Contenido principal del artículo

Juan David Parra
Camilo Vieira

Si bien la literatura documenta un interés creciente en las aplicaciones del Pensamiento de Diseño (pdd) en la administración pública en general, existe una brecha en la producción académica sobre su papel en el campo específico de la evaluación de políticas e intervenciones sociales. Este artículo hace un aporte conceptual y metodológico en este último debate. Parte de la reflexión propuesta es de naturaleza meta-teórica, a partir de la cual se identifican puntos en común entre fundamentos epistemológicos del pdd y una escuela de evaluación en particular: la evaluación pragmática. En un segundo momento analítico del texto se examinan algunas limitaciones epistemológicas del pragmatismo (como paradigma de investigación) al momento de fundamentar conclusiones causales en el estudio de fenómenos sociales. Este punto no es trivial, en tanto, el análisis causal es la razón de ser de la evaluación de políticas o programas (públicos). Se propone que es posible enmendar algunos de estos problemas en la evaluación basada en el diseño a partir de la adopción de principios epistemológicos del Realismo Crítico. Las implicaciones metodológicas de estos argumentos son ilustradas con la discusión de dos ejemplos de evaluaciones de programas educativos en Colombia, lideradas por los autores.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Parra, J. D., & Vieira, C. (2023). El pensamiento de diseño y la evaluación de políticas e intervenciones sociales: hacia un diálogo "realista". Desafíos, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/desafios/a.12199

Adams, C., & Nash, J. B. (2016). Exploring Design Thinking Practices in Evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 12(26), 12-17. https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/434

Archer, M. (2013a). Social Morphogenesis and the Prospects of Morphogenic Society. En M. Archer (Ed.), Social Morphogenesis (pp. 1-22). Springer.

Archer, M. (2013b). Social origins of educational systems. Routledge.

Astbury, B. (2013). Some reflections on Pawson’s Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Evaluation, 19(4), 383-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013505039

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Bason, C. (2016). Introduction: The Design for Policy Nexus. En C. Bason (Ed.), Design for Policy (pp. 1-8). Routledge. Bason, C., & Austin, R. D. (2022). Design in the public sector: Toward a human centred model of public governance. Public Management Review, 24(11), 1727-1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1919186

Bhaskar, R., & Hartwig, M. (2010). The Formation of Critical Realism: A Personal Perspective. Routledge.

Brousselle, A., & Buregeya, J.-M. (2018). Theory-based evaluations: Framing the existence of a new theory in evaluation and the rise of the 5th generation. Evaluation, 24(2), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018765487 Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design Science Research in Information Systems: A Critical Realist Approach. En A. Hevner & S. Chatterjee (Eds.), Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice (pp. 209-233). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_15

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences (2.a ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831

Di Russo, S. (2016). Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments (Tesis de doctorado no publicada). Swinburne University.

Dorst, K. (2006). Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6

Douven, I. (2021). Abduction. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/abduction/

Elder-Vass, D. (2022). Pragmatism, critical realism and the study of value. Journal of Critical Realism, 21(3), 261-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2049088

Emmel, N. (2013). Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach. Sage.

Espinal, A., Vieira, C., & Guerrero-Bequis, V. (2022). Student ability and difficulties with transfer from a block-based programming language into other programming languages: A case study in Colombia. Computer Science Education, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2079867

Fontaine, G. (2020). The contribution of policy design to realist evaluation. Evaluation, 26(3), 296-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389020902496

Gray, C., & Shaw, J. (2018). From summative to developmental: Incorporating design-thinking into evaluations of complex interventions. Journal of Integrated Care, 27(3), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-07-2018-0053

Hermus, M., Buuren, A. van, & Bekkers, V. (2020). Applying design in public administration: A literature review to explore the state of the art. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 21-48. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420126

Hoadley, C., & Campos, F. C. (2022). Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to studying online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2079128

Jagosh, J. (2020). Retroductive theorizing in Pawson and Tilley’s applied scientific realism. Journal of Critical Realism, 19(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767 430.2020.1723301

Lewis, J. M., McGann, M., & Blomkamp, E. (2020). When design meets power: Design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policymaking. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420081

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage. Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Olejniczak, K., Borkowska-Waszak, S., Domaradzka-Widła, A., & Park, Y. (2020). Policy labs: The next frontier of policy design and evaluation? Policy & Politics, 48(1), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420108

Parra, J. D. (2016). Realismo crítico: Una alternativa en el análisis social. Sociedad y Economía, (31), 215-238. https://doi.org/10.25100/sye.v0i31.3895

Parra, J. D. (2021). Sobre el uso de la evidencia y la validez externa en la evaluación de intervenciones sociales: Una mirada crítica. Colombia Internacional, (105), 175- 198. https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint105.2021.07

Parra, J. D. (2022). Decentralisation and school-based management in Colombia: An exploration (using systems thinking) of the Full‐Day Schooling programme. International Journal of Educational Development, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102579

Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford press. Pawson, R. (2003). Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory. Evaluation, 9(4), 471-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638900300900407

Pawson, R. (2013). The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Sage. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage. Peters, B. G. (2015). State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3-4), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715581540

Porpora, D. V. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach. Cambridge University Press.

Radinger, T., Echazarra, A., Guerrero, G., & Valenzuela, J. P. (2018). oecd reviews of school resources: Colombia 2018. oecd.

Rigby, J. G., Woulfin, S. L., & März, V. (2016). Understanding How Structure and Agency Influence Education Policy Implementation and Organizational Change. American Journal of Education, 122(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/685849

Ritz, B. (2020). Comparing abduction and retroduction in Peircean pragmatism and critical realism. Journal of Critical Realism, 19(5), 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2020.1831817

Romme, A. G. L., & Meijer, A. (2020). Applying design science in public policy and administration research. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1332 /030557319X15613699981234

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science (2.a ed.). Routledge. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Sage. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/09507051(92)90020-G

Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. University of Chicago Press.

Tikly, L. (2015). What works, for whom, and in what circumstances? Towards a critical realist understanding of learning in international and comparative education. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 237-249. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.008

unesco. (2017). Cracking the code: Girls’ and women’s educaiton in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) [Conferencia]. International Symposium and Policy Forum. unesco, Paris, France.

ut Econometría-sei. (2019). Evaluación de operaciones y de resultados del programa Jornada Única que permita analizar el proceso de implementación y los resultados generados en los beneficiarios. Departamento Nacional de Planeación; mineducación. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Sinergia/Documentos/Evaluacion_Jornada_Unica_Producto_4_Informe_Resultados.pdf

Vásquez, S. (2011). Comunidades de práctica. Educar, 47(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.71

Vieira, C., Gómez, R., Gómez, M., Canu, M., & Duque, M. (2022). Implementing Unplugged CS and Use-Modify-Create to Develop Student Computational Thinking Skills: – A Nationwide Implementation in Colombia. Educational Technology & Society, 26(3). https://www.jets.net/collection/forthcoming-articles/26_3

Villa Álvarez, D. P., Auricchio, V., & Mortati, M. (2022). Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model. Policy Sciences, 55(1), 89-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09448-4

Weedon, S. (2019). The Core of Kees Dorst’s Design Thinking: A Literature Review. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919854077

Wong, G. (2018, marzo-abril). Getting to grips with context and complexity − the case for realist approaches. Gaceta Sanitaria, 32(2), 109-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.05.010

Wuisman, J. (2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery in Critical Realist Social Scientific Research. Journal of Critical Realism, 4(2), 366-394. https://doi.org/10.1558/jocr.v4i2.366

Zotzmann, K., Barman, E., Porpora, D. V., Carrigan, M., & Elder-Vass, D. (2022). Round table: Is the common ground between pragmatism and critical realism more important than the differences? Journal of Critical Realism, 21(3), 352-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2073674

Detalles del artículo