Museums and quality, from the concept of the museum that carries out functions to the museum that provides services

Quality management Self-evaluation of the organisation Citizens/customers satisfaction Impact on society evaluation Key performance evaluation Good practices comparison (Benchmarking) Continuous improvement In professional environments, when quality assessment of museums is discussed, one immediately thinks of the honourableness of the directors and curators, the erudition and specialisation of knowledge, the diversity of the gathered material and study of the collections, the collections conservation methods and environmental control, the regularity and notoriety of the exhibitions and artists, the building’s architecture and site, the recreation of environments, the museographic equipment design. We admit that the roles and attributes listed above can contribute to the definition of a specificity of museological good practice within a hierarchised functional perspective (the museum functions) and for the classification of museums according to a scale, validated between peers, based on “installed” appreciation criteria, enforced from above downwards, according to the “prestige” of the products and of those who conceive them, but that say nothing about the effective satisfaction of the citizen/customers and the real impact on society. There is a lack of evaluation instruments that would give us a return of all that the museum is and represents in contemporary society, focused on being and on the relation with the other, in detriment of the ostentatious possession and of the doing in order to meet one’s duties. But it is only possible to evaluate something by measurement and comparison, on the basis of well defined criteria, from a common grid, implicating all of the actors in the self-evaluation, in the definition of the aims to fulfil and in the obtaining of results.

As atitudes dos professores face à inclusão de alunos com deficiência : o contacto com a deficiência

RESUMO: Actualmente as práticas de exclusão evoluíram para uma perspectiva de inclusão, assim como para a consciencialização dos direitos e deveres de cada um, como forma de dar resposta à sociedade heterogénea existente. A visão baseada nos sistemas de identificação e classificação dos sujeitos em várias categorias de deficiências era algo muito usual, mas que foi abolida, dando assim lugar ao conceito de Necessidades Educativas Especiais, com uma óptica mais abrangente, tendo em conta o contexto em que o sujeito está envolvido (Nunes, 2000). As atitudes dos professores face aos alunos com deficiência têm melhorado significativamente (Ribeiro, 1999), no entanto o processo de inclusão destas crianças no ensino regular não está isento de problemas. Neste sentido, e para que este desafio seja ultrapassado com sucesso, torna-se essencial que os professores modifiquem as suas atitudes e passem a desempenhar um papel mais activo nas suas funções, devendo para isso, começar por adaptar o currículo, e posteriormente repensar as suas estratégias e métodos de trabalho, como forma a responder às necessidades de todos os alunos (Ainscow, 1997). O objectivo principal deste estudo é verificar se o contacto com a deficiência (a nível da experiência no ensino, formação inicial e contacto na infância/juventude), por parte dos professores, influencia as suas atitudes em relação à formação necessária para a inclusão de alunos com deficiência, bem como às vantagens que esta representa para esses mesmos alunos. A amostra foi constituída por 672 professores do ensino regular, todos estão actualmente no activo e leccionam níveis de ensino do Pré-Escolar ao Ensino Secundário, de Norte a Sul do país. (N = 482 do género feminino e N =190 do género masculino). O instrumento de avaliação aplicado foi o questionário APIAD – Atitude dos Professores face à Inclusão de Alunos com Deficiência (Leitão, 2011). Concluiu-se que a experiência no ensino de alunos com deficiência influencia significativamente a atitude dos professores face à formação necessária (deficiência motora: p<0,001; deficiência auditiva: p<0,001; deficiência visual: p<0,001; deficiência mental: p=0,004) e face às vantagens da inclusão para os alunos com deficiência (deficiência motora: p=0,005; deficiência auditiva: p<0,001; deficiência visual: p<0,001; deficiência mental: p=0,022). No que se refere ao contacto com pessoas com deficiência durante a formação inicial, concluiu-se que existem diferenças significativas na atitude dos professores face às vantagens da inclusão para os alunos com deficiência (deficiência motora: p<0,001; deficiência auditiva: p<0,001; deficiência visual: p<0,001; deficiência mental: p<0,001). No entanto, no que respeita à formação, a atitude dos professores não difere, independentemente de terem tido esse contacto (deficiência motora: p=0,393; deficiência auditiva: p=0,456; deficiência visual: p=0,055; deficiência mental: p=0,342). Relativamente ao contacto com pessoas com deficiência durante a infância/juventude conclui-se que não existem diferenças na atitude dos professores em relação à formação necessária (deficiência motora: p=0,893; deficiência auditiva: p=0,667; deficiência visual: p=0,459; deficiência mental: p=0,918). Por sua vez, no que respeita às vantagens da inclusão para os alunos com deficiência, esta variável só influencia significativamente a atitude dos professores no caso da deficiência visual (deficiência motora: p=0,154; deficiência auditiva: p=0,100; deficiência visual: p=0,045; deficiência mental: p=0,149). ABSTRACT: Currently the exclusionary practices evolved to an inclusion perspective, as well as the awareness of rights and duties of each one as a way to reply to the existing heterogeneous society. The vision-based systems for identification and classification of subjects into various categories of disabilities was very unusual, but it was abolished, giving way to the concept of Special Educational Needs, with a broader perspective, considering the context in which the subject is involved (Nunes, 2000). The teachers attitude face to the students with disabilities have improved significantly (Ribeiro, 1999), however the process of inclusion of these children in regular education isn't exempt of problems. In this direction and so this challenge is exceeded successfully, it is essential that teachers change their attitudes and start to perform a more active role in their functions, and to do so, start by adapting the curriculum and then rethink their strategies and working methods, in order to meet the needs of all students (Ainscow, 1997). The main purpose of this study is to verify that the contact with the disability (educational level of experience, initial formation and contact in childhood/youth), among teachers, influences their attitudes towards the needed formation for the inclusion of students with disabilities as well as the benefits that this represents for them. The sample consisted by 672 regular educational teachers, all currently in employment and teaching from Preschool to High school, from North to South. (N = 482 females and N = 190 males). The evaluation instrument used was the survey APIAD - Teachers attitude towards the inclusion of students with disabilities (Leitão, 2011). It was concluded that the experience in teaching students with disabilities influences significantly the teachers attitude faced to the necessary formation (motor disability: p<0,001; hearing impairment: p<0,001; visual impairment: p<0,001; mental disability: p=0,004) and faced to the inclusion benefits for students with disabilities (motor disability: p=0,005; hearing impairment: p<0,001; visual impairment: p<0,001; mental disability: p=0,022).Concerning to the contact with people with disabilities during the initial formation, it was concluded that there are significant differences in the teachers attitude face to the inclusion benefits for students with disabilities (motor disability: p<0,001; hearing impairment: p<0,001; visual impairment: p<0,001; mental disability: p<0,001). In relation to the formation, the teachers attitude is the same, regardless of whether or not they have had such contact (motor disability: p=0,393; hearing impairment: p=0,456; visual impairment: p=0,055; mental disability: p=0,342). Regarding to the contact with people with disabilities during childhood/youth, it was concluded that there is no difference in the teachers attitude in relation to the formation needed (motor disability: p=0,893; hearing impairment: p=0,667; visual impairment: p=0,459; mental disability: p=0,918). On the other way, regarding to the inclusion benefits for students with disabilities, this influences significantly the teachers attitude just in the visual impairment. (motor disability: p=0,154; hearing impairment: p=0,100; visual impairment: p=0,045; mental disability: p=0,149).

Understanding safety and production risks in rail engineering planning and protection

Much of the published human factors work on risk is to do with safety and within this is concerned with prediction and analysis of human error and with human reliability assessment. Less has been published on human factors contributions to understanding and managing project, business, engineering and other forms of risk and still less jointly assessing risk to do with broad issues of ‘safety’ and broad issues of ‘production’ or ‘performance’. This paper contains a general commentary on human factors and assessment of risk of various kinds, in the context of the aims of ergonomics and concerns about being too risk averse. The paper then describes a specific project, in rail engineering, where the notion of a human factors case has been employed to analyse engineering functions and related human factors issues. A human factors issues register for potential system disturbances has been developed, prior to a human factors risk assessment, which jointly covers safety and production (engineering delivery) concerns. The paper concludes with a commentary on the potential relevance of a resilience engineering perspective to understanding rail engineering systems risk. Design, planning and management of complex systems will increasingly have to address the issue of making trade-offs between safety and production, and ergonomics should be central to this. The paper addresses the relevant issues and does so in an under-published domain – rail systems engineering work.