学术“全评价”分析框架与创新质量评价的难点及其对策

发布时间：2018-05-16 01:35

  本文选题：学术“全评价” + 创新质量　； 参考：《河南大学学报(社会科学版)》2016年05期

【摘要】：学术创新评价已有一些共识,也有一些进展,但对有关创新、创新质量的理解和阐述则不很清晰和准确,在评价目的的制定、评价主体的选择、评价方法的使用、评价制度的设计等方面尚存在误区,对跨学科创新评价、非共识研究及成果评价尚无具体标准、办法。学术"全评价"分析框架注重的是内容和效用评价,依赖于同行专家的评价和实践、时间的评价。可以应用该框架解决创新评价中存在的问题。建议进一步厘清学术创新的概念,确定创新的类型、层次、程度,并使其指标化。精心挑选精英评价专家和大众同行专家,建立与完善"元评价""申诉"等监督机制。更注重时间、实践的评价,更强调对创新结果及其效用进行评价。必须以评价目的为龙头,建立全国或高校文科评价第三方机构或协作协调机构,解决规范术语、数据标准等共性问题。
[Abstract]:There has been some consensus and progress in the evaluation of academic innovation, but the understanding and elaboration of innovation and innovation quality are not very clear and accurate. In the formulation of evaluation objectives, the selection of evaluation subjects, and the use of evaluation methods, There are still some misunderstandings in the design of evaluation system. There are no specific standards and methods for interdisciplinary innovation evaluation, non-consensus research and achievement evaluation. The analytical framework of academic "total evaluation" focuses on the evaluation of content and utility, which depends on the evaluation and practice of peer experts and the evaluation of time. This framework can be used to solve the problems in innovation evaluation. It is suggested that the concept of academic innovation be further clarified, the types, levels and degrees of innovation be determined, and its index be made. Select elite evaluation experts and popular peer experts, and establish and improve the "meta-evaluation" complaint "and other supervision mechanisms. More emphasis on time, practice evaluation, more emphasis on innovation results and their effectiveness evaluation. In order to solve the common problems, such as standard terminology and data standard, it is necessary to set up a third party organization or coordination organization for the evaluation of liberal arts in the whole country or university with the aim of evaluation.
【作者单位】： 南京大学信息管理学院;
【分类号】：C12
，

本文编号：1894862