Klaipėdos universitetas

Straipsnyje aptariamas paradoksas,susijęs su regionų programų vertinimu ir regionų sanglauda Europos Sąjungoje: augantregionų programų vertinimo skaičiui, regionų sanglauda nedidėja. Jei jauįmanoma apskaičiuoti regionų sanglaudos politikos rezultatus ir poveikį, taikodėl neįmanoma paskatinti jos plėtotės ir išmatuoti taip, kad taptų akivaizdu,jog ji didėja? Arba kažkas negero vyksta su regionų sanglaudos politika, arbasu jos matavimais. Kol kas mes krypstame į blogų matavimų diskursą: tai, kąvertiname, ir tai, kaip vertiname, priklauso nuo vertinimo metodologijų. Tai labaipopuliarus požiūris. Jį straipsnyje bandome išplėsti, eksperimentuodami sunaratyvų teorija. Taikydami dispozityviąją analizę penkiuose straipsnioskyriuose iliustruojame prasmių kūrimo procesą, išryškiname keletą bendrųpamirštų prasmių ir reikšmių, kurios susijusios su regionų programų vertinamųjųveiksmų multidiscipliniškumu.

This article sets out to examine the public policy evaluation model, which is applied for evaluating public policy in Lithuania. The data was collected from the papers published by local researchers, official documents available at the ministries and agencies web sites and other printed materials. Qualitative data for this paper was taken from the series of individual interviews with public officials and evaluators (conducted 200–2010). The data was supplemented with quantitative data from the survey about the scope and significance of evaluation in Lithuania (conducted in 2010). It was found that monitoring system was weak designed and required significant reinvention. The reinvention of the monitoring system will built base for the future evaluation of the results. It is suggested that that the greatest demand for the effectiveness, efficiency and productivity in the government leads to the highest use of performance management and evaluation as a tool for decision-making.

Study programme quality assessment provides higher education quality which in its turn is an essential precondition for the successful national economy development. At the moment the society has a lot of discussion about what is higher education quality and how to assess it. The pragmatic approach makes us set criteria for study programme quality assessment. However, before doing that one must understand what higher education quality is. Developing over the years, higher education has created different quality understandings. The different quality understandings form the necessity of different quality assessment approaches. As the foundation of higher education quality assessment to create the methodological basis there are taken higher education quality assessment conceptions distinguished by R. Barnett: objective, subjective and development. Each of the conceptions intends to use different approaches for higher education assessment. The research approbates the usage of The Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP) method to detect the most significant study programme quality criteria and the most suitable way of assessment for them. AHP method is based on expert surveys, which were taken part by two most important interest groups interested in higher education: higher education administrative staff and students. Higher education administrators are represented by Higher Education Council representative, LU heads of administrative departments and leadership staff who are responsible for study quality and programme accreditation. In their turn, students are represented by members of Latvian Student Association, LU student council representatives and students from different LU faculties.