“双一流”学科建设与社会需求的反差现象及评价的逻辑转向

Contrast between"Double First-Class"Discipline Construction and Social Demand and the Logical Turn of Evaluation

首轮“双一流”建设的优势学科与社会需求尤其是国家科技创新战略发展之间明显呈现不相称的问题。造成这种反差现象的根源在于传统的学科评价逻辑与科技创新之间始终存在一定的张力空间,即传统学科评估更加强调学科自身发展逻辑与诉求,遵循的是学术逻辑;科技创新发展需要学科交叉融合,更加注重社会导向和需求导向,遵循的是社会需求逻辑。然而,学术逻辑与社会需求逻辑并不会一直保持同向而行,会存在不一致的情况。学科评估应该将学科逻辑与社会需求逻辑相结合,将更多的基础学科和战略新兴学科纳入“双一流”建设范围。因此,对于“双一流”学科评价改革而言,应以增量改革撬动存量优化,在保持存量部分的传统优势和国际竞争地位的同时,通过增量部分的政策倾斜,加大对基础学科和交叉学科研究的扶持力度。具体来说,一是重构学科评价标准,根据不同学科类型和研究形态确定分类评价标准,实现学科导向、需求导向与应用导向的统一;二是改变传统主要依靠学者、同行评议的学科导向评价,拓展学科评价主体,实现学术、政府、社会等主体相结合的多元评价;三是根据不同研究类型特点,探索定性与量化相结合的综合性评价。

In the first round of"double first-class"construction,there is an obvious disproportion between the superior disciplines and social needs,especially the development of the national scientific and technological innovation strategy.The root cause of this contrast is that there is always a certain tension space between the logic of traditional disciplines evaluation and scientific and technological innovation.Specifically,traditional discipline evaluation emphasizes the discipline's own development logic and demands and follows the academic logic,whereas technological innovation development requires interdisciplinary integration,pay more attention to social orientation and demand orientation,and follow the logic of social demand.However,academic logic and social demand logic will not always go in the same direction,and there will be inconsistencies.Disciplinary assessment should combine the logic of disciplines with the logic of social needs,and include more basic disciplines and strategic emerging disciplines into the scope of"double first-class"construction.Therefore,for the“double first-class”discipline evaluation reform,incremental reforms should be used to leverage stock optimization.On the one hand,the traditional advantages and international competitive position of the stock part should be maintained,on the other hand,there should be an increase in the support for basic and interdisciplinary research through the policy preference of the incremental.The specific ideas are:reconstruct the discipline evaluation criteria,determine the classification evaluation criteria according to different discipline types and research forms,and realize the unity of discipline orientation,demand orientation and application orientation;change the traditional subject oriented evaluation mainly relying on scholars and peer review,expand the subject of subject evaluation,and realize the multi-dimensional evaluation of the combination of academic,administrative and social subjects;and explore the integration of qualitative and quantitative comprehensive evaluation according to the characteristics of different research types.