指标与方法视角下我国学科评估改革的新导向

Research on New Orientations of Discipline Evaluation Reform in ChinaFrom Perspectives of Indexes and Methods

近20年我国先后启动五轮学科评估,呈现诸多新趋势。指标体系上突出四个重点,即注重人才培养的重要性和方向性,注重师资队伍的师德师风和结构建设,注重科学研究成果的标志性与价值性,注重学科基于自身特色而发挥服务功能。评估方法更为科学化,即呈现指标研制和评估实施主体多元化、指标体系更注重反映学科特色、定量与定性评价相结合、信息采集和数据处理智能化等特征。基于元评估理念,比较分析前后五轮评估的指标体系和评估方法,发现我国学科评估越来越注重学科建设的质量、成效、特色与贡献,基本形成适合中国国情、体现中国特色的高质量学科评估体系。未来学科评估在增加"效率"评价、"可持续发展"评价、强化评价的"全局性视角"、减少评估过程的"灰色"操作空间以及探索新兴跨学科研究领域的评价理念与方法等方面还需进一步提升。

In recent 20 years, China has launched five rounds of discipline evaluation, which shows many new trends. There are four key points constantly highlighted in the evolution of indexes, namely, emphasizing the importance of talent cultivation, paying attention to teaching staff’s moral building and structure construction, emphasizing the value and emblematic of the achievements in scientific research, and leading disciplines to play service roles based on their features. The evaluation methods are constantly being refined. Specifically speaking, the participants of indexes setting and evaluation implementation are more diversified, the idea of indexes setting attaches more importance to the characteristics of disciplines, quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are combined, and the information collection and data processing in evaluation work are more intelligent, which provide a “Chinese model” in discipline evaluation. Through meta-evaluation about discipline evaluation, which is carried out by comparative analysis of evaluation indexes and methods in the five rounds of discipline evaluation, it is found that discipline evaluation in China pays more and more attention to the quality, effectiveness, characteristics and contribution of universities’ discipline construction. In addition, the evaluation work in future needs to be further improved by increasing the evaluation about discipline construction’s efficiency and whether it developing in a sustainable way, strengthening the overall perspective of evaluation, preventing the man-made sabotage in the evaluation process and using suitable ideas and methods when evaluating the new interdisciplinary research fields.