排序方式： 共有10条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
2017年8月,美国国家档案馆宣布2022年底前将停止接收各联邦机构移交的非电子档案。未来的美国国家档案馆将演变为单套制数字档案馆。其数字档案馆核心系统ERA建设内容包括两个中心、三个实例、四大功能,2015年启动的ERA 2.0使用便捷方法开发三个主要模块。ERA提高了联邦政府文件处理与归档效率,改进了档案管理,简化了档案利用,提升了电子档案保存支持。ERA给予我们的启示是单套归档,档案馆将不再接收纸质档案等非电子档案,这是人类社会档案存史方式的重大改变。单套制的数字档案馆是一套复杂的系统,集成了多样化的档案管理功能与系统运行支持功能。系统必须不断升级、与时俱进。 相似文献
2.
通过对澳大利亚卓越研究评价2010年、2012年评价实践和2015年实施方案的分析,发现卓越研究评价在既定宗旨的规制下,已形成较为稳定的评价方法和运行机制,其中包括以学科及相应参评基准为依据划分评价单元、定量与定性相结合的评价指标及指标选取原则、依据学科类型特点采用同行评议与引文分析相结合的评价方法、与国际接轨的评价结果等级标准、半官方背景的第三方评价组织机构、详细的参评资料收集与提交规定、开放多元的评价专家遴选方式与规范透明的同行评议流程等。澳大利亚卓越研究评价对我国当前深化高校科技评价改革具有多方面的参考价值。 相似文献
3.
20世纪60年代受自由主义思潮影响,美国女权主义者为推进妇女解放,争取平等权利,掀起一场"新女权主义运动"。与此同时,一些妇女运动的反对势力也迅速积聚,70年代在"新右翼"领导下形成反女权运动阵营,对妇女运动提出的各种权利要求大肆抨击,坚决抵制,有效遏止其高涨势头。 相似文献
4.
5.
Performance-based university research funding systems 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Diana Hicks 《Research Policy》2012,41(2):251-261
The university research environment has been undergoing profound change in recent decades and performance-based research funding systems (PRFSs) are one of the many novelties introduced. This paper seeks to find general lessons in the accumulated experience with PRFSs that can serve to enrich our understanding of how research policy and innovation systems are evolving. The paper also links the PRFS experience with the public management literature, particularly new public management, and understanding of public sector performance evaluation systems. PRFSs were found to be complex, dynamic systems, balancing peer review and metrics, accommodating differences between fields, and involving lengthy consultation with the academic community and transparency in data and results. Although the importance of PRFSs seems based on their distribution of universities’ research funding, this is something of an illusion, and the literature agrees that it is the competition for prestige created by a PRSF that creates powerful incentives within university systems. The literature suggests that under the right circumstances a PRFS will enhance control by professional elites. PRFSs since they aim for excellence, may compromise other important values such as equity or diversity. They will not serve the goal of enhancing the economic relevance of research. 相似文献
6.
Laura B. Perry 《高等教育研究与发展》2018,37(2):343-358
This study uses bibliometric data to assess the performance of educational research in Australian universities. It provides an alternative perspective to the Australian government’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) assessment. ERA results suggest that the performance of educational research is substantially less compared to other disciplines, with only a handful of universities performing ‘above world standard’. I use a range of indicators that capture citation impact and journal quality from Elsevier’s SciVal research benchmarking tool to provide an alternative perspective that is authentic, transparent, comprehensive and multi-dimensional. The findings show that most Australian universities are performing above the world average in educational research. Australian universities perform especially well on the citation indicators, with more than 75% of universities performing above the world average on all three indicators. Performance on ERA is only moderately correlated with research performance in my analysis but is strongly related to one indicator, publication volume. This finding suggests that ERA assessments favour large entities and disadvantage smaller ones. The findings also suggest that the current ERA peer-review process may not accurately or fully reflect the performance of educational research in Australia. I anticipate that this alternative, bibliometric-based assessment will be a useful benchmarking tool for a range of purposes. I conclude with recommendations for future research. 相似文献
7.
Scott Eacott 《Critical Studies in Education》2018,59(2):187-203
Journal rankings are increasingly being used as proxies for assessing the quality and worth of individual faculty and their contribution to institutional performance. Problematic within this agenda is the historical mapping and projection of current journal rankings. Individual papers are being assessed against criteria far removed – temporally – from when decisions were made regarding where to publish. Drawing upon three examples of publishing in educational administration journals, this paper explores how the assessment of paper quality is dislocated from the scholarly labour that generates those outputs in the first place. Different ranking systems and often lengthy submission to publication processes mean that the worth of individual papers can dramatically shift independent of any actual engagement with the content of the paper. The value of an individual’s track record can fluctuate quickly and any intervention to alter the situation takes time to come into effect. This paper does not suggest replacing one ranking system with another, or even remove research assessment. Rather, it offers a means of problematising the application of journal rankings by calling into question their timelessness. In doing, it provides the intellectual resources to make strange the status quo and open the prospect of alternatives. 相似文献
8.
Diana Hicks 《Higher Education》2009,57(4):393-404
Since 1980, national university departmental ranking exercises have developed in several countries. This paper reviews exercises
in the U.S., U.K. and Australia to assess the state-of-the-art and to identify common themes and trends. The findings are
that the exercises are becoming more elaborate, even unwieldy, and that there is some retreat from complexity. There seems
to be a movement towards bibliometric measures. The exercises also seem to be effective in enhancing university focus on research
strategy.
相似文献
| Diana HicksEmail: |
9.
Carmel M. Diezmann 《Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management》2018,40(2):154-174
ABSTRACTMany Australian universities have prioritised improving discipline performance on the national research assessment – Excellence for Research in Australia. However, a culture of secrecy pervades Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA). There are no specified criteria for the assignment of ratings on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘well above world standard’ (5) to ‘well below world standard’ (1). No rationale is provided to institutions for their discipline ratings and university staff on the ERA panels sign confidentiality agreements. However, what is available to universities are the research strategies that each university documents to improve its ERA performance in its Mission-based Compact, a government funding agreement. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the similarities and differences in the research strategies that universities with different performance profiles employ. Following an analysis of the strategies, substantial commonality was identified in strategy use. However, what was different was how universities employed these strategies and the associated contexts. 相似文献
10.
Jerome K. Vanclay 《Journal of Informetrics》2012,6(1):19-26
Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the ‘Excellence in Research for Australia’ (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences. 相似文献
1