Maturity for Impact (MPI): a proposal for an evaluative transformation of professional graduate programs

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9771/cp.v19i2.72130

Keywords:

Graduate Evaluation, Professional Master’s Degree, Socioeconomic Impact.

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive framework for transforming the evaluation model of Professional Graduate Programs (PPs) in Brazil, grounded in the concept of Maturity for Impact (MPI) and the Maturity for Impact Index (IMI). Based on the need to calibrate universal quality indicators with the applied, problem-oriented mission of PPs, this proposal differs from traditional evaluation models designed for academic programs. The framework is organized into three main criteria – Governance and Strategic Alignment; Solutions Development and Talent Training; and Impact and Territorial Transformation – and operates through the IMI, an instrument that aggregates six weighted criteria to assess the maturity of Technical-Technological Products (PTTs). The article details the structure of the proposed model, its operationalization, implementation timeline, and monitoring and communication strategies, positioning itself as a complementary mechanism to Capes’ quadrennial evaluation, aimed at aligning incentives with the generation of public value.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Andrea Viviana Waichman, Universidade Federal do Amazonas

Doctorate in Freshwater Biology and Inland Fisheries at the National Institute of Amazonian Research.

Eduardo Meireles, Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais

PhD in Urban Engineering from the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar).

Genildo Cavalcante Ferreira-Júnior, Instituto Federal do Acre

PhD in Biochemistry and Biotechnology from the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL).

References

ARC – AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL. Engagement and Impact Assessment. [2026]. Disponível em: https://www.arc.gov.au/evaluating-research/engagement-and-impact-ei. Acesso em: 06 out. 2025

BARATA, Rita Barradas. Mudanças necessárias na avaliação da pós-graduação brasileira. Interface, Botucatu, v. 23, e180635, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/Interface.180635. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/icse/a/gBkWRwqC5svbVNL3R8QN4sx/. Acesso em: 10 out. 2025.

BERNSTEIN, Michael J. et al. The Societal Readiness Thinking Tool: A Practical Resource for Maturing the Societal Readiness of Research Projects. Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 28, art. 6, 2022. Disponível em: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-021-00360-3. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2025.

CAPES – COORDENAÇÃO DE APERFEIÇOAMENTO DE PESSOAL DE NÍVEL SUPERIOR. Documentos do novo ciclo avaliativo 2025-2028. Brasília, DF: Capes, 2025a. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/avaliacao/sobre-a-avaliacao/documentos-do-novo-ciclo-avaliativo-2025-2028. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

CAPES – COORDENAÇÃO DE APERFEIÇOAMENTO DE PESSOAL DE NÍVEL SUPERIOR. Diretrizes comuns da Avaliação de Permanência dos Programas de Pós-Graduação stricto sensu: princípios e processos da Avaliação de Permanência do SNPG (ciclo 2025-2028). Brasília, DF: Capes, 2025b. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/documentos/avaliacao/19052025_20250502_DocumentoReferencial_FICHA.pdf. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

CoARA – COALITION FOR ADVANCING RESEARCH ASSESSMENT. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment: the Agreement full text. 2022. Disponível em: https://www.coara.org/agreement/the-agreement-full-text/. Acesso em: 6 out. 2025.

DORA – DECLARAÇÃO DE SÃO FRANCISCO SOBRE AVALIAÇÃO DA PESQUISA. Português Brasileiro. San Francisco: DORA, 2012. Disponível em: https://sfdora.org/read/read-the-declaration-portugues-brasileiro/. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

GHENO, Ediane Maria et al. Sistema de avaliação da Capes: indicadores e procedimentos de monitoramento e avaliação de desempenho. Em Questão, Porto Alegre, v. 25, n. 3, p. 184-213, 2019. DOI: 10.19132/1808-5245253.184-213.

HICKS, Diana et al. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, v. 520, n. 7548, p. 429-431, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/520429a.

IFD – INNOVATION FUND DENMARK. Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) defined according to Innovation Fund Denmark. Copenhagen: Innovation Fund Denmark, 2019. Disponível em: https://innovationsfonden.dk/sites/default/files/2019-03/societal_readiness_levels_-_srl.pdf. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

MCMANUS Concepta et al. Assessment of the Brazilian postgraduate evaluation system. Front. Educ., v. 7, p. 1036108, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1036108.

MCMANUS Concepta; BAETA NEVES Abilio Afonso; CARVALHO, Carlos Henrique. Technical and artistic production by brazilian postgraduate courses with emphasis on Social Sciences and Humanities. Revista NUPEM, v. 15, n. 35, p. 179-204. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33871/nupem.2023.15.35.179-204.

MOHER, David et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, San Francisco, v. 18, n. 7, e3000737, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737.

OLIVEIRA, Maria Eliza Nogueira; ROTHEN, José Carlos. A política de avaliação da pós-graduação no Brasil: um estudo documental (1998-2018) a partir da área da Educação. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v. 29, n. 2, p. 411-439, 5. Jul. 2022. Disponível em: https://periodicoseletronicos.ufma.br/index.php/cadernosdepesquisa/article/view/19497. Acesso em: 10 out. 2025.

PATRUS, Roberto; DANTAS, Douglas Cabral; SHIGAKI, Helena Belintani. O produtivismo acadêmico e seus impactos na pós-graduação stricto sensu: uma ameaça à solidariedade entre pares? Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-18, 2015. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/cebape/a/HL7xXqvSVnf43TjFfQ4NVwt/. Acesso em: 10 out. 2025.

PEREZ, Olivia Cristina Avaliação em Disputa: A Reforma do Qualis e os Desafios para a Ciência. Novos Debates, v. 11, n. 1, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48006/2358-0097/V11N1.E111011.

REF – RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK. Additional guidance: Guidance on providing testimonies for REF 2021 impact case studies. 2021. Disponível em: https://2021.ref.ac.uk/guidance-and-criteria-on-submissions/guidance/additional-guidance/index.html. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

SANTOS, Solange Maria. Uso responsável de métricas e indicadores. Portal Métricas, São Paulo, 2020. Disponível em: https://metricas.usp.br/uso-responsavel-de-metricas-e-indicadores/. Acesso em: 10 out. 2025.

VSNU; NWO; KNAW. Strategy Evaluation Protocol 2021-2027. 2021. Disponível em: https://storage.knaw.nl/2022-06/SEP_2021-2027.pdf. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

WILSDON, James et al. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: HEFCE, 2015. Disponível em: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RE-151221-TheMetricTideFullReport2015.pdf. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2025.

Published

2026-04-01

How to Cite

Waichman, A. V., Meireles, E., & Ferreira-Júnior, G. C. (2026). Maturity for Impact (MPI): a proposal for an evaluative transformation of professional graduate programs. Cadernos De Prospecção, 19(2), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.9771/cp.v19i2.72130

Issue

Section

Prospecções Tecnológicas de Assuntos Específicos