学术评等的光与影

发布时间：2018-03-14 17:53

本文选题：排行榜　切入点：研究评价　出处：《复旦教育论坛》2012年05期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：在英语中,"评等"一词具有双重涵义:"层级系列"和"腐败或污秽"。本文指出,学者在学术期刊发表研究的压力来自于极度化的学术"评等"。本文首先陈述这种压力的迹象,并探讨影响因子和高等教育排行榜所引发的后果。本文将排行榜与四大发展趋势相结合:1)专业技能的理性主义成为韦伯所强调的科层制权威的特征之一;2)高等教育管理和规制的政治化趋势在新管理主义和学术评估中的高度体现;3)商业性学术出版的定价和资金筹措利用以上趋势实现利润的最大化;4)尽管编辑或期刊本身持反对观点或重视期刊的不同目标,但却只能在新规则体系中做出决定。在阐述上述四大发展趋势的基础上,本文将对笔者所编辑的期刊《比较教育评论》展开讨论,指出排行榜的替代选项,并建议推进更具生命力和参与度的教育研究。具体而言,本文建议将学术论文作为学术交流的副产品,将此作为目前仅将影响因子视为判断学术期刊质量的标准尺度的替代性或互补性方式。最后,本文主张期刊和读者都应注重学术交流的内涵价值,将学术交流视为最重要的产物。
[Abstract]:In English, the word "rating" has a dual meaning: "hierarchical series" and "corruption or filth." this paper points out that the pressure on scholars to publish research in academic journals comes from the extreme academic "rating". The paper discusses the consequences of influencing factors and ranking of higher education. This paper combines the list with the four major development trends: 1) the rationalism of professional skills becomes one of the characteristics of hierarchy authority emphasized by Weber. The politicized trend of educational management and regulation in neo-managementism and academic evaluation 3) pricing and financing of commercial academic publishing to maximize profits despite the editorial or journal itself. Opposing opinions or attaching importance to the different goals of a journal, But it can only be decided in the new rule system. On the basis of describing the four development trends mentioned above, this paper will discuss the journal "Comparative Education Review" edited by the author, and point out the alternatives to the ranking. In particular, this paper suggests that academic papers be regarded as a by-product of academic exchange. This is regarded as an alternative or complementary way of judging the quality of academic journals only as the influence factors. Finally, this paper argues that both journals and readers should pay attention to the connotative value of academic communication. Think of academic communication as the most important product.
【作者单位】：宾夕法尼亚州立大学;牛津大学;哥伦比亚大学教育学院;宾夕法尼亚大学;纽约州立大学奥尔巴尼分校;瓦萨尔学院;台湾政治大学社会学系;北京大学教育学院;
【分类号】：G644

【参考文献】