Avaliação institucional da UFRN: viabilidade e utilização

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to develop a meta-evaluative study of the Institutional Evaluation of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, in particular, to observe the possibilities that permeate its Efficiency (WHOLEY, 1987). The evaluation of the Efficiency is, therefore, understood as an instrument of apprehension of Viability and Utility of the institutional evaluation of UFRN, our main evaluative categories. Our intention is that, from them, we can apprehend the extent to which this evaluation is feasible and useful for meeting the specific demands of the academic community. The successive approaches to the theme were based on theoreticalmethodological procedures based on qualitative research, such as: literature review (reports, Forums, official research sites, etc.) and documentary (laws, regiments, etc.) and techniques such as content analysis; speech analysis; the semi-structured interview and the focus group. With these, we can understand the perceptions of the segments of the academic community: Reitora, Teachers, Administrative Technicians and Students, as well as the members of the Evaluation Committee and the Monitoring and Evaluation Coordination on the subject. We emphasize that because they were not included in the UFRN's institutional evaluation, outsourcers were not included as subjects of this research. These data were used to answer the central question of this work: How is the institutional evaluation developed at UFRN and what facilitates or hinders its viability and use? Its relevance is to address a little explored theme within the scope of the evaluation of public policies, both to enter the universe of the metaevaluation (SCRIVEN, 2015), applied here to the evaluation of institutions, and to perform a rereading of the checklist, elaborated by Scriven , mediating it with Wholey's (1987) propositions regarding the normative apparatus, access to material, human and financial resources and political viability, understood by this as necessary elements when we propose to verify the evaluation of an evaluation. Our hypothesis is that: In the viability and usefulness of UFRN's institutional evaluation, the facility varies according to the institutional structure and organization and the difficulties stem from the lack of attention to the specific demands of its segments. To unveil this reality, we adopted as Specific Objectives: to apprehend the type of evaluation developed by UFRN and its relation with the different sectors; to know the evaluation approaches Program of Institutional Evaluation of the Brazilian Universities - PAIUB and of the National System of Evaluation of Higher Education - SINAES that base the evaluation of UFRN; whether the results of the UFRN's institutional evaluation address the specific demands of the university community. This paper presents the following results: UFRN's institutional evaluation is a consolidated practice. It is important, since it represents, at times, a space of possibilities for the development of more democratic and participative evaluations; however, its normative, material and ideological bases indicate that it presents greater potential of viability and utility for attending to the evaluation demands of the managers of UFRN and MEC. As for the Academic Community, according to the segments interviewed, this shows that they have little knowledge about UFRN's institutional evaluation and often confuse it with the specific evaluations, the performance of teachers and technicians. The participation of teachers and students in this process is limited to the moments in which the self-assessment of the courses take place, to the semi-annual completion of the teacher evaluation and self-assessment questionnaires of the student / teacher, in addition to the National Student Performance Examination - ENADE, for the student. For the administrative technicians segment, participation is limited to the completion of a specific form of performance evaluation. Outsourced servers are not covered by this evaluative activity. In view of this, we can verify that the lack of knowledge of these segments about the institutional evaluation developed by UFRN and the small participation in its processes indicate that the results achieved by this practice are less viable and useful for meeting the specific demands of these segments. In view of this we confirm the hypothesis of this work.