学科文化与博士学位论文的创新标准——基于哲学、社会学和物理学的考察
|
摘要
本文基于2015年全国博士论文抽检材料,对学科文化与博士学位论文的创新标准这一命题展开研究,得出如下三点主要结论:其一,在学科文化各异的学科中,同行专家对博士学位论文的创新标准评价呈现明显差异,哲学、社会学倾向于将学位论文视为一种带有学术训练性质的学业评价,物理学则将学位论文视为一种强调原创性的学术评价。其二,从一致度看,与软学科相比,硬学科中同行专家对学位论文创新标准界定的一致性和共识度明显更高;从严松度看,同行专家对创新性的评价尺度在硬学科中较为严格而在软学科中则相对宽松。其三,博士学位论文质量保障具有涵盖"规范性底线"和"创新性底线"在内的双重底线,但底线保障程度与学科文化呈现相关性。
The evaluation of doctoral dissertations is less concerned with the discussion of the quality of doctoral education. Based on the 2015 National Ph.D.dissertation sampling basic data and textual comments from reviewers,this article studies the new propositions of academic culture and doctoral dissertation innovation standards, and draws the following conclusions:Firstly, there are obvious differences in the evaluation of the innovative standard of doctoral dissertation during the review process in soft and hard disciplines whose cultures are quite different. In soft disciplines represented by philosophy and sociology, dissertations are more inclined to be regarded as a kind of learning evaluation with the nature of academic training. But in hard disciplines represented by physics, dissertations are obviously regarded as a kind of academic evaluation, and especially emphasize originality and publishing of high quality academic papers. Secondly,taking consistency into consideration,compared with soft disciplines, the extent of consistency on the innovative standard of dissertations from reviewers is significantly higher in hard disciplines. Taking strictness into consideration,the innovative standard from peer experts is relatively stricter in hard disciplines and looser in soft disciplines. Lastly, the guarantee of doctoral dissertation quality has a"Double Bottom Line",which consists, respectively,of a" Normative Bottom Line"and an "Innovative Bottom Line",but the extent of guarantee is related to disciplinary culture.
The evaluation of doctoral dissertations is less concerned with the discussion of the quality of doctoral education. Based on the 2015 National Ph.D.dissertation sampling basic data and textual comments from reviewers,this article studies the new propositions of academic culture and doctoral dissertation innovation standards, and draws the following conclusions:Firstly, there are obvious differences in the evaluation of the innovative standard of doctoral dissertation during the review process in soft and hard disciplines whose cultures are quite different. In soft disciplines represented by philosophy and sociology, dissertations are more inclined to be regarded as a kind of learning evaluation with the nature of academic training. But in hard disciplines represented by physics, dissertations are obviously regarded as a kind of academic evaluation, and especially emphasize originality and publishing of high quality academic papers. Secondly,taking consistency into consideration,compared with soft disciplines, the extent of consistency on the innovative standard of dissertations from reviewers is significantly higher in hard disciplines. Taking strictness into consideration,the innovative standard from peer experts is relatively stricter in hard disciplines and looser in soft disciplines. Lastly, the guarantee of doctoral dissertation quality has a"Double Bottom Line",which consists, respectively,of a" Normative Bottom Line"and an "Innovative Bottom Line",but the extent of guarantee is related to disciplinary culture.
引文
[1][8]Bourkc,S.,&Holbrook,A.P.(2013).Examining PhD and research masters theses.Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,38,407-416.
[2]Baptista,A.,Frick,L.,Holley,K.,Remmik,M.,Tesch,J.,&Akcrlind,G.(2015).The doctorate as an original contribution to knowledge:Considering relationships between originality,creativity,and innovation.Frontline Learning Research,3(3),55-67.
[3]Powell,S.,&Green,H.(Eds.).(2007).The doctorate worldwide.Maidenhead:Open University Press.
[4]Clarke,G.(2013).Developments in doctoral assessment in the UK.Critical Issues in Higher Education.Boston:Sense Publishers.
[5]Burnham,P.(1994)Surviving the viva:Unravelling the mystery of the PhD oral.Journal of Graduate Education,1,30-34.
[6]Gumport,P.J.(1993).Graduate education and organized research in the United States.The research foundations of graduate education.Berkeley,CA:University of California Press.
[7]Kyvik,S.(2013).Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by examiners from the USA,the UK and Sweden.Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,39,140-153.
[29][37]Lovitts,B.(2007).Making the implicit explicit:Creating performance expectations for the dissertation.Sterling,VA:Stylus Publishing.
[9]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Lovat,T.,&Dally,K.(2004).Qualities and characteristics in the written reports of doctoral thesis examiners.Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,4,126-145.
[10]Holbrook,A.,&Bourkc,S.(2004).An investigation of PhD examination outcome in Australia using a mixed method approach.Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,4,153-169.
[11]Lovat,T.,Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Dally,K.,&Hazel,G.(2002).Examiner comment on theses that have been revised and re-submitted.Presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education(AARE).The University of Queensland,Brisbane.
[12]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Lovat,T.,&Dally,K.(2004).Investigating PhD thesis examination reports.International Journal of Educational Research,41(2),178-194.
[13]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Lovat,T.,&Dally,K.(2004).PhD theses at the margin:Examiner comment of re-examined theses.Melbourne Studies in Education,45(1),89-115.
[14]Bourkc,S.(2007).PhD thesis quality:The views of examiners.South African Journal of Higher Education,21,1042-1053.
[15]Bourkc,S.,Hattic,J.,&Anderson,L.(2004).Predicting examinerrecommendations on Ph.D.theses.International Journal of Educational Research,41(2),178-194.
[16]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Fairbairn,H.,&Lovat,T.(2007).Examiner comment on the literature review in PhD theses.Studies in Higher Education,32(3),337-356.
[17]Holbrook,G.A.,Bourkc S.,&Fairbairn,H.(2015).Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,52(1),75-85.
[18]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Fairbairn,H.,&Lovat,T.(2014).The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners.Studies in Higher Education,39,983-1000.
[19]Holbrook,A.,S.Bourkc,T.Lovat,and H.Fairbairn.(2008).Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination.Australian Journal of Education,52(1),36-48.
[20]Lovat,T.,Monfrics,M.,&Morrison,K.(2004).Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral examination.International Journal of Educational Research,41(2),163-177.
[21]Bourkc,S.,Holbrook,A.&Lovat,T.(2005).Using examiner reports to identify quality in PhD theses.Paper presented at the AARE Focus Conference:Quality in educational research,Cairns.
[22]Pricto,E.,Holbrook,A.,&Bourkc,S.(2016).An analysis of Ph.D.examiners'reports in engineering.European Journal of Engineering Education,41(2),192-203.
[23]Mullins,G.,&M.Kiley.(2002).It's a PhD,not a Nobel Prize:How experienced examiners assess research theses.Studies in Higher Education,27,369-386.
[24]Kilcy,M.,&G.Mullins.(2004).Examining the examiners:How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses.International Journal of Educational Research,41,121-135.
[25]Johnston,S.(1997).Examining the examiners:An analysis of examiners'reports on doctoral theses.Studies in Higher Education,22(3),333-347.
[26]Simpkins,W.S.(1987).The way examiners assess critical thinking in educational administration theses.Journal of Educational Administration,25(2),248-268.
[27]Dclamont,S.,Atkinson P.,&Parry,O.(2000).The doctoral experience:Success and failure in graduate school.New York:Falmer Press.
[28]Denicolo,P.M.(2003).Assessing the PhD:A constructive view of criteria.Quality Assurance in Education,11(2),84-91.
[30]Council of Graduate Schools.(1991).The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation.Washington,DC:ERIC,8.
[31]Ostriker,J.P.,Holland,P.W.,Kuh,C.V.,&Voytuk,J.A.(Eds.).(2010).A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programmes in the United States committee to assess research-doctorate programs.Washington,DC:National Academics Press.
[32]Isaac,P.D.,Quinlan,S.V.,&Walker,M.M.(1992).Faculty perceptions ofthe doctoral dissertation.Journal of Higher Education,63(3),24 1-268.
[33]Kiley,M.(2009).You don't want a smart Alec:Selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations.Studies in Higher Education,34(8),889-903.
[34]Kyvik,S.,&Thune,T.(2014).Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations.A survey of external committee members.Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,40(5),768-782.
[35]Clarke,G.,&Lunt,I.(2014).The concept of"originality"in the Ph.D.:How is it interpreted by examiners?Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,39(7),803-820.
[36][38]Guetzkov,J.,Lamont,M.,&Mallard,G.(2004).What is originality and the humanities and the social sciences?American Sociological Review,69(2),190-212.
[39]陈洪捷,赵世奎,沈文钦等.中国博士生培养质量:成就、问题与对策[J].学位与研究生教育,201 1(06):40-45.
[40]许丹东,吕林海.知识生产模式视角下的博士学位论文评价理念及标准初探[J].学位与研究生教育,2017(02):48-53.
[41]李霞,宋俊波.人文社科博士学位论文质量要素特征评价——以人民大学人文社科类博士学位论文为例[J].学位与研究生教育,2017(11):13-17.
[42]梅定国,唐建兵.试论文科博士论文的基本要素[J].研究生教育研究,2014(02):63-67.
[43]李艳,马陆亭,赵世奎.博士学位论文质量及其影响因素研究[J].江苏高教,2015(02):105-109.
[44]董泽芳.博士学位论文创新的十个切入点[J].学位与研究生教育,2008(07):12-17.
[45]刘少雪.博士学位论文评价的主观性与客观性[J].高等教育研究,2014(02):54-58.
[46]李丽,胡祥培,张吉礼.博士学位论文创新性及相关因素关联分析[J].研究生教育研究,2015(02):24-27.
[47]顾亚琳.“人文社科类”博士论文的创新性及影响因素的实证研究[D].南京大学,2017.
[48]丛杭青,沈琪,陈大柔.博士论文协同创新机制与理念研究——以浙江大学人文学科为例[J].中国高教研究,2014(09):59-65.
[49]张颖,吴飞鸣.浅析人文学科博士学位论文创新[J].高等农业教育,2014(08):73-76.
[50]国务院学位委员会第六届学科评议组.一级学科博士、硕士学位基本要求[M].北京:高等教育出版社,201 5:出版说明;5-6;53-54;171-172.
[51][美]杰罗姆·凯根.三种文化:二十世纪的自然科学、社会科学和人文学科[M].王加丰,宋严萍译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2014:1.
[52]龚怡祖.学科的内在建构路径与知识运行机制[J].教育研究,2013(9):12-24.
[53][54][55][英]托尼·比彻,保罗·特罗勒尔.学术部落及其领地:知识探索与学科文化[M].唐跃勤,蒲茂华,陈洪捷译,北京:北京大学出版社,2015:1-9.
[56][57]王东芳.学科文化视角下的博士生培养[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2017:2-4.
[58]中国博士质量分析课题组.中国博士质量报告[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2010:2.
(1)数据来源于全国博士学位论文质量抽检年度报告课题组:《全国博士学位论文质量抽检年度报告(2015)》(内部报告),2017年。
(2)外文文献中与此相关的概念有Originality,Creativity和Innovation。根据A.Baptista等的研究,Creativity强调新知识在特定情境下的意义,Innovation侧重新发明的可转化性和经济价值。
(1)若出现意见不一致的情况,有时还需要专家组成员分别给出评价意见。
(1)10个学科中,自然科学包括生物、工程、物理、数学,社会科学包括经济学、心理学、社会学,人文学科包括英语、历史、哲学。
(2)形成性评价(formative comment)是指专家针对如何进一步改进论文所给出的意见和建议。
(1)研究不充分之处(understudied area)通常指被忽略的时间段或地区(往往为非西方国家)。
(1)采取这种维度划分的主要原因是出于后续对比的便利性考量。实际上,对于博士学位论文创新标准究竟应该从哪些方面进行总结和评价,不同学科专家,甚至同一学科的不同专家之间可能会有不同的认定。换言之,对博士学位论文创新标准进行维度划分本身是极易引起疑问的争议性话题。
(1)本文认为,即便涉及跨学科(交叉学科)的博士学位论文选题,也必须符合所申请学科博士学位的基本研究规范和研究范式。当然,跨学科(交叉学科)既是未来学术研究和博士生培养的一个重要发展趋势,也是学位授予和博士学位论文评定中的一个极易引起争议的难点话题。由于这一话题并非本文所分析论证的核心命题,故只提及而并未在此文中展开分析论述。
(2)在这一专家的文字评阅意见中,尽管明确提出该博士学位论文研究内容与所授学位明显存在冲突,在最终评价等级中却依旧判定为“合格”,据此可知,即使在纯硬学科中,评审专家某种情况下也可能存在“放水”现象,这种引起博士学位论文学科研究范式冲突背后的原因值得深入剖析。
(1)《抽检办法》中规定,按照学术学位和专业学位分别制定博士学位论文评议要素。2015年博士学位论文抽检通讯评议评价意见表分项评价按照学术学位人文社会科学类、学术学位自然科学类和专业学位三类分别制定,分项评价均包含选题、创新性及论文价值、基础知识及科研能力和论文规范性四个方面,分项评价按照“优秀”、“良好”、“一般”和“较差”四档进行评价。博士学位论文抽检总体评价分为“合格”、“不合格”两档。2015年博士学位论文质量抽检报告分析结果显示,在四个分项评价指标中,总体评价等级平均值由高到低分别为选题(3.24)、科研能力与基础知识(3.05)、论文规范性(3.02)、创新性及论文价值(2.87)。
(1)由于学位论文抽检是属于底线保障的“合格评估”而非“选优评估”,同行评审专家在分项打分时,可能倾向于选择不易区分差异程度的“中间打分”,从而对评判专家的评价标准和尺度的判断造成困难;在总体打分时,由于只分为“合格”和“不合格”两档,也使得对专家的评价标准的掌握变得更加困难。
(1)此处的得分均值是根据所有评审专家对各分项指标评价经赋值转换后计算得到的。
[2]Baptista,A.,Frick,L.,Holley,K.,Remmik,M.,Tesch,J.,&Akcrlind,G.(2015).The doctorate as an original contribution to knowledge:Considering relationships between originality,creativity,and innovation.Frontline Learning Research,3(3),55-67.
[3]Powell,S.,&Green,H.(Eds.).(2007).The doctorate worldwide.Maidenhead:Open University Press.
[4]Clarke,G.(2013).Developments in doctoral assessment in the UK.Critical Issues in Higher Education.Boston:Sense Publishers.
[5]Burnham,P.(1994)Surviving the viva:Unravelling the mystery of the PhD oral.Journal of Graduate Education,1,30-34.
[6]Gumport,P.J.(1993).Graduate education and organized research in the United States.The research foundations of graduate education.Berkeley,CA:University of California Press.
[7]Kyvik,S.(2013).Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by examiners from the USA,the UK and Sweden.Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,39,140-153.
[29][37]Lovitts,B.(2007).Making the implicit explicit:Creating performance expectations for the dissertation.Sterling,VA:Stylus Publishing.
[9]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Lovat,T.,&Dally,K.(2004).Qualities and characteristics in the written reports of doctoral thesis examiners.Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,4,126-145.
[10]Holbrook,A.,&Bourkc,S.(2004).An investigation of PhD examination outcome in Australia using a mixed method approach.Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,4,153-169.
[11]Lovat,T.,Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Dally,K.,&Hazel,G.(2002).Examiner comment on theses that have been revised and re-submitted.Presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education(AARE).The University of Queensland,Brisbane.
[12]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Lovat,T.,&Dally,K.(2004).Investigating PhD thesis examination reports.International Journal of Educational Research,41(2),178-194.
[13]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Lovat,T.,&Dally,K.(2004).PhD theses at the margin:Examiner comment of re-examined theses.Melbourne Studies in Education,45(1),89-115.
[14]Bourkc,S.(2007).PhD thesis quality:The views of examiners.South African Journal of Higher Education,21,1042-1053.
[15]Bourkc,S.,Hattic,J.,&Anderson,L.(2004).Predicting examinerrecommendations on Ph.D.theses.International Journal of Educational Research,41(2),178-194.
[16]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Fairbairn,H.,&Lovat,T.(2007).Examiner comment on the literature review in PhD theses.Studies in Higher Education,32(3),337-356.
[17]Holbrook,G.A.,Bourkc S.,&Fairbairn,H.(2015).Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,52(1),75-85.
[18]Holbrook,A.,Bourkc,S.,Fairbairn,H.,&Lovat,T.(2014).The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners.Studies in Higher Education,39,983-1000.
[19]Holbrook,A.,S.Bourkc,T.Lovat,and H.Fairbairn.(2008).Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination.Australian Journal of Education,52(1),36-48.
[20]Lovat,T.,Monfrics,M.,&Morrison,K.(2004).Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral examination.International Journal of Educational Research,41(2),163-177.
[21]Bourkc,S.,Holbrook,A.&Lovat,T.(2005).Using examiner reports to identify quality in PhD theses.Paper presented at the AARE Focus Conference:Quality in educational research,Cairns.
[22]Pricto,E.,Holbrook,A.,&Bourkc,S.(2016).An analysis of Ph.D.examiners'reports in engineering.European Journal of Engineering Education,41(2),192-203.
[23]Mullins,G.,&M.Kiley.(2002).It's a PhD,not a Nobel Prize:How experienced examiners assess research theses.Studies in Higher Education,27,369-386.
[24]Kilcy,M.,&G.Mullins.(2004).Examining the examiners:How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses.International Journal of Educational Research,41,121-135.
[25]Johnston,S.(1997).Examining the examiners:An analysis of examiners'reports on doctoral theses.Studies in Higher Education,22(3),333-347.
[26]Simpkins,W.S.(1987).The way examiners assess critical thinking in educational administration theses.Journal of Educational Administration,25(2),248-268.
[27]Dclamont,S.,Atkinson P.,&Parry,O.(2000).The doctoral experience:Success and failure in graduate school.New York:Falmer Press.
[28]Denicolo,P.M.(2003).Assessing the PhD:A constructive view of criteria.Quality Assurance in Education,11(2),84-91.
[30]Council of Graduate Schools.(1991).The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation.Washington,DC:ERIC,8.
[31]Ostriker,J.P.,Holland,P.W.,Kuh,C.V.,&Voytuk,J.A.(Eds.).(2010).A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programmes in the United States committee to assess research-doctorate programs.Washington,DC:National Academics Press.
[32]Isaac,P.D.,Quinlan,S.V.,&Walker,M.M.(1992).Faculty perceptions ofthe doctoral dissertation.Journal of Higher Education,63(3),24 1-268.
[33]Kiley,M.(2009).You don't want a smart Alec:Selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations.Studies in Higher Education,34(8),889-903.
[34]Kyvik,S.,&Thune,T.(2014).Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations.A survey of external committee members.Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,40(5),768-782.
[35]Clarke,G.,&Lunt,I.(2014).The concept of"originality"in the Ph.D.:How is it interpreted by examiners?Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education,39(7),803-820.
[36][38]Guetzkov,J.,Lamont,M.,&Mallard,G.(2004).What is originality and the humanities and the social sciences?American Sociological Review,69(2),190-212.
[39]陈洪捷,赵世奎,沈文钦等.中国博士生培养质量:成就、问题与对策[J].学位与研究生教育,201 1(06):40-45.
[40]许丹东,吕林海.知识生产模式视角下的博士学位论文评价理念及标准初探[J].学位与研究生教育,2017(02):48-53.
[41]李霞,宋俊波.人文社科博士学位论文质量要素特征评价——以人民大学人文社科类博士学位论文为例[J].学位与研究生教育,2017(11):13-17.
[42]梅定国,唐建兵.试论文科博士论文的基本要素[J].研究生教育研究,2014(02):63-67.
[43]李艳,马陆亭,赵世奎.博士学位论文质量及其影响因素研究[J].江苏高教,2015(02):105-109.
[44]董泽芳.博士学位论文创新的十个切入点[J].学位与研究生教育,2008(07):12-17.
[45]刘少雪.博士学位论文评价的主观性与客观性[J].高等教育研究,2014(02):54-58.
[46]李丽,胡祥培,张吉礼.博士学位论文创新性及相关因素关联分析[J].研究生教育研究,2015(02):24-27.
[47]顾亚琳.“人文社科类”博士论文的创新性及影响因素的实证研究[D].南京大学,2017.
[48]丛杭青,沈琪,陈大柔.博士论文协同创新机制与理念研究——以浙江大学人文学科为例[J].中国高教研究,2014(09):59-65.
[49]张颖,吴飞鸣.浅析人文学科博士学位论文创新[J].高等农业教育,2014(08):73-76.
[50]国务院学位委员会第六届学科评议组.一级学科博士、硕士学位基本要求[M].北京:高等教育出版社,201 5:出版说明;5-6;53-54;171-172.
[51][美]杰罗姆·凯根.三种文化:二十世纪的自然科学、社会科学和人文学科[M].王加丰,宋严萍译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2014:1.
[52]龚怡祖.学科的内在建构路径与知识运行机制[J].教育研究,2013(9):12-24.
[53][54][55][英]托尼·比彻,保罗·特罗勒尔.学术部落及其领地:知识探索与学科文化[M].唐跃勤,蒲茂华,陈洪捷译,北京:北京大学出版社,2015:1-9.
[56][57]王东芳.学科文化视角下的博士生培养[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2017:2-4.
[58]中国博士质量分析课题组.中国博士质量报告[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2010:2.
(1)数据来源于全国博士学位论文质量抽检年度报告课题组:《全国博士学位论文质量抽检年度报告(2015)》(内部报告),2017年。
(2)外文文献中与此相关的概念有Originality,Creativity和Innovation。根据A.Baptista等的研究,Creativity强调新知识在特定情境下的意义,Innovation侧重新发明的可转化性和经济价值。
(1)若出现意见不一致的情况,有时还需要专家组成员分别给出评价意见。
(1)10个学科中,自然科学包括生物、工程、物理、数学,社会科学包括经济学、心理学、社会学,人文学科包括英语、历史、哲学。
(2)形成性评价(formative comment)是指专家针对如何进一步改进论文所给出的意见和建议。
(1)研究不充分之处(understudied area)通常指被忽略的时间段或地区(往往为非西方国家)。
(1)采取这种维度划分的主要原因是出于后续对比的便利性考量。实际上,对于博士学位论文创新标准究竟应该从哪些方面进行总结和评价,不同学科专家,甚至同一学科的不同专家之间可能会有不同的认定。换言之,对博士学位论文创新标准进行维度划分本身是极易引起疑问的争议性话题。
(1)本文认为,即便涉及跨学科(交叉学科)的博士学位论文选题,也必须符合所申请学科博士学位的基本研究规范和研究范式。当然,跨学科(交叉学科)既是未来学术研究和博士生培养的一个重要发展趋势,也是学位授予和博士学位论文评定中的一个极易引起争议的难点话题。由于这一话题并非本文所分析论证的核心命题,故只提及而并未在此文中展开分析论述。
(2)在这一专家的文字评阅意见中,尽管明确提出该博士学位论文研究内容与所授学位明显存在冲突,在最终评价等级中却依旧判定为“合格”,据此可知,即使在纯硬学科中,评审专家某种情况下也可能存在“放水”现象,这种引起博士学位论文学科研究范式冲突背后的原因值得深入剖析。
(1)《抽检办法》中规定,按照学术学位和专业学位分别制定博士学位论文评议要素。2015年博士学位论文抽检通讯评议评价意见表分项评价按照学术学位人文社会科学类、学术学位自然科学类和专业学位三类分别制定,分项评价均包含选题、创新性及论文价值、基础知识及科研能力和论文规范性四个方面,分项评价按照“优秀”、“良好”、“一般”和“较差”四档进行评价。博士学位论文抽检总体评价分为“合格”、“不合格”两档。2015年博士学位论文质量抽检报告分析结果显示,在四个分项评价指标中,总体评价等级平均值由高到低分别为选题(3.24)、科研能力与基础知识(3.05)、论文规范性(3.02)、创新性及论文价值(2.87)。
(1)由于学位论文抽检是属于底线保障的“合格评估”而非“选优评估”,同行评审专家在分项打分时,可能倾向于选择不易区分差异程度的“中间打分”,从而对评判专家的评价标准和尺度的判断造成困难;在总体打分时,由于只分为“合格”和“不合格”两档,也使得对专家的评价标准的掌握变得更加困难。
(1)此处的得分均值是根据所有评审专家对各分项指标评价经赋值转换后计算得到的。