复杂性视阈中的高校教师绩效评价研究
|
摘要
随着我国高等教育改革的深入,建立与完善适应高等教育发展新形势的高校教师绩效评价机制,已成为当前提高办学质量,促进高等教育可持续发展的关键。高校教师绩效评价对教师的聘用、晋升、培养、使用发挥着重要作用,直接影响教师对教学和学术研究等工作的投入和价值取向,在很大程度上对教师职业生涯成长、高校发展战略产生重要的导向性影响。
本文主要运用复杂性理论、目标管理理论、绩效评价和组织行为学等相关理论,综合管理学、社会学相关知识,采用比较分析、归纳分析、实证分析等方法,在借鉴国内外相关研究基础上,基于复杂性视阈,按照提出问题、分析问题、解决问题的逻辑演进路径研究高校教师绩效评价,研究的主要内容和学术贡献如下:
1)提出高校教师绩效评价应该在将高校教师作为“社会人”的前提下来探讨。目前国内高校教师绩效评价研究大多从制度经济学等视角把高校教师作为“经济人”的人性假设,运用博弈论、委托代理理论等分析高校教师绩效评价短期化行为产生的制度原因。高校教师在“传承文明,教书育人”工作中,更多地是作为社会人在发挥其社会作用,短期化行为产生的深层次原因是高校管理文化缺失。当前高校应大力培育体现高等教育价值理念的大学文化,从根本上消除绩效评价短期化行为。
2)对高校教师绩效评价复杂性进行了分析。指出高校教师绩效评价的复杂性主要表现在评价的对象复杂多样、内容纷繁复杂、目的具有多重性特点、评价方法多种多样、评价的指标体系结构多元,以及与评价系统息息相关的外部环境的复杂多变上。因此,研究高校教师绩效评价必须基于其复杂性特点来进行。
3)构建复杂性视阈中的高校教师绩效评价指标体系。通过集成运用整合数据包络分析法(DEA),层次分析法(AHP)和模糊层次法(FAHP)方法,实现三种方法优势互补,提出基于DEA-AHP-FAHP高校教师绩效评价系统模型,并以学科带头人为例进行实证研究。
4)针对教师绩效评价过多强调显性知识和技术特征明显指标的现状,强调要重视教师隐性知识,将教师的人才培养、服务社会及职业道德、教学效果、精力投入、专业发展潜力等难以量化的非显性指标列入评价体系,并加大其权重,通过重构高校教师绩效评价指标体系以充分体现高校教师社会责任。
5)提出高校教师绩效评价还需进一步处理好公平与效率问题。由于资源配置投入不同,绩效成果的产出会不同,即使在同一个考核平台,不同教师付出努力的程度与成效会存在较大差异的现象,尤其是在对团队的业绩评价考核时,只有综合考虑投入和产出的关系,才能更好地处理好公平和效率问题,从而有效发挥绩效评价的激励作用。
6)教师的知识共享、学术创新和绩效评价的有效实施,需要与之相适应的大学组织结构。提出高校教师组织结构的构建应以教学、科研等任务要素为基础,转变单一的学院组织模式,在学院、专业系、教研室建制基础上,根据工作任务不同合理设计组织机构,构建高校教师网络组织系统,建立“学科带头人”制度或建立柔性化的联盟虚拟团队,最大限度地有效利用资源实现知识的共享。
The establishment and improvement of a faculty performance evaluation system that is suited to the deepening reform of our nation's higher education has become key to speeding up the improvement of quality, and promoting the sustainable and healthy development of higher education. Faculty performance evaluation plays an important role in faculty recruitment, promotion, training, and utilization. It has a direct impact on faculty's involvement in teaching and research and on their value orientation. Moreover, it has an important and directional impact on the faculty's career growth, and on the growth strategy for colleges and universities.
In this paper, faculty performance evaluation is studied using complexity theory, goal management theory, performance evaluation, organizational behavior theory and other related theories, as well as the knowledge of management science and sociology and the methods of comparative analysis, inductive analysis, and empirical analysis. On the basis of complexity visual threshold, the study is conducted in accordance with the logic path of asking questions, analyzing problems, and then solving problems. The main contents and academic contributions of this paper are as follows:
1) This paper proposes that faculty performance evaluation should be based on the premise of treating faculty as "society man". Current domestic studies are undertaken from the perspective of institutional economics and thus assuming faculty as "economic man", and using game theory or principal-agent theory to analyze the systematic cause of short-term behaviors in the faculty performance evaluation. In their job of "inheriting civilization and educating people", college faculty play their roles in society as "social man" more than as "economic man". The deep-seated reason for short-term behaviors is the lack of governance culture in colleges and universities. At present, universities should foster a culture that embodies the values and ideas of higher education, thereby rooting out short-term behaviors in faculty performance evaluation.
2) This paper analyzes the complexity of faculty performance evaluation systems. The complexity and diversity primarily display in the evaluation subjects, evaluation components, evaluation objectives, evaluation methods, and evaluation indexes system, as well as the complex and volatile external environment that is closely related to the evaluation system. Therefore, the study of a faculty performance evaluation system must be based on the characteristics of its complexity.
3) This paper constructs a performance evaluation index system on the basis of complexity visual threshold. Performance evaluation of college faculty must take full account of the multi-dimensional, dynamic and systematic nature of faculty performance. It is not only necessary to consider both the dominant and non-dominant target indicators - as well as the relationship of qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation - but also to establish reasonable weights among the indexes. Through the integration of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) methods, a DEA-AHP-FAHP rating system model is proposed and empirical research was carried out using academic leaders as examples.
4) In view of the fact that too much emphasis is put on explicit knowledge and technical characteristics, this study emphasizes the importance of tacit knowledge, and includes the elements that are difficult to quantify or evaluate. These elements include talent training, community service and professional ethics, teaching effectiveness, effort input, and professional development potential, and their weight is increased in the evaluation index system. Through the reconstruction of performance evaluation index system, the full extent of the social responsibility of university teachers can be reached.
5) The need to better deal with the issues of equity and efficiency is proposed in this paper. Because of the difference in the inputs, even if evaluated in the same platform, the outputs and performance of faculty will be different. Therefore in order to achieve greater equity and efficiency, especially when evaluating a team, one needs to fully consider the relationship between inputs and outputs. Only then can performance evaluation be an effective incentive.
6) Knowledge sharing, academic innovation, and effective implementation of performance evaluation requires a fitting system of college organization. This paper suggests that organizational structure of college faculty should be based on teaching, research, and other mission elements. And there is a need to institute changes in the current single organizational model. A faculty network organization system should be built on the basis of college, program, and department and in accordance to the nature of faculty's work or job duties. In addition, colleges and universities can set up "academic leaders" systems as well as flexible and virtual teams in order to maximize the efficient use of resources and achieve knowledge sharing.
本文主要运用复杂性理论、目标管理理论、绩效评价和组织行为学等相关理论,综合管理学、社会学相关知识,采用比较分析、归纳分析、实证分析等方法,在借鉴国内外相关研究基础上,基于复杂性视阈,按照提出问题、分析问题、解决问题的逻辑演进路径研究高校教师绩效评价,研究的主要内容和学术贡献如下:
1)提出高校教师绩效评价应该在将高校教师作为“社会人”的前提下来探讨。目前国内高校教师绩效评价研究大多从制度经济学等视角把高校教师作为“经济人”的人性假设,运用博弈论、委托代理理论等分析高校教师绩效评价短期化行为产生的制度原因。高校教师在“传承文明,教书育人”工作中,更多地是作为社会人在发挥其社会作用,短期化行为产生的深层次原因是高校管理文化缺失。当前高校应大力培育体现高等教育价值理念的大学文化,从根本上消除绩效评价短期化行为。
2)对高校教师绩效评价复杂性进行了分析。指出高校教师绩效评价的复杂性主要表现在评价的对象复杂多样、内容纷繁复杂、目的具有多重性特点、评价方法多种多样、评价的指标体系结构多元,以及与评价系统息息相关的外部环境的复杂多变上。因此,研究高校教师绩效评价必须基于其复杂性特点来进行。
3)构建复杂性视阈中的高校教师绩效评价指标体系。通过集成运用整合数据包络分析法(DEA),层次分析法(AHP)和模糊层次法(FAHP)方法,实现三种方法优势互补,提出基于DEA-AHP-FAHP高校教师绩效评价系统模型,并以学科带头人为例进行实证研究。
4)针对教师绩效评价过多强调显性知识和技术特征明显指标的现状,强调要重视教师隐性知识,将教师的人才培养、服务社会及职业道德、教学效果、精力投入、专业发展潜力等难以量化的非显性指标列入评价体系,并加大其权重,通过重构高校教师绩效评价指标体系以充分体现高校教师社会责任。
5)提出高校教师绩效评价还需进一步处理好公平与效率问题。由于资源配置投入不同,绩效成果的产出会不同,即使在同一个考核平台,不同教师付出努力的程度与成效会存在较大差异的现象,尤其是在对团队的业绩评价考核时,只有综合考虑投入和产出的关系,才能更好地处理好公平和效率问题,从而有效发挥绩效评价的激励作用。
6)教师的知识共享、学术创新和绩效评价的有效实施,需要与之相适应的大学组织结构。提出高校教师组织结构的构建应以教学、科研等任务要素为基础,转变单一的学院组织模式,在学院、专业系、教研室建制基础上,根据工作任务不同合理设计组织机构,构建高校教师网络组织系统,建立“学科带头人”制度或建立柔性化的联盟虚拟团队,最大限度地有效利用资源实现知识的共享。
The establishment and improvement of a faculty performance evaluation system that is suited to the deepening reform of our nation's higher education has become key to speeding up the improvement of quality, and promoting the sustainable and healthy development of higher education. Faculty performance evaluation plays an important role in faculty recruitment, promotion, training, and utilization. It has a direct impact on faculty's involvement in teaching and research and on their value orientation. Moreover, it has an important and directional impact on the faculty's career growth, and on the growth strategy for colleges and universities.
In this paper, faculty performance evaluation is studied using complexity theory, goal management theory, performance evaluation, organizational behavior theory and other related theories, as well as the knowledge of management science and sociology and the methods of comparative analysis, inductive analysis, and empirical analysis. On the basis of complexity visual threshold, the study is conducted in accordance with the logic path of asking questions, analyzing problems, and then solving problems. The main contents and academic contributions of this paper are as follows:
1) This paper proposes that faculty performance evaluation should be based on the premise of treating faculty as "society man". Current domestic studies are undertaken from the perspective of institutional economics and thus assuming faculty as "economic man", and using game theory or principal-agent theory to analyze the systematic cause of short-term behaviors in the faculty performance evaluation. In their job of "inheriting civilization and educating people", college faculty play their roles in society as "social man" more than as "economic man". The deep-seated reason for short-term behaviors is the lack of governance culture in colleges and universities. At present, universities should foster a culture that embodies the values and ideas of higher education, thereby rooting out short-term behaviors in faculty performance evaluation.
2) This paper analyzes the complexity of faculty performance evaluation systems. The complexity and diversity primarily display in the evaluation subjects, evaluation components, evaluation objectives, evaluation methods, and evaluation indexes system, as well as the complex and volatile external environment that is closely related to the evaluation system. Therefore, the study of a faculty performance evaluation system must be based on the characteristics of its complexity.
3) This paper constructs a performance evaluation index system on the basis of complexity visual threshold. Performance evaluation of college faculty must take full account of the multi-dimensional, dynamic and systematic nature of faculty performance. It is not only necessary to consider both the dominant and non-dominant target indicators - as well as the relationship of qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation - but also to establish reasonable weights among the indexes. Through the integration of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) methods, a DEA-AHP-FAHP rating system model is proposed and empirical research was carried out using academic leaders as examples.
4) In view of the fact that too much emphasis is put on explicit knowledge and technical characteristics, this study emphasizes the importance of tacit knowledge, and includes the elements that are difficult to quantify or evaluate. These elements include talent training, community service and professional ethics, teaching effectiveness, effort input, and professional development potential, and their weight is increased in the evaluation index system. Through the reconstruction of performance evaluation index system, the full extent of the social responsibility of university teachers can be reached.
5) The need to better deal with the issues of equity and efficiency is proposed in this paper. Because of the difference in the inputs, even if evaluated in the same platform, the outputs and performance of faculty will be different. Therefore in order to achieve greater equity and efficiency, especially when evaluating a team, one needs to fully consider the relationship between inputs and outputs. Only then can performance evaluation be an effective incentive.
6) Knowledge sharing, academic innovation, and effective implementation of performance evaluation requires a fitting system of college organization. This paper suggests that organizational structure of college faculty should be based on teaching, research, and other mission elements. And there is a need to institute changes in the current single organizational model. A faculty network organization system should be built on the basis of college, program, and department and in accordance to the nature of faculty's work or job duties. In addition, colleges and universities can set up "academic leaders" systems as well as flexible and virtual teams in order to maximize the efficient use of resources and achieve knowledge sharing.
引文
[1]吴菲菲.教学研究型大学的人才培养目标与途径研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2007:3.
[2]陈厚丰.中国高等学校分类与定位问题研究[M].长沙:湖南大学出版社.2004.116.
[3]Isaacs,A.ed.Oxford Dictionary of Science[Z].Oxford University Press.1997.160.
[4]黄欣荣.复杂性科学与哲学[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2007:22.
[5]郝宁湘.计算复杂性理论及哲学问题[J].自然辩证法研究.1995,(3):20-24.
[6][8]邱群生.复杂性视野中的技术创新[D].南京:东南大学,2005:5,19.
[7]Philip Anderson.Theory and Organization Science[J].Organization Science.1999,(3):216-232.
[9]徐敏.基于复杂性理论的河湖环境系统模型研究[D].长沙:湖南大学环境科学与工程学院,2007:3.
[10]谭晓吾.发展、超越,面向真正的学习--对“研究性学习”价值定位的思考[EB/OL].[2007-04-012].http://www.cn-teacher.com/runwen/xklw/sx/200704/169187_2.html
[11]钱学森.一个科学新领域-开放的复杂巨系统及其方法论[J].城市发展研究,2005,5:2-3.
[12]王寿云,于景元等.开放的复杂巨系统[M].杭州:浙江科学技术出版社.1996.58-59.
[13]吴彤.复杂性、科学与后现代思潮[J].内蒙古大学学报(人文社科版).2003,35(3):9.
[14]欧阳康.复杂性与人文社会科学创新[J].哲学研究,2003,(7):23-30.
[15]Bernardin,H.J.&Beatty,R.W.perfonnance appraisal;Assessing human behavior at work[M],Kent publishers.1984;
[16]Murphy(K.J,&Cleveland,J,N,Performance appraisal;An organizational perspective[M],Allyn &Baccon publishers,1991.
[17]蔡永红,林崇德.绩效评估研究的现状及其反思[J].北京师范大学学报(人文社科版),2001,(4):122.
[18]张蕊.企业战略经营绩效评价指标体系研究[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2002:2.
[19]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与绩效评价[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2002:216.
[20]段钢.基于战略管理的绩效考评[M]北京:机械工业出版社,2007:3.
[21]Theodore H.Curry,Faculty Performance Reviews[J].Effective Practices for Academic Leaders,Volume 1,Number 2 / February 2006:1-16.
[22][24]庞鹤峰.我国高校教师绩效评价指标体系研究[D].南京:南京理工大学经济管理学院,2006:4,7.
[23]梁宇,梁娟.对高校教师绩效评估的思考[J].黑龙江教育(高教研究与评估),2007,(11):85.
[25][53]杨震.基于事业人假设的高校人力资源开发研究[D].武汉:华中科技大学管理学院,2006:42.
[26][37]高桂娟.教师评价研究述评--兼论我国高校教师评价研究的迫切性[J].煤炭高等教育,2006,(1):51,52.
[27]Taylor,R.W.Changing concepts of educational[J].Journal of Education Research,1986,10(1):1-113.
[28][67][69]孙金伟.普通高等学校教师综合评价系统研究[D]大连:大连理工大学管理学院,2004:3,8,24.
[29]Stuffledeam,D.L.A depth study of the evaluation requirement[J].Theory Into Practice,1966,(3):121-133.
[30]Boyer,E.L.1990.Scholarship Reconsidered:Priorities of the Professorate.Princeton,N J:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
[31]Rice,R.E.1986.The Academic Profession in Transition:Toward a New Social Fiction.Teaching Sociology 14:12-23.
[32]Glassick,C.E.,Huber,M.T.,and Maeroff,G.I.1997.Scholarship Assessed:Evaluation of the Professoriate.San Francisco:Jossey Bass.
[33]O'Meara,K.2001.Scholarship Unbound:Assessing Service as Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure.Studies in Higher Education Dissertation Series,ed.P.Altbach.New York:RoutledgeFalmer.
[34][83]李元元,邱学青等.高校教师绩效评价体系构建的思路与对策[J].中国高校师资研究,2006,3:15.19.
[35]Wright,P.,R.Whittington & G.E.Whittenbury(1984).Student ratings of teaching effectiveness:what the research reveals.Journal of Accounting Education,2,5-30.
[36]Eiszler,C.F.(2002).College students' evaluations of teaching and grade inflation.Research in Higher Education,43,483-501.
[38]王光彦.美、加高校教师评价制度研究[J].教育发展研究,2007,(10B):51.
[39]有本章、江原武一.大学教授职国际比较[M].玉山大学出版部,1996.105.
[40]山本真一,有本章.大学改革现在.[M].东信堂,2003.59.
[41]葛新斌.日本大学教师评估制度改革动向分析[J].比较教育研究,2004,(9):76.
[42]沙红.新加坡高等教育:经验与借鉴[J].教育发展研究,2006,(7B):82.
[43]吕杰.新加坡大学教师管理的理念与作法[J].中国高等教育,2004,(9):37.
[44]陈洪捷,德国古典大学观及其对中国的影响[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2006年10月修订版,第49-83页.
[45]张国春.借鉴国际科研计量评价方法,构建新的人文学科科研评价体系[J].社会科学管理与评论,2001,(1):23-24.
[46]苏力.我国高校教师科研绩效评价有效性的研究[D].苏州:苏州大学学位办,2004:15,26.
[47]宋子良.同行评议方法的盲区[J].科学导报,1995,(6):30.
[48]林常胜,赖日泉,曾建武等.高校科研管理绩效定量评价方法的比较与选择[J].厦门科技,2006,(2):33,34.
[49]杜伟锦.教学研究型高校科研绩效定量考核研究[J].成都理工大学学报,2003,(30)增:339.
[50][美国]伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统[M]杭州:杭州大学出版社,1994年.
[51]应飚,杨潮.克服短效行为,实行弹性任期制[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(3):41-43.
[52]熊岚.高校教师评价存在的问题与对策研究[J].西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,(1):60.
[54]涂锦.高校人力资源管理的博弈分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2002,(9):50-51.
[55]杨全印,王江.复杂性教育研究初探[J].开放教育研究,2001,(1):31.
[56]洪志钧.混沌理论对教师组织管理的启示[J].黑龙江高教研究,2004,(10):83.
[57]江澍白.二十世纪中国文化史论[M]北京:中国青年出版社,1992.
[58][87]邓周平,钱志发.2l世纪中国高等教育制度的价值取向与操作设计[J].清华大学教育研究,2001,(2):88.
[59]刘江.换陈景润也无法获得成果,高校量化考核受到批评[EB/OL],[2004-03-12]http://education.163.corn/editor_2002/040312/040312_125939.html.
[60]王冀生,文化是大学之魂[J]北京大学教育评论,2003.1(4):44.
[61][美]丹尼尔森(Danielson,C.)'[美]麦格里(MeGreat,T.L.).教师评价--提高教师专业实践能力[M]北京:中国轻工业出版社,2005:2.
[62]杨燕绥等,构建适合高校教师职业劳动特点的薪酬制度研究[J].中国高教研究,2004,增:23.
[63]李冲,王前.高校教师评价中的问题和对策:隐性知识管理的视角[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,8:88.
[64]金明律.论企业的知识创新及知识变换过程[J].南开管理评论,1998,2:22.
[65]张俊友.客观对待教师绩效评价和发展性教师评价[J].教育学报,2007,3(1):47.
[66]赵曙明.人力资源管理研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[68][89]张远增.高等教育评价方法研究[M]上海:复旦大学出版社,2002:102-131,10.
[70]姚继军.高校内部分配制度改革的激励有效性研究[D].南京:南京师范大学公共管理学院,2003:37-38.
[71]秦哲等.FCE法在企业知识管理水平中的应用[J].科技管理研究,2006,12:194.
[72]张庆华.知识型企业中知识员工的绩效评估研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2007,10:45.
[73]焦宝聪,赵意焕等.基于数据包络分析的教育信息化绩效评价模型[J].电化教育研究,2007,168(4):39.
[74]陈凯华,张孝远.数据包络分析在人力资源考评中的应用[J].兰州交通大学学报(自然科学版),2005,24(4):141.
[75]韩泽县,刘斌.基于数据包络分析(DEA)的封闭式基金相对绩效评价[J].金融管理,2003,(12):18.
[76]常大勇,张丽丽.经济管理中的模糊数学方法[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1995.
[77]吴育华,杜纲.管理科学基础[M].天津:天津大学出版社,2001.
[78]谢金星.优化建模与LINGO/LINDO软件[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
[79]Valberde,L.,On the structure of F-indistinguishability[J].Fuzzy Sets and Systems,1985(17):313-328.
[80]胡文品.基于战略导向的企业组织结构再造[J].中国水运(学术版),2006,6(6):161.
[81][美]伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统--学术组织的跨国研究[M].杭州:杭州大学出版社,1994:124.
[82]凌健,王晓蓬.生态学视野下的大学学科组织成长[J].浙江学刊,2008,(1):220.
[84]朴雪涛.大学制度创新与21世纪中国高等教育跨越式发展[J].高等教育研究,2002,(6):7.
[85]莫华善.高校学术组织与行政组织关系的生态学思考[J].广西社会科学,2007,(8):192.
[86]周新发,宗琴珍.高校现行教师评价工作中的弊端及对策[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(2):97.
[88]杨克瑞.美国高校教师体制的变迁及其现实意义[J].教师教育研究,2005(3):80.
[90]胡建华,周川,陈列,龚放.高等教育学新论[M]南京:江苏教育出版社,1995,156.
[91]江苏省教育厅文件.苏教人[2005]30号《省教育厅关于做好省属高校专业技术职务结构比例和岗位设置工作的通知》.
[92]马俊杰,曾湘泉.大学人力资源管理[M]北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007年:258-259.
[93]魏嵘.《学术反思》对美国高等教育的影响[J].潮州师范学院学报,2007,29(5):131.
[94]曾玉清.高校科研产出评价方法及应用研究[J].、湖南社会科学,2006,(4):197.
[95]周文燕.我国高校科研评价存在的问题及对策[J].吉首大学学报,2006,27(4):121.
[96][美]John T.Seyfarth著,郑美勋译.人力资源管理[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2006.
[97]赵学文,龚旭.科学研究绩效评估的理论与实践[M]北京:高等教育出版社,2007年.
[98]T.B.Wilson,"Reward Strategy:Time to Rethink the Methods and the Messages",A C A Journal 7(summer 1998),62-69.
[99]Thomas J.bergmann,Vida Gulbinas Scarpello,"Compensation Decision Making",Citic publishing House,2004.
[100]廖泉文.人力资源管理[M]北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[101]张鹤.精神薪酬[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2005.
[102]张维迎.博弈论与信息经济学[M]上海:上海三联出版社,1996.
[103]日本爱知工业大学:《爱知工业大学教员选拔考核规程》.
[104]美国匹兹堡大学:《匹兹堡大学教师聘任考核规程》.
[105]王致和.高等学校教育评估[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1994.
[106]王世军.基于DEA-AHP-FCE方法的民营企业上市公司绩效综合评价研究[D].南京:河海大学商学院,2006.
[107]钱学森.创建系统学[M].太原:山西科学技术出版社.2001.
[108]刘长军.新时期我国教师评价制度的演展、问题与对策研究[D]武汉:华中师范大学,2006.
[109]学锋.复杂性科学研究现状与展望.中国矿业大学经济与管理复杂性研究所.
[110]郭丽君.大学教师聘任制--基于学术职业视角的研究[M]北京:经济管理出版社,2007.
[111][英]肯.宾默尔著,王小卫,钱勇译.博弈论与社会契约[M]上海:上海财经大学出版社,2003年:
[112]吴洲,梁浩.模糊决策在供应链伙伴企业选择中的应用[J].计算机工程与应用,2001(1):165-167.
[113]马鹏举,朱东波,丁玉成等.基于模糊层次分析法的盟友优化选择方法[J].西安交通大学学报,1999(3):108-110.
[114]Saunter J.A,Parunak H.V.D,Bruechner S.Agent-Based Modeling and Control of Marine Supply chains[J].Journal of Ship Production.2001(1):20-26.
[115]Koenig P C.Development and implementation of model work breakdown structure in naval construction:a case study[J].Journal of Ship Production,1999(3):136-145.
[116]Scott J A,Todd D S,Sen.P.An evolution approach to the scheduling of ship design and production process[Z].1998 Elsevier B,V.:351-357.
[117]王雷,项保华.合作的难题及对策[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(9):38-40.
[118]张炳轩等.动态供应链合作伙伴的评价体系及模糊评价方法[J].天津师范大学学报(自然科学版),2001(3):19-23.
[119]孙静春等.评价供应商的DEA方法[J].高技术通讯,2000(11):53-56.
[120]Srinivas Talluri,Ram Narasimhan.Vendor evaluation with performance variability:A max-min approach[J].European Journal of Operational Research,2003(146):543-552.
[121]陈埏.决策分析[M].北京:科学出版社,1987.
[122]S.Fatima,M.Wooldridge.An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation[J].Artificial Intelligence,2004,152(1):1-45.
[123]Martin Feldman,Stephanie M(u|¨)ller.An incentive scheme for true information providing in Supply Chains[J].Omega 2003(31):63-73.
[2]陈厚丰.中国高等学校分类与定位问题研究[M].长沙:湖南大学出版社.2004.116.
[3]Isaacs,A.ed.Oxford Dictionary of Science[Z].Oxford University Press.1997.160.
[4]黄欣荣.复杂性科学与哲学[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2007:22.
[5]郝宁湘.计算复杂性理论及哲学问题[J].自然辩证法研究.1995,(3):20-24.
[6][8]邱群生.复杂性视野中的技术创新[D].南京:东南大学,2005:5,19.
[7]Philip Anderson.Theory and Organization Science[J].Organization Science.1999,(3):216-232.
[9]徐敏.基于复杂性理论的河湖环境系统模型研究[D].长沙:湖南大学环境科学与工程学院,2007:3.
[10]谭晓吾.发展、超越,面向真正的学习--对“研究性学习”价值定位的思考[EB/OL].[2007-04-012].http://www.cn-teacher.com/runwen/xklw/sx/200704/169187_2.html
[11]钱学森.一个科学新领域-开放的复杂巨系统及其方法论[J].城市发展研究,2005,5:2-3.
[12]王寿云,于景元等.开放的复杂巨系统[M].杭州:浙江科学技术出版社.1996.58-59.
[13]吴彤.复杂性、科学与后现代思潮[J].内蒙古大学学报(人文社科版).2003,35(3):9.
[14]欧阳康.复杂性与人文社会科学创新[J].哲学研究,2003,(7):23-30.
[15]Bernardin,H.J.&Beatty,R.W.perfonnance appraisal;Assessing human behavior at work[M],Kent publishers.1984;
[16]Murphy(K.J,&Cleveland,J,N,Performance appraisal;An organizational perspective[M],Allyn &Baccon publishers,1991.
[17]蔡永红,林崇德.绩效评估研究的现状及其反思[J].北京师范大学学报(人文社科版),2001,(4):122.
[18]张蕊.企业战略经营绩效评价指标体系研究[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2002:2.
[19]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与绩效评价[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2002:216.
[20]段钢.基于战略管理的绩效考评[M]北京:机械工业出版社,2007:3.
[21]Theodore H.Curry,Faculty Performance Reviews[J].Effective Practices for Academic Leaders,Volume 1,Number 2 / February 2006:1-16.
[22][24]庞鹤峰.我国高校教师绩效评价指标体系研究[D].南京:南京理工大学经济管理学院,2006:4,7.
[23]梁宇,梁娟.对高校教师绩效评估的思考[J].黑龙江教育(高教研究与评估),2007,(11):85.
[25][53]杨震.基于事业人假设的高校人力资源开发研究[D].武汉:华中科技大学管理学院,2006:42.
[26][37]高桂娟.教师评价研究述评--兼论我国高校教师评价研究的迫切性[J].煤炭高等教育,2006,(1):51,52.
[27]Taylor,R.W.Changing concepts of educational[J].Journal of Education Research,1986,10(1):1-113.
[28][67][69]孙金伟.普通高等学校教师综合评价系统研究[D]大连:大连理工大学管理学院,2004:3,8,24.
[29]Stuffledeam,D.L.A depth study of the evaluation requirement[J].Theory Into Practice,1966,(3):121-133.
[30]Boyer,E.L.1990.Scholarship Reconsidered:Priorities of the Professorate.Princeton,N J:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
[31]Rice,R.E.1986.The Academic Profession in Transition:Toward a New Social Fiction.Teaching Sociology 14:12-23.
[32]Glassick,C.E.,Huber,M.T.,and Maeroff,G.I.1997.Scholarship Assessed:Evaluation of the Professoriate.San Francisco:Jossey Bass.
[33]O'Meara,K.2001.Scholarship Unbound:Assessing Service as Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure.Studies in Higher Education Dissertation Series,ed.P.Altbach.New York:RoutledgeFalmer.
[34][83]李元元,邱学青等.高校教师绩效评价体系构建的思路与对策[J].中国高校师资研究,2006,3:15.19.
[35]Wright,P.,R.Whittington & G.E.Whittenbury(1984).Student ratings of teaching effectiveness:what the research reveals.Journal of Accounting Education,2,5-30.
[36]Eiszler,C.F.(2002).College students' evaluations of teaching and grade inflation.Research in Higher Education,43,483-501.
[38]王光彦.美、加高校教师评价制度研究[J].教育发展研究,2007,(10B):51.
[39]有本章、江原武一.大学教授职国际比较[M].玉山大学出版部,1996.105.
[40]山本真一,有本章.大学改革现在.[M].东信堂,2003.59.
[41]葛新斌.日本大学教师评估制度改革动向分析[J].比较教育研究,2004,(9):76.
[42]沙红.新加坡高等教育:经验与借鉴[J].教育发展研究,2006,(7B):82.
[43]吕杰.新加坡大学教师管理的理念与作法[J].中国高等教育,2004,(9):37.
[44]陈洪捷,德国古典大学观及其对中国的影响[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2006年10月修订版,第49-83页.
[45]张国春.借鉴国际科研计量评价方法,构建新的人文学科科研评价体系[J].社会科学管理与评论,2001,(1):23-24.
[46]苏力.我国高校教师科研绩效评价有效性的研究[D].苏州:苏州大学学位办,2004:15,26.
[47]宋子良.同行评议方法的盲区[J].科学导报,1995,(6):30.
[48]林常胜,赖日泉,曾建武等.高校科研管理绩效定量评价方法的比较与选择[J].厦门科技,2006,(2):33,34.
[49]杜伟锦.教学研究型高校科研绩效定量考核研究[J].成都理工大学学报,2003,(30)增:339.
[50][美国]伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统[M]杭州:杭州大学出版社,1994年.
[51]应飚,杨潮.克服短效行为,实行弹性任期制[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(3):41-43.
[52]熊岚.高校教师评价存在的问题与对策研究[J].西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,(1):60.
[54]涂锦.高校人力资源管理的博弈分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2002,(9):50-51.
[55]杨全印,王江.复杂性教育研究初探[J].开放教育研究,2001,(1):31.
[56]洪志钧.混沌理论对教师组织管理的启示[J].黑龙江高教研究,2004,(10):83.
[57]江澍白.二十世纪中国文化史论[M]北京:中国青年出版社,1992.
[58][87]邓周平,钱志发.2l世纪中国高等教育制度的价值取向与操作设计[J].清华大学教育研究,2001,(2):88.
[59]刘江.换陈景润也无法获得成果,高校量化考核受到批评[EB/OL],[2004-03-12]http://education.163.corn/editor_2002/040312/040312_125939.html.
[60]王冀生,文化是大学之魂[J]北京大学教育评论,2003.1(4):44.
[61][美]丹尼尔森(Danielson,C.)'[美]麦格里(MeGreat,T.L.).教师评价--提高教师专业实践能力[M]北京:中国轻工业出版社,2005:2.
[62]杨燕绥等,构建适合高校教师职业劳动特点的薪酬制度研究[J].中国高教研究,2004,增:23.
[63]李冲,王前.高校教师评价中的问题和对策:隐性知识管理的视角[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,8:88.
[64]金明律.论企业的知识创新及知识变换过程[J].南开管理评论,1998,2:22.
[65]张俊友.客观对待教师绩效评价和发展性教师评价[J].教育学报,2007,3(1):47.
[66]赵曙明.人力资源管理研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[68][89]张远增.高等教育评价方法研究[M]上海:复旦大学出版社,2002:102-131,10.
[70]姚继军.高校内部分配制度改革的激励有效性研究[D].南京:南京师范大学公共管理学院,2003:37-38.
[71]秦哲等.FCE法在企业知识管理水平中的应用[J].科技管理研究,2006,12:194.
[72]张庆华.知识型企业中知识员工的绩效评估研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2007,10:45.
[73]焦宝聪,赵意焕等.基于数据包络分析的教育信息化绩效评价模型[J].电化教育研究,2007,168(4):39.
[74]陈凯华,张孝远.数据包络分析在人力资源考评中的应用[J].兰州交通大学学报(自然科学版),2005,24(4):141.
[75]韩泽县,刘斌.基于数据包络分析(DEA)的封闭式基金相对绩效评价[J].金融管理,2003,(12):18.
[76]常大勇,张丽丽.经济管理中的模糊数学方法[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1995.
[77]吴育华,杜纲.管理科学基础[M].天津:天津大学出版社,2001.
[78]谢金星.优化建模与LINGO/LINDO软件[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
[79]Valberde,L.,On the structure of F-indistinguishability[J].Fuzzy Sets and Systems,1985(17):313-328.
[80]胡文品.基于战略导向的企业组织结构再造[J].中国水运(学术版),2006,6(6):161.
[81][美]伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统--学术组织的跨国研究[M].杭州:杭州大学出版社,1994:124.
[82]凌健,王晓蓬.生态学视野下的大学学科组织成长[J].浙江学刊,2008,(1):220.
[84]朴雪涛.大学制度创新与21世纪中国高等教育跨越式发展[J].高等教育研究,2002,(6):7.
[85]莫华善.高校学术组织与行政组织关系的生态学思考[J].广西社会科学,2007,(8):192.
[86]周新发,宗琴珍.高校现行教师评价工作中的弊端及对策[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(2):97.
[88]杨克瑞.美国高校教师体制的变迁及其现实意义[J].教师教育研究,2005(3):80.
[90]胡建华,周川,陈列,龚放.高等教育学新论[M]南京:江苏教育出版社,1995,156.
[91]江苏省教育厅文件.苏教人[2005]30号《省教育厅关于做好省属高校专业技术职务结构比例和岗位设置工作的通知》.
[92]马俊杰,曾湘泉.大学人力资源管理[M]北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007年:258-259.
[93]魏嵘.《学术反思》对美国高等教育的影响[J].潮州师范学院学报,2007,29(5):131.
[94]曾玉清.高校科研产出评价方法及应用研究[J].、湖南社会科学,2006,(4):197.
[95]周文燕.我国高校科研评价存在的问题及对策[J].吉首大学学报,2006,27(4):121.
[96][美]John T.Seyfarth著,郑美勋译.人力资源管理[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2006.
[97]赵学文,龚旭.科学研究绩效评估的理论与实践[M]北京:高等教育出版社,2007年.
[98]T.B.Wilson,"Reward Strategy:Time to Rethink the Methods and the Messages",A C A Journal 7(summer 1998),62-69.
[99]Thomas J.bergmann,Vida Gulbinas Scarpello,"Compensation Decision Making",Citic publishing House,2004.
[100]廖泉文.人力资源管理[M]北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[101]张鹤.精神薪酬[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2005.
[102]张维迎.博弈论与信息经济学[M]上海:上海三联出版社,1996.
[103]日本爱知工业大学:《爱知工业大学教员选拔考核规程》.
[104]美国匹兹堡大学:《匹兹堡大学教师聘任考核规程》.
[105]王致和.高等学校教育评估[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1994.
[106]王世军.基于DEA-AHP-FCE方法的民营企业上市公司绩效综合评价研究[D].南京:河海大学商学院,2006.
[107]钱学森.创建系统学[M].太原:山西科学技术出版社.2001.
[108]刘长军.新时期我国教师评价制度的演展、问题与对策研究[D]武汉:华中师范大学,2006.
[109]学锋.复杂性科学研究现状与展望.中国矿业大学经济与管理复杂性研究所.
[110]郭丽君.大学教师聘任制--基于学术职业视角的研究[M]北京:经济管理出版社,2007.
[111][英]肯.宾默尔著,王小卫,钱勇译.博弈论与社会契约[M]上海:上海财经大学出版社,2003年:
[112]吴洲,梁浩.模糊决策在供应链伙伴企业选择中的应用[J].计算机工程与应用,2001(1):165-167.
[113]马鹏举,朱东波,丁玉成等.基于模糊层次分析法的盟友优化选择方法[J].西安交通大学学报,1999(3):108-110.
[114]Saunter J.A,Parunak H.V.D,Bruechner S.Agent-Based Modeling and Control of Marine Supply chains[J].Journal of Ship Production.2001(1):20-26.
[115]Koenig P C.Development and implementation of model work breakdown structure in naval construction:a case study[J].Journal of Ship Production,1999(3):136-145.
[116]Scott J A,Todd D S,Sen.P.An evolution approach to the scheduling of ship design and production process[Z].1998 Elsevier B,V.:351-357.
[117]王雷,项保华.合作的难题及对策[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(9):38-40.
[118]张炳轩等.动态供应链合作伙伴的评价体系及模糊评价方法[J].天津师范大学学报(自然科学版),2001(3):19-23.
[119]孙静春等.评价供应商的DEA方法[J].高技术通讯,2000(11):53-56.
[120]Srinivas Talluri,Ram Narasimhan.Vendor evaluation with performance variability:A max-min approach[J].European Journal of Operational Research,2003(146):543-552.
[121]陈埏.决策分析[M].北京:科学出版社,1987.
[122]S.Fatima,M.Wooldridge.An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation[J].Artificial Intelligence,2004,152(1):1-45.
[123]Martin Feldman,Stephanie M(u|¨)ller.An incentive scheme for true information providing in Supply Chains[J].Omega 2003(31):63-73.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |