Abstracts
Résumé
Plusieurs formations en évaluation au deuxième cycle sont disponibles au Canada, sous forme de diplômes d’études supérieures spécialisés, de maîtrises ou de cours, avec des contenus théoriques et pratiques. Des formations en évaluation au niveau doctoral sont également disponibles en tant que concentrations ou cours, mais rarement en tant que discipline principale. Comment faire en sorte que ces formations de troisième cycle en évaluation arriment théorie et pratique ? Dans un premier temps, les auteurs présentent la pertinence d’offrir des formations de troisième cycle en évaluation. L’argumentaire se base sur les critères à remplir lors de la création d’un programme de doctorat, soit la pertinence scientifique, sociale, institutionnelle et systémique. Dans un second temps, ils présentent trois volets de l’arrimage théorie et pratique des formations de troisième cycle en évaluation. Les volets portent sur le but de la formation, la base disciplinaire et le niveau d’expérience antérieure en évaluation du public visé. Finalement, quelques modalités possibles d’intégration de la pratique dans les formations de troisième cycle en évaluation sont discutées.
Mots-clés :
- formation,
- évaluation,
- pratique,
- programmes universitaires
Abstract
In Canada, postsecondary training programs are available in evaluation. Masters, graduate diplomas and courses provide with theoretical and empirical content related to the field of evaluation. At the postsecondary level, some training is also available for PhD students. In that case, evaluation takes the form of a class, a major or a minor. How to get doctoral training programs in evaluation that combines conceptual as well as practical contents? First we develop upon the relevancy for doctoral programs in evaluation. Our points refer to the following criteria common to doctoral programs: scientific, social, institutional and systemic relevance. Second we propose three entrees to build bridges between empirical and conceptual knowledge for doctoral programs. The three arguments relate to the career objectives of students, basic disciplinary field of the incoming student and his/her level of experience with evaluation. At the end, few practical options are provided to integrate practice into postsecondary trainings.
Keywords:
- training,
- evaluation,
- practise,
- university programs
Resumo
Diversas formações universitárias ao nível do segundo ciclo em avaliação estão disponíveis no Canadá sob a forma de estudos superiores especializados, mestrados ou de cursos, com conteúdos teóricos e práticos. As formações ao nível do doutoramento estão igualmente disponíveis enquanto concentrações ou cursos, embora mais raramente enquanto disciplina principal. Como fazer para que estas formações do terceiro ciclo em avaliação possam combinar teoria e prática? Num primeiro momento, os autores apresentam a pertinência de oferecer formações de terceiro ciclo em avaliação. O argumentário baseia-se sobre os critérios a preencher na criação de um programa de doutoramento, seja a pertinência científica, social, institucional e sistémica. Num segundo momento, apresentam três argumentos para construir pontes entre a teoria e a prática nas formações de terceiro ciclo em avaliação. Os argumentos estão relacionados com a finalidade da formação, a base disciplinar e o nível de experiência anterior em avaliação «pelos estudiantes» público visado. Finalmente, discutem-se algumas modalidades possíveis de integração da prática nas formações de terceiro ciclo em avaliação.
Palavras chaves:
- formação,
- avaliação,
- prática,
- programas universitários
Appendices
Références
- Alkin, M. C., Christie, C. A., & Rose, M. (2006). Communicating evaluation. In L. F. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), The Sage handbook of evaluation (pp. 384-403). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Brousselle, A., Champagne, F., Contandriopoulos, A-P., & Hartz, Z. (2009). L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes. Montréal, QC: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
- Butterfoss, F. D., Francisco, V., & Capwell, E. W. (2001). Stakeholder participation in evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 2, 114-119. doi: 10.1177/15248399010020 0203
- Champagne, F., Contandriopoulos, A.-P., & Tanon, A. (2004). A program evaluation perspective on processes, practices, and decision-makers. In L. Lemieux-Charles & F. Champagne (Eds.), Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 139-171). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
- Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation. Assessing and improving planning, implementation and effectiveness. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
- CIHE (2011). Standards for Accreditation. New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (CIHE). Retrieved from http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standards_html_version#standard_four
- Consortium of Universities for Evaluation Education (CUEE) Project, (2009). Research on Evaluation Education at the Graduate Level in Canadian Universities. Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.evaluationeducation.ca/documents/evaluation%20education%20canada.pdf
- Coryn, C. L. S., Stufflebeam, D. L., Davidson, E. J., & Scriven, M. (2010). The interdisciplinary Ph. D. in evaluation: reflections on its development and first seven years. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 6(13), 118-129.
- Cunliffe, A. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28, 407-426. doi: 10.1177/1052562904264440
- Deschenaux, F., & Laflamme, C. (2007). Analyse du champ de la recherche en sciences de l’éducation au regard des méthodes employées : la bataille est-elle vraiment gagnée pour le qualitatif ? Recherches Qualitatives, 27(2), 5-27.
- Donaldson, S. I., & Christie, C. A. (2006). Emerging career opportunities in the transdiscipline of evaluation science. In S. I. Donaldson, D. E. Berger, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Applied psychology: New frontiers and rewarding careers (pp.243-259). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Fitzpatrick, J., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. (2009). Evaluation in action: Interviews with expert evaluators. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
- Gauthier, B., Borys, S., Kishchuk, N., & Roy, S. (2006). Evaluation practice in Canada: results of a national survey. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(3), 1-42.
- Hurteau, M., Houle, S., & Mongiat, S. (2009). How legitimate and justified are judgments in program evaluation. Evaluation, 15(3), 307-319. doi: 10.1177/13563 89009105883
- IRSC – Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (2010). Domaines de recherche correspondant aux priorités stratégiques de l’Institut sur les services et les politiques de santé des IRSC. Retrieved from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/f/35337.html
- Jacob, S., & Boisvert, Y. (2010). To be or not to be a profession: Pros, Cons and Challenges for Evaluation. Evaluation, 16(4), 349-369. doi: 10.1177/1356389 01038 0001
- LaVelle, J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2010). University-based evaluation training programs in the United States 1980-2008: an empirical examination. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 9-23. doi: 10.1177/1098214009356022
- Mark, M., & Henry, G. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35-57. doi: 10.1177/1356389004042326
- Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
- Robinson, T. T., & Cousins, J. B. (2004). Internal participatory evaluation as an organizational learning system: a longitudinal case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 1-22.
- SACSCOS – Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2011). The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. Retrieved from http://sacscoc.org/pdf/2012PrinciplesOfAcreditation.pdf
- SCE – Société Canadienne d’Évaluation (2010). L’évaluation au canada : référentiel des compétences professionnelles requises à son exercice. Retrieved from http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1& source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2 Fevaluationmentoringcanada.ca%2Fmyadmin%2Fajax%2Fdownload.php%3Faction%3 Ddownload%26resource_id%3D19&ei=vNb4UqesCOWsyAGFoYCQBg&usg= AFQjCNEiphxLY8KVxlF5qWT3goLL373GLA&bvm=bv.60983673,d.aWM
- Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada (2011). Rapport annuel sur l’état de la fonction d’évaluation. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/orp/2012/ arhef-raefe-fra.asp
- SQÉP – Société québécoise d’évaluation de programme (2009). Profil des membres. Retrieved from http://www.sqep.ca/pages/p_profil.htm
- Scriven, M. (2000). The logic and methodology of checklists. Retrieved from www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/
- Suarez-Herrera, J. C., Springett, J., & Kagan, C. (2009). Critical connections between participatory evaluation, organizational learning and intentional change in pluralistic organizations. Evaluation, 15(3), 321-342. doi: 10.1177/1356389009105884