人文社会科学评价发展回顾与展望——纪念中华人民共和国成立七十周年
|
摘要
中华人民共和国成立七十年来,人文社会科学评价大约依次出现过效用评价、内容评价和形式评价三大方式。过去的七十年,我国人文社会科学评价无论是何种方式均是由行政主导的。实践证明,行政主导的评价使用其评价结果对评价客体实施的奖惩性管理,常常事与愿违,难以很好地达成评价目的。因此,新时代的人文社会科学评价应该坚持正确的价值导向与以学术质量为本两条原则,解决好评价标准的确立、评价功利化的改善、学术共同体自律的实现、学者学术诚信的建立以及评价理想境界的达到等评价难点问题。
For the past seven decades since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the evaluation of the humanities and social sciences has successively appeared in three major ways: utility evaluation, content evaluation and formal evaluation. During the past seventy years, the evaluation of China's humanities and social sciences has been dominated by the administration. Practice has proved that the executive-led evaluation uses the results of its evaluation to implement the reward and punishment management of the evaluation object, and it is often difficult to achieve the evaluation purpose. Therefore, the evaluation of humanities and social sciences in the new era should adhere to the two principles of correct value orientation and academic quality so as to solve the issues of establishment of evaluation standards, improve the evaluation of utilitarianism,realize the self-discipline of academic community, establish and evaluate the academic credit of scholars in an ideal way.
For the past seven decades since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the evaluation of the humanities and social sciences has successively appeared in three major ways: utility evaluation, content evaluation and formal evaluation. During the past seventy years, the evaluation of China's humanities and social sciences has been dominated by the administration. Practice has proved that the executive-led evaluation uses the results of its evaluation to implement the reward and punishment management of the evaluation object, and it is often difficult to achieve the evaluation purpose. Therefore, the evaluation of humanities and social sciences in the new era should adhere to the two principles of correct value orientation and academic quality so as to solve the issues of establishment of evaluation standards, improve the evaluation of utilitarianism,realize the self-discipline of academic community, establish and evaluate the academic credit of scholars in an ideal way.
引文
[1][6]朱剑.学术评价的异化[EB/OL].(2018-05-21)http://wemedia.ifeng.com/61561604/wemedia.shtml.
[2]周鹏.中国科研评价的历史沿革、现状及对策分析[J].管理观察,2016(22):173-176.
[3][18]韦莉莉.人文社会科学评价理论与实践评析[J].社会科学管理与评论,2006(4):42-47.
[4][7][17]张耀铭.学术评价存在的问题、成因及其治理[J].清华大学学报(哲社版),2015(6):73-88.
[5][10][11]姜春林.学术评价:同行评议抑或科学计量[J].中国高等教育,2014(15):20-23.
[8][16][19]刘尧.中国学术评价改革困境与出路[J].上海教育评估研究,2014(4):40-44.
[9]刘尧.期刊影响因子被炒作的影响[J].青岛科技大学学报(社科版),2018(4):90-95.
[12][15]仲伟民.关于人文社会科学学术评价的几个问题[J].学术界,2014(7):41-52.
[13][20]刘庆昌.把握学术评价的三个内在标准[EB/OL].(2017-12-12)https://www.sohu.com/a/209954856_488440.
[14]刘尧.坚定创新突破学术评价改革困境[N].中国社会科学报,2014-08-27(8).
[21]陈东辉.抑制学术异化关键在于改革学术评价制度[EB/OL].(2015-01-29)http://www.cssn.cn/xspj_tt/201501/t20150129_1496892.sgtml.
[22]叶继元.人文社会科学评价体系探讨[J].南京大学学报(哲社版),2010(1):97-110.
[23]刘春丽.开放同行评审的产生、发展、成效与可行性[J].中国科技期刊研究,2013(1):40-44.
[2]周鹏.中国科研评价的历史沿革、现状及对策分析[J].管理观察,2016(22):173-176.
[3][18]韦莉莉.人文社会科学评价理论与实践评析[J].社会科学管理与评论,2006(4):42-47.
[4][7][17]张耀铭.学术评价存在的问题、成因及其治理[J].清华大学学报(哲社版),2015(6):73-88.
[5][10][11]姜春林.学术评价:同行评议抑或科学计量[J].中国高等教育,2014(15):20-23.
[8][16][19]刘尧.中国学术评价改革困境与出路[J].上海教育评估研究,2014(4):40-44.
[9]刘尧.期刊影响因子被炒作的影响[J].青岛科技大学学报(社科版),2018(4):90-95.
[12][15]仲伟民.关于人文社会科学学术评价的几个问题[J].学术界,2014(7):41-52.
[13][20]刘庆昌.把握学术评价的三个内在标准[EB/OL].(2017-12-12)https://www.sohu.com/a/209954856_488440.
[14]刘尧.坚定创新突破学术评价改革困境[N].中国社会科学报,2014-08-27(8).
[21]陈东辉.抑制学术异化关键在于改革学术评价制度[EB/OL].(2015-01-29)http://www.cssn.cn/xspj_tt/201501/t20150129_1496892.sgtml.
[22]叶继元.人文社会科学评价体系探讨[J].南京大学学报(哲社版),2010(1):97-110.
[23]刘春丽.开放同行评审的产生、发展、成效与可行性[J].中国科技期刊研究,2013(1):40-44.