论我国学术评价中的程序正当和结果公正
|
摘要
学术评价活动与每一个学术人的切身利益和至高价值追求息息相关。学术评价的本质特征导致了学术评价结果公正的影响因素极为复杂多样。一方面,学术评价具有天然的自由裁量权、社会公众监督的艰难性,以及司法介入学术评价的有限性,因而决定了其本身具有不完善程序正义的典型特征。另一方面,在学术评价程序的"正当过程"中,存在形式主义倾向,差别原则在实际运行中存在纰漏,权力和人情导致学术评价异化,学术评价的公信力受到质疑。本研究在分析学术评价的程序正义表征和学术评价结果公正之现实困境的基础上,探讨了我国学术评价程序正当和结果公正的影响因素,提出了学术评价从程序正当到结果公正的制度设计和改进策略。
Academic evaluation activities are closely related to the vital interests and high-value pursuit of each academic person. The essential characteristics of academic evaluation lead to the complexity and diversity of factors influencing the fairness of academic evaluation results. On the one hand, academic evaluation has a typical characteristic of imperfect procedural justice because of its natural discretionary power, the difficulty of social supervision, and the limitation of judicial intervention in academic evaluation. On the other hand, in the "legitimate process" of academic evaluation procedures, there is a tendency of formalism. There are flaws in the actual operation of the difference principle. Power and personal relationships lead to the dissimilation of academic evaluation, and the credibility of academic evaluation is questioned. Based on the analysis of the procedural justice characterization of academic evaluation and the realistic dilemma of the fairness of academic evaluation results in?China, the study explores the influencing factors of the fairness of academic evaluation results and proposes strategies for institutional design and the improvement of the academic evaluation to enhancing the legitimacy of procedure and the fairness of result.
Academic evaluation activities are closely related to the vital interests and high-value pursuit of each academic person. The essential characteristics of academic evaluation lead to the complexity and diversity of factors influencing the fairness of academic evaluation results. On the one hand, academic evaluation has a typical characteristic of imperfect procedural justice because of its natural discretionary power, the difficulty of social supervision, and the limitation of judicial intervention in academic evaluation. On the other hand, in the "legitimate process" of academic evaluation procedures, there is a tendency of formalism. There are flaws in the actual operation of the difference principle. Power and personal relationships lead to the dissimilation of academic evaluation, and the credibility of academic evaluation is questioned. Based on the analysis of the procedural justice characterization of academic evaluation and the realistic dilemma of the fairness of academic evaluation results in?China, the study explores the influencing factors of the fairness of academic evaluation results and proposes strategies for institutional design and the improvement of the academic evaluation to enhancing the legitimacy of procedure and the fairness of result.
引文
①洋龙.平等与公平、正义、公正之比较[J].文史哲,2004,(4):145-151.
(1)周佑勇.行政法的正当程序原则[J].中国社会科学,2004,(4):115-124.
(2)何怀宏.公平的正义——解读罗尔斯《正义论》[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2002.13.
(3)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.86.
(4)宋旭红.学术职业发展的内在逻辑[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2008.184-196.
(5)王平,宋子良.同行评议制的固有缺点与局限性[J].科技管理研究,1994,(4):22-26.
(6)约翰·S·布鲁贝克.高等教育哲学[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.12.
(7)同上,28.
(8)温晓莉.论知识经济社会微观公共权力的法律规制[J].法学,2001,(12):11-16.
(9)William A.Kaplin and Barbara A.Lee,The law of higher education(San Francisco:John Wiley & Sons,Inc.,2007),1123.
(10)于扬清.当前学术评价为何各方都不满意[N].科技日报,2018-04-20(1).
(11)周忠和.同行评议成败在于细节[N].文汇报,2015-08-07(7).
(12)李剑鸣.自律的学术共同体与合理的学术评价[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014,(4):73-78.
(13)刘尧.学术评价应激发学者的学术生命[J].高校教育管理,2012,(2):8-9.
(14)姚玉鹏.国家自然科学基金的决策机制——对同行评议工作的探讨[J].中国科学基金,2017,(4):346-352.
(15)约翰·罗尔斯.作为公平的正义——正义新论 [M].姚大志译.上海:上海三联书店,2002.70.
(16)伍宸.高等教育国家教学成果奖究竟应该奖励谁?[EB/OL].https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?_biz=MzA4OTk4NjI0NQ==&mid=2650312209&idx=1&sn=04df220ccd5f71c3b3c425763fe0048b&chksm=881eabbbbf6922add6f2e0b558ea3c813da13198d3c62c0fe379ec49910e0c5e8c1775e44941&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=0111n8yl8YOmTocsMWKJchPW#rd2018-10-14,2018-10-14/2018-10-15.
(17)教育部.关于批准2014年国家级教学成果奖获奖项目的决定[EB/OL].http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7000/201409/174749.html,2014-09-04/2018-05-15.
(18)钟兴永,杨年保.建立多元、开放、严肃、包容的学术评价体系——“学术评价与当代学术发展论坛”综述[J].湖南社会科学2013,(5):64-68.
(19)韩启德.充分发挥学术共同体在完善学术评价体系方面的基础性作用[J].科技导报,2009,(18):卷首语.
(20)朱剑.科研体制与学术评价之关系——从“学术乱象”根源问题说起[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版,2015,(5):5-15.
(21)王泽龙.大力倡导当代学术与学术评价的学术尊严[J].云梦学刊,2013,(4):14-15.
(22)Jerald Greenberg,“Organizational Justice:Yesterday,Today,and Tomorrow”Journal of Management 16,no.2(1990):399-432.
(23)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.58.
(24)戴娟.程序正义视角下重大行政决策程序优化研究[D].湘潭:湘潭大学,2016.13.
(25)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.59.
(26)黄厚明.高校学位授予案件司法审查进路研究:基于两种法律性质定位的考察[J].高教探索,2017,(6):24-28.
(27)宋旭红.学术职业发展的内在逻辑[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2008.146-147.
(28)李静,林哲薇,牛毅.“学术权力”和“行政权力”融合对学术资源配置的影响效应分析——基于国家社科基金立项项目的实证研究[J].科学管理研究,2017,(16):38-45.
(29)罗党论,应千伟,李旭峰.行政权力与学术资源配置——基于中国百篇优秀博士论文评选的经验证据[J].世界经济文汇,2015,(3):1-18.
(30)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.303.
(31)Wilbert Ellis Moore,The Professions:Roles and Rules(New York:Russell Sage Foundation,1970),8-9.
(32)谭文华,曾国屏.透视同行评议之黑箱——《难有同行的科学:同行评议与美国科学政策》评述[J].科学与社会,2012,(3):125-128.
(33)张觉.学术评价应以公开促公正[N].中国社会科学报,2018-03-06(1).
(34)刘益东.开放式评价与学术市场:彻底解放学者的创造力[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2018,(1):17-26.
(35)谭文华,曾国屏.透视同行评议之黑箱——《难有同行的科学:同行评议与美国科学政策》评述[J].科学与社会,2012,(3):125-128.
(1)周佑勇.行政法的正当程序原则[J].中国社会科学,2004,(4):115-124.
(2)何怀宏.公平的正义——解读罗尔斯《正义论》[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2002.13.
(3)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.86.
(4)宋旭红.学术职业发展的内在逻辑[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2008.184-196.
(5)王平,宋子良.同行评议制的固有缺点与局限性[J].科技管理研究,1994,(4):22-26.
(6)约翰·S·布鲁贝克.高等教育哲学[M].王承绪等译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.12.
(7)同上,28.
(8)温晓莉.论知识经济社会微观公共权力的法律规制[J].法学,2001,(12):11-16.
(9)William A.Kaplin and Barbara A.Lee,The law of higher education(San Francisco:John Wiley & Sons,Inc.,2007),1123.
(10)于扬清.当前学术评价为何各方都不满意[N].科技日报,2018-04-20(1).
(11)周忠和.同行评议成败在于细节[N].文汇报,2015-08-07(7).
(12)李剑鸣.自律的学术共同体与合理的学术评价[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014,(4):73-78.
(13)刘尧.学术评价应激发学者的学术生命[J].高校教育管理,2012,(2):8-9.
(14)姚玉鹏.国家自然科学基金的决策机制——对同行评议工作的探讨[J].中国科学基金,2017,(4):346-352.
(15)约翰·罗尔斯.作为公平的正义——正义新论 [M].姚大志译.上海:上海三联书店,2002.70.
(16)伍宸.高等教育国家教学成果奖究竟应该奖励谁?[EB/OL].https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?_biz=MzA4OTk4NjI0NQ==&mid=2650312209&idx=1&sn=04df220ccd5f71c3b3c425763fe0048b&chksm=881eabbbbf6922add6f2e0b558ea3c813da13198d3c62c0fe379ec49910e0c5e8c1775e44941&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=0111n8yl8YOmTocsMWKJchPW#rd2018-10-14,2018-10-14/2018-10-15.
(17)教育部.关于批准2014年国家级教学成果奖获奖项目的决定[EB/OL].http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7000/201409/174749.html,2014-09-04/2018-05-15.
(18)钟兴永,杨年保.建立多元、开放、严肃、包容的学术评价体系——“学术评价与当代学术发展论坛”综述[J].湖南社会科学2013,(5):64-68.
(19)韩启德.充分发挥学术共同体在完善学术评价体系方面的基础性作用[J].科技导报,2009,(18):卷首语.
(20)朱剑.科研体制与学术评价之关系——从“学术乱象”根源问题说起[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版,2015,(5):5-15.
(21)王泽龙.大力倡导当代学术与学术评价的学术尊严[J].云梦学刊,2013,(4):14-15.
(22)Jerald Greenberg,“Organizational Justice:Yesterday,Today,and Tomorrow”Journal of Management 16,no.2(1990):399-432.
(23)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.58.
(24)戴娟.程序正义视角下重大行政决策程序优化研究[D].湘潭:湘潭大学,2016.13.
(25)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.59.
(26)黄厚明.高校学位授予案件司法审查进路研究:基于两种法律性质定位的考察[J].高教探索,2017,(6):24-28.
(27)宋旭红.学术职业发展的内在逻辑[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2008.146-147.
(28)李静,林哲薇,牛毅.“学术权力”和“行政权力”融合对学术资源配置的影响效应分析——基于国家社科基金立项项目的实证研究[J].科学管理研究,2017,(16):38-45.
(29)罗党论,应千伟,李旭峰.行政权力与学术资源配置——基于中国百篇优秀博士论文评选的经验证据[J].世界经济文汇,2015,(3):1-18.
(30)约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.303.
(31)Wilbert Ellis Moore,The Professions:Roles and Rules(New York:Russell Sage Foundation,1970),8-9.
(32)谭文华,曾国屏.透视同行评议之黑箱——《难有同行的科学:同行评议与美国科学政策》评述[J].科学与社会,2012,(3):125-128.
(33)张觉.学术评价应以公开促公正[N].中国社会科学报,2018-03-06(1).
(34)刘益东.开放式评价与学术市场:彻底解放学者的创造力[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2018,(1):17-26.
(35)谭文华,曾国屏.透视同行评议之黑箱——《难有同行的科学:同行评议与美国科学政策》评述[J].科学与社会,2012,(3):125-128.