Evaluation has been playing, mainly since 80s, a central role in the public policies of several countries, integrating the emergence of news modes of governance and policy making. These changes are accompanied by discourses about the need for rationalization policy decisions, through a reduction of ideological arguments and an increment of scientific reasons - i.e. use of knowledge and its outcomes.

As we’ve been researching on evaluation of school, we’ve been interested in understanding how these issues arise in that context. Thus, our research aims to understand what are the key influence elements in decision-making processes on schools’ external evaluation in Portugal (2005-2011) and how they can contribute (or not) to the recognition of more democratic forms of expertise and political legitimacy. In this paper, we make a mapping of national and international social actors (mainly from European's countries, bodies and organizations) involved in evaluating schools and we analyze the flow and nature of information that can impact the decision making processes. To characterize the type of information we used a theoretical framework that allows us to discuss the valorization of different forms of scientific knowledge’s production and the conditions to define expert / expertise. Regarding the forms of knowledge production we have as reference the systematization of Gibbons et al (cit in Meusere Nagel, 2009). Thus, we attend for 2 modes: Mode 1 (conservative), in which the knowledge is produced “according to the cognitive and social norms of a disciplinary context and, in so far, is autonomous”; Mode 2, in which “knowledge production is observed as taking place within wider, transdisciplinary contexts” (Gibbons et al cit in Meuser e Nagel, 2009: 20).

For conceptualizing expertise and expert, we take into account the evolution waves of understanding these concepts that were systematized by Collins and Evans (cit in Bogner, Littig& Menz, 2009). The first wave is characterized by a horizontal division between lay people and experts, who’s being understood as agents of truth and authority. The second wave is characterized by blurring the boundary between experts and lay people towards democratization of expertise. In the third wave expertise is defined as being provided by belonging to certain groups, rather than by recognition of individual skills.

Bogner, A; Littig, B; Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing experts. New York: Palgrave McMillan. Collins, H; Evans, R (2007). Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nagel, M; Meuser, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 17-42.