Potencialidades do software na procura de consensos no ensino superior em contexto pandémico: o método Delphi

Joana Gomes de Almeida; Paulo Peixoto; Cristina Maria Pinto Albuquerque

doi:10.31211/rpics.2022.8.1.232

Authors

Joana Gomes de Almeida Universidade de Coimbra, Centro de Estudos Interdisciplinares do Século XX (CEIS20), Coimbra, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5659-8983
Paulo Peixoto Universidade de Coimbra, Faculdade de Economia, Centro de Estudos Sociais (CES), Coimbra, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2275-667X
Cristina Maria Pinto Albuquerque Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31211/rpics.2022.8.1.232

Keywords:

Consensus, Debate, Delphi, Higher Education, Software

Abstract

Background and Aim: How can software become an instrument of methodological facilitation in the face of restrictions to field research such as those brought about by the pandemic? Why is it important to seek consensus in times of exacerbation and radicalization of opinions and behaviors? These two questions were the starting point for arguing that software powers and accelerates research in contexts of confinement, and it helps to form consensus in moments of rupture, allowing challenges to be identified and solutions to fracturing problems to be proposed. To this end, it uses the example of a study currently being carried out at the University of Coimbra (UC), aiming to produce recommendations that the UC could adopt to structure educational models that respond to the challenges of a post- COVID society. Method: The study adopted the principle of listening to “privileged testimonies,” selecting as empirical object students, directors (or sub-directors) of faculties, and teachers from all scientific areas in UC. The study invested in an intensive methodology that could collect detailed qualitative information to enhance the debate and shape innovative proposals and solutions — the Delphi method. Results: The Delphi method appeared to be an advantageous method in view of the current scenario of probable pandemic intermittency. The great advantage of using the Delphi method (and the Welphi software) is that it allowed geographically dispersed agents to engage in dialogue, reinforcing the mechanisms of democratic governance in the future design of recommendations affecting the entire academic community. Conclusion: The software facilitates analysis considerably, especially at the quantitative level; however, when faced with a heterogeneous group, it is necessary to ensure that minority areas are not devalued. To this end, it is important to ensure that the first questionnaire of the methodology assumes a free-response form and that comments are carefully analyzed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andranovich, G. (1995). Developing community participation and consensus: The Delphi Technique. California State University.

Bardin, L. (2018). Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70.

Birko, S., Dove, E. S., & Özdemir, V. (2015). A Delphi technology foresight study: Mapping social construction of scientific evidence on metagenomics tests for water safety. PLoS ONE, 10(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/f7qsc5

Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/gcdwb3

Butler, C. T. L., & Rothstein, A. (1987). On conflict and consensus: A handbook on formal consensus decisionmaking. Food Not Bombs Publishing. https://bit.ly/3ssEqHN

Cruz, M. B. (1985). A participação política da juventude em Portugal. Análise Social, 21(87-88-89), 1067–1088. https://bit.ly/3uyeeOw

Direção Geral do Ensino Superior. (2020). Skills 4 pós-COVID – Competências para o futuro – comunicado COVID (pp. 1–2). DGES. https://bit.ly/3HZcG4u

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. American Philosophical Association. https://bit.ly/3pap0pO

Giachanou, A., & Rosso, P. (2020, October 19–23). The battle against online harmful information: The cases of fake news and hate speech. CIKM '20: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (pp. 3503–3504) [Apresentação de Poster]. Virtual Event, Ireland. https://doi.org/ghjs9n

Horne, C. L. (2021). Internet governance in the “post-truth era”: Analyzing key topics in “fake news” discussions at IGF. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6). https://doi.org/gjp5ph

Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(10), Artigo 10. https://doi.org/ghfcpw

Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & Mckenna, H. (2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/d2j3pw

Lialiouti ,Z., & Bithymitris, G. (2017). A nation under attack: Perceptions of enmity and victimhood in the context of the Greek crisis. National Identities, 19(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/hf8r

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(3), 317–318. https://doi.org/c2pwzn

Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the world IAU global survey report. International Association of Universities. https://bit.ly/3LosLT6

Marques, J. B. V., & Freitas, D. de (2018). Método DELPHI: caracterização e potencialidades na pesquisa em Educação. Pro-Posições, 29(2), 389–415. https://doi.org/ghp4gv

Miguel, L. F. (2017). Consenso e conflito na democracia contemporânea. Editora Unesp.

Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382. https://doi.org/ddrkvk

Rensmann, L. (2018). The persistence of the authoritarian appeal: On critical theory as a framework for studying populist actors in European democracies. Em J. Morelock (Ed.), Critical theory and authoritarian populism. University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/g7gp

Rosenthal, J. (2009, Julho 31). A terrible thing to waste. The New York Times, MM12. https://nyti.ms/3JbQ2pj