共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 93 毫秒
1.
2.
1986年英国首次开展科研绩效导向的评估活动以来,经历了科研选择性评估(RSE)、科研水平评估（RAE）以及科研卓越框架(REF)三个阶段。现行的科研卓越框架基于前几轮评估结果与经验,强调延用第三方评估机构、合并学科评估单元、调整评估指标权重、改进科研评估方法等推进高校科技创新。通过深入剖析英国REF2021,指出我国高校科研评估应积极引入第三方评估机构,构建跨学科研究评估机制,探索科研影响力评估体系,完善量化评估方式。 相似文献
3.
介绍了英国政府改革原有的英国科研评价（Research Assessment Exercise,RAE）,建立新的科研评估体系——卓越研究框架（Research Excellence Framework,REF）的情况。对REF及其评估实施在文献计量、科研的社会影响力方面的变化过程与方向进行了专门的探讨,在此基础上提出我国学科评估未来发展的一系列政策建议。 相似文献
4.
REF(Research Excellence Framework)全称卓越研究评估框架,它将取代现行的大学科研评估(Research Assessment Exercise,简称RAE)模式,成为英国用于评价大学学科科研质量及选择性地分配高等教育科研机构研究经费的主要办法.REF框架在其发展的过程中涌现了革新思想,反映英国高等教育管理的调整和变化,在各方的一些创新方案纷至沓来的同时,也伴随着某些万众期待的美好蓝图的黯然失色,这期间的进展与波折非常耐人寻味. 相似文献
5.
英国大学的科研竞争力在国际上一直遥遥领先,这与其不断创新的大学科研绩效评价与拨款制度密切相关。基于知识创新范式的转型与绩效评估自身面临的困境,英国在最新的一轮评估中引入科研卓越框架(REF)。相比于之前的科研水平评估(RAE),科研卓越框架在指标体系上增加科研影响力维度,突出大学科研对社会经济的贡献导向;在评估单元设置上大幅度地合并划分过细的学科,缩减学科单元总量,鼓励跨学科研究;在基于绩效评价结果的拨款上倾斜程度更加明显,拨款机制也更为透明。本轮英国大学科研绩效评估与绩效拨款改革与创新,对于中国"双一流"建设绩效评价和绩效拨款具有重要启示。 相似文献
6.
为扭转“绩效至上”的不科学评价导向,构建有效培养、吸引科技创新人才的良好科研文化,英国发布了新一轮全国高校科研评价——“科研卓越框架2028”(REF 2028)的设计方案。REF 2028以高校科研文化建设情况为评价重点,对三大评价维度进行全面变革。具体而言,用科研文化维度代替科研环境维度,采用兼顾多样性和统一性的科研文化评价模式;扩展科研成果维度基本内涵,取消对科研人员个体绩效的关注;扩大科研影响维度指向范围,更加重视影响产生的具体过程。REF 2028展现出以文化可持续建设为导向、以全过程评价为中心、以“证据为本”为原则的三大改革特点,这对推动我国科研可持续发展、建立完善的全过程评价体系、助力评价准确性和效率双重提升具有重要的借鉴意义。 相似文献
7.
1986年至2008年,英国在高校开展了六次大规模"科研水平评估"(RAE)。2014年,英国政府开始实施新的"科学研究卓越框架综合评估"(REF),在评估指标、评估方式等方面对RAE进行了较大的改进与创新。英国科研评估制度对优化政府配置高校科研经费,促进高校学科科学研究等方面的发展,提高资源投入绩效具有重要作用。本研究深入分析了REF的评估对象、指标体系、专家组成、数据采集以及结果使用等环节的内涵和特征。借鉴其经验,结合我国国情,从评价指标构建、评价方法改进、大数据信息获取、专家评议质量提升以及结果使用等方面,为改进我国学科类水平评估提出了五点建议。 相似文献
8.
同行评议制度是英国高校科研评价体系REF(Research Excellence Framework,科研卓越框架)的精髓。英国将要实施的REF2021吸取了先前同行评议制度经济性、公平性、可靠性不足的经验教训并进行了相应改革,提高了对评审专家的信息技术和定量数据支持,调整了专家遴选制度,完善了跨学科研究评价体系,展现了计划性、透明性、多样性和灵活性等优势。这对提高中国科研评价中同行评议制度的科学性、透明性、公平性和可靠性,以及完善专家遴选机制、接受业界内外的公众监督、突出科研成果实际价值、重视对跨学科合作研究的科研评价等方面有借鉴意义。 相似文献
9.
作为知识创新和科学发现的重要阵地,科学研究对经济社会发展的影响以及科研影响力评价已经引起各国高等教育工作者的广泛关注.英国高校科研影响力评价水平在国际上一直处于领先地位.自2019年1月开始,英国高等教育基金管理委员会陆续发布"科研卓越框架2021"的评估指南、评估标准等文件,进一步改革和完善科研影响力评估,增加科研影... 相似文献
10.
英国科学研究卓越框架是英国资助机构用来评价本国高等院校科学研究项目质量的一个行动计划。其目标在于提高质量、支持创新、奖励卓越、制定质量保障体系等。其特点在于关注对科研产出的评估、对科研声誉的评估、对科研环境的评估。 相似文献
11.
The UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a system that is intended to evaluate the quality of the research produced by higher education institutes (HEIs) in the UK in three areas: quality of research outputs; impact of this research beyond academia; and research environment. For the next REF, the funding bodies have reviewed the importance of the three assessment elements and decided to increase the weight of ‘impact’ to 25% (from 20% in REF2014) and decrease the weight of ‘outputs’ to 60% (from 65% in REF2014). This article first examines the relevance of some factors for the quality of impact submissions in REF2014 and finds that larger submissions and institutes with higher external research income received better impact scores in the REF. The article then examines the units of assessment (UoAs) and HEIs that benefitted from the inclusion of the impact agenda as part of REF2014 by examining the distribution of the quality-related research (QR) funding in the 2017–2018 period and finds that the QR funding gap among different UoAs tends to decrease but the gap among HEIs in most of the UoAs increased. With the increased importance of the impact agenda as a criterion for funding bodies, it is expected that research income will be concentrated in fewer universities in the future, with the increased importance of non-academic impact. This article also discusses some of the gaming strategies and long-term investment priorities that HEIs may engage in based on the new submission rules of the next REF. 相似文献
12.
AbstractThe intensification of an audit culture in higher education is made no more apparent than with the growing prevalence of performance-based research funding systems like the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the introduction of new measures of assessment like ‘impact’ or more specifically, the economic and societal impacts of research. Detractors of this regulatory intervention, however, question the legitimacy and credibility of such a system for, and focus within, the evaluation of research performance. Within this study, we specifically sought to understand the process of evaluating the impact of research by gaining unique access as observers of a simulated impact evaluation exercise populated by aproximately n = 90 senior academic peer reviewers and user assessors, undertaken within one UK research-intensive university prior to and in preparation of its submission to REF2014. Over an intensive two-day period, we observed how peer reviewers and user assessors grouped into four overarching disciplinary panels went about deliberating and scoring impact, presented in the form of narrative-based case studies. Among other findings, our observations revealed that in their efforts to evaluate impact, peer reviewers were indirectly promoting a kind of impact mercantilism, where case studies that best sold impact were those rewarded with the highest evaluative scores. 相似文献
13.
Netta Weinstein Jennifer A. Chubb Geoffrey Haddock James R. Wilsdon 《Higher Education Quarterly》2021,75(1):146-160
Little is known about how researchers in higher education institutions (HEIs) experience and respond to support received from their departments. The present study investigated how support for researchers' autonomy (choice and self‐expression), relatedness (through connections with colleagues) and competence (feeling effective in one's work) influenced their attitudes towards an external assessment of research. To do so, we surveyed 598 academics from four HEIs in the UK about their attitudes towards one such external assessment: the Research Excellence Framework (REF), a nationwide assessment of research quality and the subject of debate about research evaluation. Our findings, drawing on self‐determination theory, show that departments can shape responses to the REF: individuals whose psychological needs were supported by their academic departments held more positive, and less negative, attitudes towards the REF. This occurred both directly and indirectly through researchers' recognition that the REF had a more positive influence on their research activities and outputs. 相似文献
14.
上世纪90年代以来,英国顺应国际潮流颁布了一系列文件以推动国家创新战略,重要内容之一是加大科研投资。在英国,非常重要的一条科研投资渠道是高等教育拨款委员会的拨款,而该项拨款的基础是科研评估制度。然而推行了20多年科研评估制度缺陷明显,主要表现为耗资巨大、指标落后、妨碍创新。为解决此问题,在2008年评估结束后,英国高等教育基金委员会决定对科研评估制度进行改革。改革体现在四个方面:缩减评价单元、更新评估指标、改变评估对象和转换评估方式等。其中最为重要的变革是科研成果影响力这一评价指标的引入,反映了英国推动科研成果转移速度、建设创新型国家的战略和决心。 相似文献
15.
Anthony Kelly 《British Educational Research Journal》2016,42(4):665-681
The purpose of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) is to judge the quality of research in the UK and on that basis to apportion to universities, in a transparent manner, differential shares in the UK's £1.6 billion pot of research funding. However, the funding process is anything but transparent! While the REF process was known years in advance and remained constant throughout the assessment exercise, the mechanisms for the subsequent award of quality‐related research (QR) funding in England were opaque and ‘adjustable’. The financial outcomes were put in the public domain following publication of the REF outcomes, but the calculations still remain a ‘black box’ even for experienced university administrators. The funding factors were not revealed in advance and dramatic changes were made to the formula once the REF results were known. This paper explores the intricacies involved in university QR funding and looks at the correlations between it and various REF outcomes. It discusses the tactical implications for academics and university administrators, and whether simpler alternatives that are just as effective can be developed in time for the next iteration. 相似文献
16.
关于新农村建设的指标体系与评价 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
张少杰 《黑龙江教育学院学报》2009,28(8):4-6
社会主义新农村建设指标体系本着全面化、层次化、前瞻性和差异化的原则进行设计,从"生产发展、生活宽裕、乡风文明、村容整洁、管理民主"二十字方针出发构建评价指标体系。由于新农村建设是各个村庄在地方政府的规范与领导下进行的一项长期的系统工程,指标体系的设计可以分为两个层次,即村庄新农村建设的评价指标体系和地方政府新农村建设的评价指标体系。同时,在设计指标体系时还要注意,应把农业发展作为新农村建设的核心指标,农民利益、农村生活方式及农村建设的可持续发展等都应考虑在内。 相似文献
17.
建设创新型国家需要创新型大学,建设创新型大学必须要创建具有创新理念和创新氛围的大学创新文化。而创新文化建设在推进中又出现了诸多制约因素,只有消除其不利因素,才能实现大学文化的创新。本文从创新办学理念、构建与时俱进的校园创新文化环境、组织大学生参与社会实践、改革现行评价体制、加强教师队伍建设、实施科研奖励机制等六个方面进行了详尽的阐述。 相似文献
18.
美国基础教育课程评价的发展趋势可以成为我国课程评价的一个基点研究。文章从评价取向、评价目标、评价标准、评价要求四个维度概括了美国基础教育课程评价的发展趋势,建议我国确立发展性评价观,建立和完善多元主体、复合标准的课程评价体系。 相似文献
19.
黄丹凤 《外语教学理论与实践》2015,1(4):49
作为一项教师专业发展举措,外语教师同伴指导在西方教师教育和培训实践中得到了较多的关注和较为广泛的运用,为我国的外语教师专业发展提供了新的视角。然而,在理论研究和具体实践中,尚缺乏对于外语教师同伴指导评价环节的系统思考。基于同伴指导所倡导的民主沟通、 协商反思、 合作共赢的价值诉求,本文尝试以第四代评估为理论基础,在厘清评价基本原则、 内容与形式的基础上初步构建起外语教师同伴指导评价体系,服务于教师专业发展实践。 相似文献
20.
Julian Hamann 《Higher Education》2016,72(6):761-779
Far from allowing a governance of universities by the invisible hand of market forces, research performance assessments do not just measure differences in research quality, but yield themselves visible symptoms in terms of a stratification and standardization of disciplines. The article illustrates this with a case study of UK history departments and their assessment by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF), drawing on data from the three most recent assessments (RAE 2001, 2008, REF 2014). Symptoms of stratification are documented by the distribution of memberships in assessment panels, of research active staff, and of external research grants. Symptoms of a standardization are documented by the publications submitted to the assessments. The main finding is that the RAEs/REF and the selective allocation of funds they inform consecrate and reproduce a disciplinary center that, in contrast to the periphery, is well-endowed with grants and research staff, decides in panels over the quality standards of the field, and publishes a high number of articles in high-impact journals. This selectivity is oriented toward previous distributions of resources and a standardized notion of “excellence” rather than research performance. 相似文献