|
|
|
| The Logic of Scientific Research Staff's Action and Developing Dilemma of Organization Driven by Quantitative Assessment |
| Liu Ling1,2, Chen Shigao3 |
1. School of Management,Hainan University,Haikou 570228,China;
2. Hainan Institute of Corporate Governance,Haikou 570228,China;
3. Institute of Scientific and Technical Information, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Science,Haikou 571101,China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This study takes one institute as an example,and explores how scientific research staff behave in terms of scientific research output and interpersonal relationships and the results it brings to the organization from the perspective of rational choice theory.The study found that some researchers with strong scientific research ability may“vote with their feet”,move away from the original organization,and enter a new organization when the original organization's assessment preferences do not match their utility functions.On the contrary,if the organization's assessment preferences match its utility function,they will adjust their energy allocation,minimize their participation in public affairs,and concentrate on obtaining more scientific research output.The other researchers who do not have the ability to“vote with their feet”will try to achieve the performance standards by“making good interpersonal relationships”or reducing public participation.As a result,although the organization avoids the scientific researchers’“voting with their feet”and gets relatively more scientific research results by quantitative assessment,it gets into some troubles such as more and more difficult to generate high-quality scientific research results and the public affairs presenting a“tragedy of the commons”phenomena and so on.Based on this,the article proposes to change the stepped quantitative evaluation method to a continuous quantitative evaluation method,formulate the evaluation cycle of different research fields scientifically,limit the scope of using quantitative evaluation results,strengthen the construction of scientific research service staff,and build a fair third-party evaluation mechanism.
|
|
Received: 09 July 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]沈文钦,毛丹,蔺亚琼.科研量化评估的历史建构及对大学教师学术工作的影响[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版),2018(5):33-42.
[2]叶继元,袁曦临.中国学术评价的反思与展望[J].中国社会科学评价,2015(1):65-78.
[3]张积玉.以量化为基础以代表作为主的综合化学术评价制度构建——基于S大学的经验[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2019,25(6):84-96.
[4]中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅.中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅关于深化项目评审、人才评价、机构评估改革的意见[EB/OL].(2018-07-03)[2020-07-01].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-07/03/content_5303251.htm.
[5]中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅.中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅关于进一步弘扬科学家精神加强作风和学风建设的意见[EB/OL].(2019-06-11)[2020-07-01].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-06/11/content_539 9239.htm.
[6]科技部.科技部关于破除科技评价中“唯论文”不良导向的若干措施(试行)的通知[EB/OL].(2020-02-17)[2020-7-1].http://www.most.gov.cn/mostinfo/xinxifenlei/fgzc/gfxwj/gfxwj2020/202002/t20200223_151781.htm.
[7]周志成.高校学术评价制度改革困境及学术效用动态均衡模型演绎[J].复旦教育论坛,2019,17(3):39-46.
[8]李西顺.规定即否定:德育量化与人的现代性[J].教育学术月刊,2011(3):44-46+55.
[9]阎光才.学术共同体内外的权力博弈与同行评议制度[J].北京大学教育评论,2009,7(1):124 -138+191-192. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 2 
