Click here to download

The Evaluation Explosion. A Proposal: the Criteria of "Non Prevalence"
Author/s: Roberto Cipriani 
Year:  2013 Issue: 100 Language: Italian 
Pages:  6 Pg. 11-16 FullText PDF:  584 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SR2013-100002
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

We could say that an explosion of evaluation has taken place in the sociological panorama (and not only). This has a double meaning: in the sense of a new, innovative, almost revolutionary, phenomenon, but also to indicate that the almost contemporary activation and processing of evaluation has put the university (and school) system in crisis, highlighting faults, delays, incompetence, little familiarity with technology and communication practices, internal and external contradictions, evident flaws, unavailability to communicative action («habermasian » and not), the ascendance of technocracy, dissimulated corporativism, masked self-reference, presumption of no judgments, muddled structures, lack of observance of implementation times, and especially self-determined deadlines. The panorama is bleak, but something has been changing. It is advisable to avoid the tendency to use only qualitative or quantitative data. It is most important to always keep present the criteria of «non prevalence», meaning giving attention to every possible type of information, indicators or factors, which accompany and characterize the context and content of a study. The risk is otherwise that a scarcely relevant detail can become the only (or almost only) referential parameter, without the considering its significance in the context.

  1. AA. VV. (2012), «La valutazione della ricerca», Pedagogia oggi, 2, pp. 5-163.
  2. A. Baccini (2010), Valutare la ricerca. Uso e abuso degli strumenti bibliometrici, Bologna, il Mulino.
  3. L. Benadusi (2012), «La valutazione della ricerca e i rischi degli effetti perversi», Scuola democratica, 5, pp. 146-50.
  4. A. Bonaccorsi (2012), «La valutazione della ricerca come esperimento sociale», Scuola democratica, 6, pp. 156-65.
  5. E. Campelli (1999), Da un luogo comune. Elementi di metodologia delle scienze sociali, Roma, Carocci.
  6. J. Fitzpatrick, J. Sanders, B. Worthen (2004), Program Evaluation, Boston, Allyn & Bacon. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (2003), The Student Evaluation Standards, Thousand Oaks, Corwin Sage.
  7. W. Kula (1987), Le misure e gli uomini dall’antichità a oggi, Roma-Bari, Laterza.
  8. A.N. Langville, C.D. Meyer (2012), Who is number one? The Science of Rating and Ranking, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  9. P. Miccoli, A. Fabris (a c. di) (2011), Valutare la ricerca? Capire, applicare, difendersi, Pisa, Ets.
  10. M. Palumbo (2001), Il processo di valutazione. Decidere, programmare, valutare, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  11. P. Parra Saiani (2007), Considerazioni metodologiche (e non) sulla valutazione dell’università, in A. Baldissera, C. Coggi, R. Grimaldi (a c. di), Metodi di ricerca per la valutazione della didattica universitaria, Lecce, Pensa Multimedia.
  12. R. Stake (ed.) (1967), Curriculum Evaluation, Chicago, Rand McNally.
  13. R. Stake (2004), Standards-Based and Responsive Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Roberto Cipriani, The Evaluation Explosion. A Proposal: the Criteria of "Non Prevalence" in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 100/2013, pp. 11-16, DOI:10.3280/SR2013-100002


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content