社会科学研究成果评价研究

成果评价是社会科学科研管理的重要环节,也是社会科学科研管理的一个难题.文章根据直接指标和间接指标设计了初级、高级成果评价指标体系,探讨了如何在一般性成果评价、科研人员考核、职称评审、成果鉴定、成果评奖等管理工作中应用该评价体系.     

我国哲学社会科学评价机制存在的问题及建议

哲学社会科学评价机制的建立和完善直接关系到哲学社会科学的发展和繁荣。目前的评价机制过于重科研,轻教学,并且严重依赖学者的成果数量和同行评议及其所负责课题的级别等等“硬性指标”,容易助长不良的学术风气,也容易造成评价的不科学和不公正。针对此问题,本文提出了建立和完善哲学社会科学评价机制的途径和建议。     

国内人文社会科学成果评价研究文献计量分析

用文献计量方法对2000年至2009年间我国人文社会科学成果评价研究文献统计分析,从宏观的视角乌瞰相关研究论文的各种分布情况、研究热点问题及其学术影响力等。通过统计分析发现,2004年是我国人文社会科学成果评价论文的高产期,产生了一系列人文社会科学评价方面的重要研究成果,标志着人文社会科学评价问题在我国已经由零星探索阶段走向系统研究阶段。高发文与高被引排名并不完全一致,但可以看出高产作者与高影响力作者主要分布在南京大学、中国社会科学院与武汉大学,这三家单位是我国人文社会科学成果评价研究的重镇。这个期间关于成果评价指标体系问题的研究较多,而研究热点主要是运用文献计量分析与引文分析的方法,以CSSCI数据库为统计源进行学术影响力分析。此外,关于学术期刊的评价、高校人文社科评价、同行评议、评价机制、创新评价等也是这段时期的研究重点。     

哲学社会科学成果评价机制探析

哲学社会科学成果因其价值评价的相对性,社会价值的间接性,社会效益的滞后性、衰减性等特点,使得对其进行评价时遇到标准不统一、指标难确定、结果难量化等难题。定性评价、定量评价、综合评价等评价体系各有利弊,要完善哲学社会科学成果评价机制,需从评价体系选择、评价程序制定、加强有效监督、适时动态调整等方面做工作。     

CSSCI与社会科学研究评价

CSSCI是在学术界要求尽快完善社会科学研究评价机制,使评价要保证荣誉与贡献相一致的背景下问世的.它是揭示文献之间内在联系的一种检索系统,如适当运用,对社会科学研究、管理、评价,都有一定的意义.为使CSSCI从一开始就能沿着正确的轨道发展,必须放准它在评价体系中的位置.改进同行评议制,措施之一是运用好CSSCI系统.评审专家不是简单地看引用次数,而是从中了解学术同行对所评成果的承认程度,以使评价更准确.     

关于社会科学研究评价的几点思考

本文探讨了与社会科学研究评价相关的三个问题：同行评价一定程度上造成学术研究与现实需要的脱节,因此要在重视和改进同行评价的同时,引入社会评价,对学术成果实行学术共同体和社会大众联合评价;社会科学成果既要重视学术影响力,又要重视决策影响力和社会影响力,要通过改革学术评价机制,引导学者重视社会科学成果的宣传和普及;思想是学术的灵魂,社会科学研究机构要建成思想库,离不开思想者和思想家,要通过改革学术评价机制,在学术殿堂里为思想者留下生存和发展空间。     

哲学社会科学创新的评价方式论

对于哲学社会科学创新的评价而言,从不同的视角和原则出发可以导致不同的评价方式。但是无论何种评价方式,都是对哲学社会科学创新的成果做出恰如其分、符合实际的价值判断。根据对哲学社会科学创新成果进行评价主体的不同可以区分为专家同行、政府机构和公众舆论的评价。不同评价主体的评价方式在理论和实践上有其必要性和合理性,也各自存在着的一些相关问题。     

中国人文社会科学学术成果评价体系建立的困境与出路——当前研究状况的总结与思考

建立一个全面、完善、公正、科学的中国人文社会科学学术成果评价体系已是当务之急,既是为了从方法论上根本解决现行评价方法所造成的弊端和错误导向,也是为了不错过已经出现的重要发展机遇,推动人文社会科学摆脱以往根底浅薄的被动局面。文章在分析了现行主要评价方法,如同行评议、引文索引、核心期刊等之后,认为中国人文社会科学学术成果评价体系的建立现在面临的困境是旧有的主、客观方法都有较多缺陷,而新的方法还处在实验阶段,新、旧之间的过渡时期还较长,是政出多门、标准不一、事故易发的不稳定阶段。为寻求出路,文章认为当前的做法是重组现行旧方法和实验性方法,在互相关联和牵制中尽量降低彼此缺陷的负面作用,形成“组合效应”;同时从长远发展考虑,要致力于建设一个有利于评价体系良好运行的环境,建立起对学术研究者、学术评议人、学术管理者的有效监督。     

社会科学评价及评价指标

如何科学、客观、公正地评价社会科学成果,是社会科学管理中一个重要的理论和实践问题,建立完善的社会科学评价机制、评价标准和评价指标,是进行社会科学管理、奖励的重要依据。文章分析了当前社会科学评价中存在的问题,提出了改进意见,对建立评价指标进行探讨。     

中美社会科学成果评价比较研究

社会科学研究的发展与进步和社会科学成果评价的发展与进步相互促进、相辅相成。对社会科学成果评价进行研究能从侧面把握社会科学研究的规律，探寻社科评价对社科研究的促进作用，让社会科学更好地为经济发展社会进步服务。我国的社科成果评价起步较晚，在延袭传统评价方法的同时，受欧美评价方法的影响较大，把中美两国的社科成果评价作一番比较，对我国社科成果评价具有一定的启示意义。     

Evaluation Researcher

ABSTRACT

The traditional view of evaluation researchers holds that evaluators must adhere to the role of objective scientist, but recently arguments have appeared in the literature critical of the notion that evaluation research can be conducted objectively. The author examines the validity of these arguments and posits that if these arguments are conceded, it becomes more acceptable to see evaluation research as a process of valuation and advocacy. There is a risk that evaluators who adopt the role of advocate may discredit their role as objective expert.     

Evaluation of Single Interventions

This paper presents an approach to evaluating cases in which workers see clients in effect only one time. If case records are derailed enough to reconstruct a baseline and outcome after intervention, then a conventional single subject design is performed. When such information is lacking, then identified client goals and results are assembled to form an indicator of success or nonsuccess. An overall "batting average "is constructed from the results of individual problem resolutions. Results from a pilot study of the American Red Cross' Services to Military Families are reported, and methodological implications drawn to agencies serving clients on a one-time basis.     

Evaluation: Stakeholder-focused Criteria

Identifying and selecting suitable criteria is an important consideration in evaluating the performance of public sector organizations. Which criteria are chosen, and how they are weighted, will depend largely on the perspective being taken; different stakeholders (for example, clients, providers or commissioners) are likely to emphasize different criteria. In this paper a number of criteria are identified and an argument is developed to indicate which criteria are likely to be valued by various stakeholders. Furthermore, a number of approaches and mechanisms for evaluation are identified and the links between these, the criteria appropriate to them and the various stakeholders are made explicit. Finally, the issue of politics and the distribution of power between the stakeholders is addressed with a call for greater explicitness in using and balancing criteria (for example, as between professionals and the intended beneficiaries of services). In this way, while recognizing the inherent political nature of performance evaluation, the planning and implementation of services may be improved by a more mutually informed approach to evaluation.     

Realist Evaluation for Practice

Correspondence to Mansoor A. F. Kazi, Director, Centre for Evaluation Studies, School of Human and Health Sciences, Harold Wilson Building, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK. E-mail: m.a.f.kazi{at}hud.ac.uk Summary This paper outlines the new, emerging realist paradigm in evaluationresearch, and applies it to social work practice. This paradigmhas the potential for a ‘white box’ evaluation thatnot only systematically tracks outcomes, but also the mechanismsthat produce the outcomes, the contexts in which these mechanismsare triggered, and the content of the interventions (or thegenerative mechanisms introduced by a programme). Two examplesare provided, both studies with an extensive use of single-subjectdesigns by practitioners within a realist paradigm. This articleis based on the author's invited keynote address at the OhioState University's Thirteenth National Symposium on DoctoralResearch in Social Work, 6 April 2001.     

Evaluation and public service quality

Public service quality is a recent trend in the context of new public management. During the 1990s, public service quality initiatives have been launched in numerous countries at various levels of government. These initiatives have involved a variety of approaches: professional standard setting, service excellence based on users' perception of quality, government granted rights and choice for consumers, and the activity of consumer movements. Public service quality is considered on three levels: the micro level related to the output of the service delivery, the meso level related to the outcome of the service, and the macro level related to public values. Various stakeholders of evaluations of service quality efforts are identified and their expected use of evaluation is discussed. Three roles of education are described: one in the implementation of public service quality, another in evaluation of the success of service quality initiatives, and a third role of evaluating higher levl outcomes. It is argued that even if evaluation techniques are necessary tools for improving service quality at the micro level during implementation, it is even more important to evaluate these initiatives against higher level policy goals and social values.     

Data Evaluation for Intrasubject-Replication Research

The data from intrasubject-replication research usually are evaluated through visual inspection. When behavior shows little or no wend over time prior to treatment and day-to-day variability is slight, and when trearmenr effects are marked, visual criteria can be readily applied. In many situations where visual inspection may not detect changes, statistical analyses provide a useful tool for evaluating the effects of treatment. The statistical rests for single-case research depart from the more familiar analyses used in between-group research. Different analyses are needed in part because of the special characteristics of time-series data. The present paper discusses visual inspection and statistical analyses of intrasubject-replication reseorch. In addition, two statistical analyses, time-series analysis and a nonparametric ranking procedure, are described and illustrated with ABAB and multiple-baseline designs. Guidelines for using statistical tests and problems they may present for clinical research are discussed.     

论文学批评的审美评判功能

关注文学作为语言艺术的审美价值,是对文学展开有效研究的关键所在。文学批评理应根据一定的审美观点对文学作品的艺术审美价值作出深入分析和准确评判,而分析和评判本身亦昭示着艺术创造过程的新进展。所以,当代批评家至少应该具备三种基本素质:充分关注文学作品中审美价值的主导地位,正确处理文学批评和文化理论之间的关系,充分重视语言文字自身的审美特征。其具体的批评实践既应该涉及作品的某些为人公认的审美特点,使批评具备价值判断的力量,又应该从个体性的审美体悟出发,使批评体现出艺术创造的特征。