacionais. O artigo contribui para o conhecimento sobre modos de produção de conhecimento e sobre avaliação de impacto da pesquisa. Além disso, pode ser útil a diretores de instituições de pesquisa, gestores de pesquisa e pesquisadores interessados na questão da mensuração do impacto da pesquisa nas organizações e na sociedade.
Downloads
Métricas
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Cadernos EBAPE.BR compromete-se a contribuir com a proteção dos direitos intelectuais do autor. Nesse sentido:
- Adota a licença Creative Commoms BY (CC-BY) em todos os textos que publica, exceto quando houver indicação de específicos detentores dos direitos autorais e patrimoniais;
- Adota software de verificação de similaridade de conteúdo - plagiarismo (Crossref Similarity Check);
- Adota ações de combate ao plagio e má conduta ética, alinhada às diretrizes do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Mais detalhes do Código de Ética adotado pelo Cadernos EBAPE.BR podem ser visualizados em Normas Éticas e Código de Conduta.
Referências
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings, T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: a pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(4), 623-639. Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0121
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P., Marsh, M. … Kramer, S. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: a case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418-431. Recuperado de http://doi.org/10.5465/3069464
Anderson, N. (2007). The practitioner-researcher divide revisited: strategic-level bridges and the roles of IWO psychologists. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 175-183. Recuperado de http://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X187237
Astley W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3(4), 443-460. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.4.443
Baldridge, D. C., Floyd, S. W., & Markóczy, L. (2004). Are managers from Mars and academicians from Venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship between academic quality and practical relevance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1063-1074. Recuperado de http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.406
Barbosa, J. C., Ferreira, M. F., Paiva, C. C., Patrício, K. P., Silva, D. H. S., & Portela, J. C. (2022). A experiência da UNESP com a Agenda 2030: a governança universitária como indutora de ações e articulações para o enfrentamento dos desafios locais e globais. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias de la Comunicación, 21(41), 132-146. Recuperado de http://revista.pubalaic.org/index.php/alaic/article/view/945
Bello, D. C., & Kostova, T. (2012). From the Editors: Conducting high impact international business research: The role of theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(6), 537-543. Recuperado de https://10.1057/jibs.2012.14
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2006). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries (Discussion Paper n. 716). London, UK: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2019). Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on 8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 325-340. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.008
Costa, F. J., Machado, M. A. V., & Câmara, S. F. (2022). Por uma orientação ao impacto societal da pós-graduação em administração no Brasil. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 20(6), 823-835. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120210222
Eisenhardt, K., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenstein, S. (2016). From the editors: grand challenges and inductive methods: rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113-1123. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4004
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14-19. Recuperado de https://ssrn.com/abstract=2480085
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
George, G. (2016). From the editor: management research in AMJ: celebrating impact while striving for more. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4006
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Aparna, J., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1869-1877. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage Publishing House.
Haley, U. C. V., Page, M.C., Pitsis, T.S., Rivas, J. L., & Yu. K. F. (2017). Measuring and achieving scholarly impact: a report from the Academy of Mangement’s Practice Theme Committee. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11747.86561
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2006). The role of JOOP (and other scientific journals) in bridging the practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 173-178. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906X104013.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British journal of Management, 12(s1), S41-S48. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12.s1.5
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 355-369. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00757.x
Huff, A. (2000). 1999 presidential address: changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 288-293. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3312916
Kieser A., & Leiner L. (2009). Why the rigor-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516-533. Recuperado de https://doiorg/101111/j1467-6486200900831x
Kreiling, L., & Paunov, C. (2021). Knowledge co-creation in the 21st century: a cross-country experience-based policy report (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, n. 115). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Recuperado de https://www.oecd.org/innovation/knowledge-co-creation-in-the-21st-century-c067606f-en.htm
Lauronen, J. P. (2020). The dilemmas and uncertainties in assessing the societal impact of research. Science and Public Policy, 47(2), 207-218. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz059
Lazzarini, S. (2017). Pesquisa em Administração: em busca de impacto social e outros impactos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 57(6), 620-625. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020170608
Manville, C., Jones, M. M., Henham, M. L., Castle-Clarke, S., Frearson, M., Gunashekar, S. … Grant, J. (2015). Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: an evaluation approach and evidence. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Europe. Recuperado de https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR726.html
Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2019). Convergência, comunicação, e impacto da pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(1), 1-7. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019180346
Ministério da Educação e Cultura. (2019, outubro 24). Novo modelo de avaliação medirá impacto social e inserção regional das pesquisas. Recuperado de http://portal.mec.gov.br/setec-programas-e-acoes/acordo-gratuidade/225-noticias/sistemas-1375504326/81611-novo-modelo-de-avaliacao-medira-impacto-social-e-insercao-regional-das-pesquisas
Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Penuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34-47. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003
Pettigrew, A. (2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12(s1), s61-s70. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12.s1.8
Pettigrew, A. (2011). Scholarship with impact. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 347-354l. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00769.x
Razmgir, M., Panahi, S., Ghalichi, L., Mousavi, S. A. J., & Sedghi, S. (2021). Exploring research impact models: a systematic scoping review. Research Evaluation, 30(4), 443-457. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab009
Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm … Van Horik, R. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298-308. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025
Reed, M. S., Ferre, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M. … Holden, J. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Research Policy, 50(4), 104147. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147
Research Excellence Framework. (2020, outubro). Index of revisions to the ‘panel criteria and working methods’ (2019/02). Recuperado de https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1450/ref-2019_02-panel-criteria-and-working-methods.pdf
Rolfsen, M., Johnsen, A., & Knutstad, G. (2007). Action engagement: improving researchers’ involvement in action research projects. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20(1), 53-63. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-006-9049-x
Rynes, S. L. (2007). Let’s create a tipping point: what academics and practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 987-1008. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.27156169
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of management Journal, 44(2), 340-355. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/3069460
Samuel, G. N., & Derrick, G. E. (2015). Societal impact evaluation: exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 229-241. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv007
Sandes-Guimarães, L. V. D., & Hourneaux, F., Jr. (2020). Research impact – what is it, after all? RAUSP Management Journal, 55(3), 283-287. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-07-2020-202
Smith, R. (2001). Measuring the social impact of research: difficult but necessary. BMJ, 323(7312), 528. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7312.528
Starkey, K. & Madan, P. (2001), Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12(1), s3-s26. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12.s1.2
Tenkasi R. V., & Hay, G. W. (2004). Actionable knowledge and scholar-practitioners: a process model of theory-practice linkages. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(3), 177-206. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPAA.0000031697.76777.ac
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2012). Impact of research: a guide for business schools. Tampa, FL: AACSB International. Recuperado de https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/reports/impact-of-research-a-guide-for-business-schools
Ventura, A. C., Davel, E. P. B. (2021). Impacto socioambiental da pesquisa. Organizações & Sociedade, 28(99), 710-721. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-92302021v28n9900PT
Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of ‘theory of change’ in international development. London, UK: Department for International Development. Recuperado de https://gsdrc.org/document-library/review-of-the-use-of-theory-of-change-in-international-development/
Warwick Institute for Global Sustainable Development. (2021). URBE Latam theory of change at project proposal stage (UKRI GCRF). London, UK: Warwick University. Recuperado de https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/schoolforcross-facultystudies/igsd/resources/hp-contents/urbe_latam_theory_of_change_-_proposal_stage.pdf
Wickert, C., Post, C., Doh, J. P., Prescott, J. E., & Prencipe, A. (2021). Management research that makes a difference: broadening the meaning of impact. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 297-320. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12666
Willmott, H. (2012). Reframing relevance as “social usefulness”: a comment on Hodgkinson and Starkey’s “Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again”. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 598-604. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00839.x
Wood, T., Jr., & Caldas, M. P. (2020). Posfácio: o desafio da transformação na UNESP. In S. R. Valentini, & S. R. Nobre (Orgs.), Universidade em transformação: lições das crises (pp. 445-453). São Paulo, SP: Editora UNESP.
Wood, T., Jr., Holz, E. B., & Souza, R. (2022). When rigor meets relevance: the development of hybrid actionable knowledge production systems. Systemic Practice and Management Research, 36, 1-29. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-022-09596-x
Wood, T., Jr., Souza, R., & Caldas, M. O. (2022), The relevance of management research debate: a historical view – 1876-2018. Journal of Management History, 28(3), 409-427. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-022-09596-x
Ziman, J. (1996). ‘Postacademic science’: constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67-80. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55095