科研评价制度如何影响大学教师主动性创新行为——基于29所一流大学建设高校的教师调查

How Does Research Evaluation System Influence University Faculty's Proactive Innovation Behavior:Based on a Survey of Faculty from 29 "Double First-Class" Universities

大学原始创新能力的提升取决于教师的主动性创新行为,而科研评价制度在激励和引导教师的主动性创新行为方面发挥着重要作用。以自我效能理论为指导,对29所一流大学建设高校自然、工程、社会和人文学科领域1659名教师进行问卷调查,探究科研评价制度对大学教师主动性创新行为的影响。研究发现:评价程序民主、评价主客体互动公平和形成性评价通过增强创新自我效能感激发了主动性创新行为;同行评价方法和质量或创新标准尽管通过增强创新自我效能感激发了主动性创新行为,但其自身存在的诸多问题对主动性创新行为也起着阻碍作用,正负效果抵消的遮掩效应导致其对主动性创新行为影响不显著;科研评价制度对不同学科、不同年龄和不同学校层次教师主动性创新行为的影响存在显著差异。研究建议:加强增值评价,完善小同行遴选和监督制度,根据学科领域和水平分类制定评价标准,推进学术委员会权限范围和委员产生方式改革,包容和鼓励失败研究。

The faculty's proactive innovation behavior is a major determinant of the improvement of a university's original innovation ability,while the research evaluation system plays a crucial role in encouraging and guiding faculty's proactive innovation behavior.Based on the self-efficacy theory,through a questionnaire survey involving 1659 faculty members in natural sciences,engineering sciences,social sciences and humanities,from 29"double first-class"universities,this study investigates the influence of research evaluation system on faculty's proactive innovation behavior.The results show that evaluation process democracy,interaction fairness of evaluation subject-object and formative evaluation not only enhance innovation self-efficacy,but also stimulate faculty's proactive innovation behavior;although peer-review method and quality or innovation standard stimulate faculty's proactive innovation behavior through the intermediary role of innovation self-efficacy,their inherent problems also hinder proactive innovation behavior,so that the masking effect leads to insignificant influence on proactive innovation behavior;significant subject,age and university level differences exist in the influence of research evaluation system on faculty's proactive innovation behavior.Based on the findings,it is suggested to strengthen value-added evaluation, improve the small peer system of selection and supervision, establish classified researchevaluation standards according to subject areas and development level, promote the reform of academic committeein terms of authority scope and members' selection method, and tolerate failed research to encourage innovation.