高校跨学科研究机构形成性评价制度探究
Research on the Formative Evaluation System for Interdisciplinary Research Institutions in Higher Education Institutions
摘要: 随着知识经济与创新驱动战略的深化,跨学科研究已成为全球科研体系创新的重要趋势,对于跨学科研究机构的科学评价也成为影响其建设质量与发展水平的重要议题。传统评价体系侧重成果数量和结果导向,忽视了研究机构运行过程中的动态改进与组织效能,难以反映跨学科研究的真实价值。本研究认为,完善的形成性评价制度是跨学科研究机构实现自我革新与持续优化的关键。通过选取国外案例系统分析其形成性评价制度的运行机制与实施路径,提出我国应借鉴国外跨学科研究组织评价经验,构建以过程导向为核心、内部自评与外部审查相结合的多元评价体系,将评价结果与资源配置、机构发展相联动,推动跨学科研究机构高质量发展。
Abstract: With the deepening of the knowledge economy and the innovation-driven strategy, interdisciplinary research has become an important trend in the global scientific research system. The scientific evaluation of interdisciplinary research institutions has also become an important issue affecting their construction quality and development level. The traditional evaluation system focuses on the quantity of achievements and result orientation, ignoring the dynamic improvement and organizational efficiency during the operation of research institutions, and is difficult to reflect the true value of interdisciplinary research. This study holds that a sound formative evaluation system is the key for interdisciplinary research institutions to achieve self-renewal and continuous optimization. By systematically analyzing the operation mechanism and implementation path of the formative evaluation system of foreign cases, it is proposed that China should draw on the evaluation experience of foreign interdisciplinary research organizations, build a diversified evaluation system with process orientation as the core and the combination of internal self-evaluation and external review, and link the evaluation results with resource allocation and institutional development to promote the high-quality development of interdisciplinary research institutions.
文章引用:黄嘉欣. 高校跨学科研究机构形成性评价制度探究[J]. 教育进展, 2025, 15(12): 1064-1072. https://doi.org/10.12677/ae.2025.15122383

参考文献

[1] Harris, M. (2010) Interdisciplinary Strategy and Collaboration: A Case Study of American Research Universities. Journal of research administration, 41, 22-34.
[2] 蒋家琼, 张玲. 美国一流大学跨学科集群教师管理制度及启示——以威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校为例[J]. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, 2020, 19(4): 119-124.
[3] 石雪怡. 英国大学科研成果评价探究及其对破除“五唯”的启示[J]. 中国高校科技, 2021(6): 70-74.
[4] 杨小丽, 雷庆. 工科本科生跨学科能力评价框架构建[J]. 清华大学教育研究, 2022, 43(6): 104-109.
[5] 陆程程, 赵宏媚, 姚建建, 等. 美国公立高校建设有组织科研机构的实践路径和启示——以美国加州大学系统为例[J]. 世界教育信息, 2024, 37(3): 49-55.
[6] 王兴宇. 知识生产视角下的高校科研评价: 逻辑遵循与变革路径[J]. 黑龙江高教研究, 2024, 42(2): 40-46.
[7] 刘志芳, 孙银光. 高校教师科研评价不良治理机制生成机理与优化路径[J]. 大学教育科学, 2024(4): 58-66.
[8] Madaus, G.F., Scriven, M. and Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000) Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[9] 雷斌, 蔡兵, 马跃. 交叉学科研究的形成性评价方法[J]. 西南交通大学学报(社会科学版), 2007(6): 26-31.
[10] Engineering Research Centers (ERC): About the ERC Program.
https://erc-assoc.org/best-practices/12-about-erc-program
[11] Engineering Research Centers (ERC): Administrative Management.
https://erc-assoc.org/best-practices/chapter-6-administrative-management
[12] Engineering Research Centers (ERC): Best Practices for Executing the Strategic Plan.
https://erc-assoc.org/best-practices/33-best-practices-executing-strategic-plan
[13] Engineering Research Centers (ERC) (2024) Gen-4 FY 2024 Guidelines for Preparing Annual Reports and Renewal Proposals.
https://www.erc-reports.org/public/library
[14] 廖春华, 马骁, 李永强. 本科人才培养质量标准研制路径探析——基于PDCA循环理论的视角[J]. 教育发展研究, 2014, 34(21): 23-29.
[15] Engineering Research Centers (ERC): Working with the NSF.
https://erc-assoc.org/best-practices/29-working-nsf
[16] Engineering Research Centers (ERC): Gen-3 Performance Criteria.
https://www.erc-reports.org/public/library