英国科研评估制度的变迁逻辑——基于萨巴蒂尔支持联盟框架的分析

The Transition Logic of Scientific Research Evaluation System in Britain——The Analysis based on the Framework of Sabatier's Support Alliance

与以往利用历史制度主义进行制度变迁的分析逻辑不同,萨巴蒂尔的支持联盟框架将外部事件干预(宏观层面)与不同联盟间价值取向的博弈(微观层面)结合起来。以此分析框架为理论基础,可以有效探讨英国科研评估制度的变迁逻辑。研究发现,英国科研评估制度主要经历了强化评估第三方机构的科研选择评估、注重绩效拨款的科研水平评估和重视社会影响力及跨学科研究的科研卓越框架三个阶段。而其制度的变迁动力来源于两个层面:宏观层面主要受到外部经济社会事件的影响,微观层面主要得益于系统内部绩效联盟和学术联盟之间的博弈与调和。当然,近年来英国科研评估制度也逐渐呈现注重绩效导向、强调社会服务和重视文献计量的发展趋势,存在外部力量过度干预、绩效联盟主导而学术联盟地位日渐式微的危险。为此,我国科研评估应坚持科研活动与社会经济需求相结合的发展理念,慎用单一绩效导向的科研管理手段,鼓励跨学科研究和协同创新等。

Different from the previous analytical logic of using historical institutionalism to analyze the institutional change,Sabatier’s Support Alliance Framework combines external intervention events(macro level)with game of value orientation(micro level)among different alliances. Based on this analysis framework,this paper attempts to effectively explore the evolution logic of UK scientific research system. It is found that the UK scientific research evaluation system has experienced three stages:RSE which strengthens the importance of third-party institutions in research evaluation,RAE which pays attention to the performance funding,and REF which emphasizes the social impact of researches and the interdisciplinary researches. The driving force of institutional change comes from two aspects:the macro level is mainly affected by external economic and social events,the micro level is mainly benefited from the gaming and compromising between the performance alliance and academic alliance within the system. In recent years,the development trend of UK scientific research evaluation system has gradually focused on performance-oriented principles,social services and literature measurement,while there are risks such as external forces intervening excessively,and performance alliance dominating while academic alliance withering. Therefore,the scientific research evaluation in China should adhere to the principle of combining scientific research activities with social and economic developments,cautiously adopt the performance management tools in scientific research evaluation,and encourage interdisciplinary research and collaborative innovation.