Theory,Reflection and Reconstruction of the Evaluation of Scientific Research Talents in Universities ——Based on the Perspective of Instrumental Rationality and Dialogue Rationality
Yuan Jingdi
Institute of Educational Science,Huazhong University of Science and Technology,Wuhan 430074,China
Abstract：The evaluation of scientific research talents in universities is related to the national scientific research innovation and technological development.In theory,the evaluation of scientific research talents in universities has dual connotations of instrumental rationality and dialogue rationality,and dialogue rationality,as the basis of the evaluation of scientific research talents in universities,should precede instrumental rationality.In reality,there are structural contradictions in the evaluation of scientific research talents in Chinese universities,such as tool rationality overstepping and dialogue rationality declining.The root cause lies in the fact that the system integration under the separation of time and space has intensified the expansion of instrumental rationality,behavioral conventions have led to the lack of discourse awareness of the evaluable,and the evaluation structure based on “performance”logic has consolidated the “evaluator center”based on instrumental rationality.The structural principle of “external evaluation as the main”and “as the center of evaluation”.To reconstruct the evaluation mechanism of scientific research talents in universities,it is necessary to construct an evaluation understanding paradigm based on dialogue and negotiation,promote the redistribution of the rights of multiple evaluation subjects,and promote the reproduction of evaluation norms.
袁景蒂. 高校科研人才评价理论·反思·重构——基于工具理性与对话理性的视角[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2022(3): 25-32.
Yuan Jingdi. Theory,Reflection and Reconstruction of the Evaluation of Scientific Research Talents in Universities ——Based on the Perspective of Instrumental Rationality and Dialogue Rationality. , 2022(3): 25-32.
[1]ABRAMO G,D'ANGELO C A.Measuring science:irresistible temptations,easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences[J].Current science,2007,93 (6):762-766. [2]KALLIO K M,KALLIO T J.Management by results and performance measurement in universities implications for work motivation[J].Studies in higher education,2014,39 (4):574-589. [3]刘颖.科研评价机制改革是一场持久战[N].学习时报,2019-03-27 (6). [4]中华人民共和国中央人民政府.中共中央、国务院印发 《深化新时代教育评价改革总体方案》[EB/OL]. (2020-10-13)[2021-02-20].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-10/13/content_5551032.htm. [5]马陆亭,王小梅,刘复兴,等.深化新时代教育评价改革研究 (笔谈)[J].中国高教研究,2020 (11):1-6. [6]马克斯·韦伯.经济与社会 (上卷)[M].林荣远,译.北京:商务印书馆,1997. [7]张康之.公共行政:超越工具理性[J].浙江社会科学,2002 (4):3-8. [8]MASON E J,BRAMBLE W J.Research in education and the behavioral sciences:concepts and methods[M].Wisconsin:Brown & Benchmark Publishers,2011. [9]STUFFLEBEAM D L,WELCH W L.Review of research on program evaluation in united states school districts[J].Educational administration quarterly,1986,22 (3):150-170. [10]GRONLUND N E,WAUGH C K.Assessment of student achievement[M].New York:Pearson,1998. [11]唐慧君.大学科研评价体系及应用研究[D].长沙:湖南大学,2006:9-12. [12]封铁英.科技人才评价现状与评价方法的选择和创新[J].科研管理,2007 (21):30-34. [13]艾四林.哈贝马斯交往理论评析[J].清华大学学报 (哲学社会科学版),1995 (3):11-18. [14]马丽,陈玉林.解读哈贝马斯的交往行为理论[J].理论界,2009 (2):114-115. [15]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的 “乌托邦”构想[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001. [16]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].曹卫东,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2004. [17]LYNCH M.Why engage? China and the logic of communicative engagement[J].European journal of international relations,2002,8 (2):187-230. [18]马丁·布伯.我与你[M].陈维纲,译.北京:商务印书馆,2015. [19]LIPARI L.Listening for the other:ethical implications of the Buber-Levinas encounter[J].Communication theory,2004,14 (2):122-141. [20]KIM J,KIM E J.Theorizing dialogic deliberation:everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue[J].Communication theory,2008,18 (1):51-70. [21]安东尼·吉登斯.社会的构成——结构化理论纲要[M].李康,李猛,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2016. [22]仰海峰.法兰克福学派工具理性批判的三大主题[J].南京大学学报 (哲学·人文科学·社会科学版),2009 (4):26-34+142. [23]张云鹏.试论吉登斯结构化理论[J].社会科学战线,2005 (4):274-277. [24]BRENNEIS D,SHORE C,WRIGHT S.Getting the measure of academia:universities and the politics of accountability[J].Anthropology in action,2005,12 (1):1-10. [25]AGVEMANG G,BROADBENT J.Management control systems and research management in universities:an empirical and conceptual exploration[J].Accounting auditing and accountability journal,2015,28 (7):1018-1046. [26]SHORE C,WRIGHT S.Governing by numbers:audit culture,rankings and the new worldorder[J].Social anthropology,2015,23 (1):22-28. [27]KALLIO K M,KALLIO T J,GROSSI G.Performance measurement in universities:ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators[J].Public money & management,2017,37 (4):293-300. [28]易凌云. “五唯”问题:实质与出路[J].教育研究,2021 (1):4-14. [29]朱军文,刘念才.高校科研评价定量方法与质量导向的偏离及治理[J].教育研究,2014 (8):52-59. [30]SHORE C.Audit culture and illiberal governance:universities and the politics of accountability[J].Anthropological theory,2008,8 (3):278-298. [31]MCCANN L,GRANTER E,AROLES J,et al.Upon the gears and upon the wheels:terror convergence and total administration in the neoliberal university[J].Management learning,2020,51 (4):431-451. [32]JONES M R,KARSTEN H.Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research[J].MIS quarterly,2008,32 (1):127-157. [33]陈醒,庞学光.高校学术治理的民主商谈何以必要与可能——基于商谈伦理之维[J].教育发展研究,2019 (11):8-15. [34]王鉴,王文丽.结构化理论视角下的课堂教学变革研究[J].山西大学学报 (哲学社会科学版),2019, (3):91-99. [35]李立国,赵阔.超越 “五唯”的学术评价制度:从后果逻辑到正当性逻辑[J].大学教育科学,2020 (6):4-7,15. [36]董彦邦,刘莉.大学教师科研评价的目的、方法、程序对创新行为的影响——基于对C9高校部分理工领域的调查[J].中国科技论坛,2021 (1):24-34. [37]GROSSI G,DOBIJA D,STRZELCZVK W.The impact of competing institutional pressures and logics on the use of performance measurement in hybrid universities[J].Public performance & management review,2020,43 (4):818-844.
2022, 
