学科文化:学术产出评价制度的新视野
|
摘要
随着学科不断分化,自17世纪以来对自然科学和人文学科之间进行区分的"两种文化"已失去其恰切性,无论是皮亚杰对人文社科"四个亚类"的区分,还是凯根对"三种文化"的辨析,再到比彻等人对彼此区分的"学术部落"的描述,学科分化已成为现代学科发展的基本样态。由学科分化造成的学科文化之间的巨大差异,决定了不同学科学术产出的差异。对不同学科学术产出差异的考察表明,目前实行的统一标准的学术评价制度受到巨大挑战,学术发展需要与之相匹配的、充分考虑学科文化及学术产出差异的评价制度。
With the division of disciplines,"the two cultures"that distinguish between natural sciences and humanities have lost its accuracy in discipline differentiation since the seventeenth century. The disciplinary differentiation has become the basic state of the development of modern science,whether Piaget distinguishes the "four subtype"of the humanities and the "the three cultures"from Kagan and the description of "academic tribe"which is distinguished by Beecher and others. Moreover,the huge differences between the disciplinary cultures caused by the division of disciplines determine academic output of different disciplines. The investigation on academic output of different disciplines shows that the current unified academic evaluation system is under challenge. Academic development needs to be matched with the evaluation system that fully takes into account differences in academic culture and academic output. Academic development needs a matching evaluation system that takes into account differences in academic culture and academic output.
With the division of disciplines,"the two cultures"that distinguish between natural sciences and humanities have lost its accuracy in discipline differentiation since the seventeenth century. The disciplinary differentiation has become the basic state of the development of modern science,whether Piaget distinguishes the "four subtype"of the humanities and the "the three cultures"from Kagan and the description of "academic tribe"which is distinguished by Beecher and others. Moreover,the huge differences between the disciplinary cultures caused by the division of disciplines determine academic output of different disciplines. The investigation on academic output of different disciplines shows that the current unified academic evaluation system is under challenge. Academic development needs to be matched with the evaluation system that fully takes into account differences in academic culture and academic output. Academic development needs a matching evaluation system that takes into account differences in academic culture and academic output.
引文
[1][美]伯顿·R·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,1994:87.
[2]童蕊.大学跨学科学术组织的学科文化冲突分析——基于组织分析的新制度主义视角[J].教育发展研究,2011(Z1):83.
[3]孙进.德国的学科文化研究:概念分析与现象学描述[J].比较教育研究,2007(12):8.
[4]胥秋.大学学科文化的特点及其影响因素研究[J].黑龙江高教研究,2014(10):2.
[5][美]伊曼纽·华勒斯坦,等.开放社会科学——重建社会科学报告书[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997:4.
[6][美]伊曼纽·华勒斯坦,等.学科·知识·权力[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999:23.
[7]朱新梅.知识与权力:高等教育政治学新论[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2007:40.
[8][9][美]罗伯特·K·默顿.科学社会学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2010:384,361.
[10][英]C.P.斯诺.两种文化[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社,2003:6.
[11][瑞士]让-皮亚杰.人文科学认识论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1999:2-9.
[12][美]杰罗姆·凯根.三种文化——21世纪的自然科学、社会科学和人文学科[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团,2011:2.
[13][14][15][20][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].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:38,130,112,123.
[16]何荣利,赵淑珍.科学引文的学科比较[J].图书馆理论与实践,1994(2):39.
[17][21]Garfield,E.Citation Classics-Four years of the Haman Side of Science[J].Current Contents,1981(22).
[18]Kyvik,Svein,&Ingvild M.Larsen.The Exchange of Knowledge A Small Country in the International Research Community[J].Science Communication,1997(3):238.
[19]王晓莉,等.SCI作为科研成果评价标准的局限性研究[J].自然辩证法研究,2001(11):43.
[2]童蕊.大学跨学科学术组织的学科文化冲突分析——基于组织分析的新制度主义视角[J].教育发展研究,2011(Z1):83.
[3]孙进.德国的学科文化研究:概念分析与现象学描述[J].比较教育研究,2007(12):8.
[4]胥秋.大学学科文化的特点及其影响因素研究[J].黑龙江高教研究,2014(10):2.
[5][美]伊曼纽·华勒斯坦,等.开放社会科学——重建社会科学报告书[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997:4.
[6][美]伊曼纽·华勒斯坦,等.学科·知识·权力[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999:23.
[7]朱新梅.知识与权力:高等教育政治学新论[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2007:40.
[8][9][美]罗伯特·K·默顿.科学社会学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2010:384,361.
[10][英]C.P.斯诺.两种文化[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社,2003:6.
[11][瑞士]让-皮亚杰.人文科学认识论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1999:2-9.
[12][美]杰罗姆·凯根.三种文化——21世纪的自然科学、社会科学和人文学科[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团,2011:2.
[13][14][15][20][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].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:38,130,112,123.
[16]何荣利,赵淑珍.科学引文的学科比较[J].图书馆理论与实践,1994(2):39.
[17][21]Garfield,E.Citation Classics-Four years of the Haman Side of Science[J].Current Contents,1981(22).
[18]Kyvik,Svein,&Ingvild M.Larsen.The Exchange of Knowledge A Small Country in the International Research Community[J].Science Communication,1997(3):238.
[19]王晓莉,等.SCI作为科研成果评价标准的局限性研究[J].自然辩证法研究,2001(11):43.