专题:国际科技发展态势

科技成果社会影响力评估的国际经验及启示

  • 范英杰 ,
  • 徐芳
展开
  • 1. 中国科学院大学公共政策与管理学院, 北京 100090;
    2. 国家自然科学基金委国际合作局, 北京 100080;
    3. 中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院, 北京 100190
范英杰,研究员,研究方向为科技政策与管理,电子信箱:fanyj@nsfc.gov.cn

收稿日期: 2019-01-12

  修回日期: 2019-03-15

  网络出版日期: 2019-07-24

基金资助

中国科学院战略研究与决策支持系统建设专项(Y9J0191601);国家自然科学基金面上项目(71771205);中国科学院青年创新促进会项目(Y9J0361601)

Social impact assessment of science achievements based on international experiences

  • FAN Yingjie ,
  • XU Fang
Expand
  • 1. School of Public Policy and Management of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100090, China;
    2. Bureau of International Cooperation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing 100080, China;
    3. Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

Received date: 2019-01-12

  Revised date: 2019-03-15

  Online published: 2019-07-24

摘要

对英国的卓越研究框架(REF)、荷兰的标准评估协议(SEP)和美国的STAR METRICS这3个典型的科技成果社会影响力评估方案进行比较,识别了其评估对象、评估程序和评估目标方面的差异,重点围绕这3个方案的评估内容指标和评估方法进行了深入分析。结合国际经验,认为中国应当将科技成果社会影响力评估置于公立科研机构绩效评价的核心地位;需要在贯彻国家战略导向和体现评估对象、评估目标和区域差异的基础上开发符合中国国情的科技成果社会影响力评估内容和指标体系;要构建大数据评估并使用数据驱动方法进行科技成果的社会影响力评估。

本文引用格式

范英杰 , 徐芳 . 科技成果社会影响力评估的国际经验及启示[J]. 科技导报, 2019 , 37(14) : 18 -25 . DOI: 10.3981/j.issn.1000-7857.2019.14.003

Abstract

The evaluation of the social impact of science achievements funded by the government can be considered as a breakthrough point in the reform of China's science and technology system. Besides, it is also an inevitable step to carry out the strategy of China's innovation-driven development. The lessons drawn from the evaluation activities in western countries can be a useful guidance. The paper focuses on three typical systems, the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) for assessing the excellence of researches in higher education institutions, the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP), which is used to assess researches conducted by Dutch universities and NWO and academy institutes, and the USA's STAR METRICS for creating a repository of data and tools, that will be useful to assess the impact of federal R&D investments. This paper analyzes the evaluation unit, the processes, and the objectives of the above three systems, as well as their differences, focusing on the indicators that define the social impact and the methods to realize the evaluation. Based on this analysis, it is concluded that the social impact evaluation should be at the core of the performance evaluation of public scientific research institutions in China. Following the experience of the UK's REF system, the national strategies, the differences between institutions and disciplines, as well as the regional divergence should be taken into account when developing the indicators of social impacts and the corresponding measurements in China. To facilitate the system operation, it is necessary to create a searchable database of scientific researches funded by national agencies.

参考文献

[1] 徐芳, 刘文斌, 李晓轩. 英国REF科研影响力评价的方法及启示[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2014, 35(7):9-15. Xu Fang, Liu Wenbin, Li Xiaoxuan. The method and enlightenment of REF scientific research impact assessment in UK[J]. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 2014, 35(7):9-15.
[2] VSNU,KNAW and NWO. Standard evaluation protocol 2015-2021:Protocol for research assessments in the Netherlands[EB/OL]. (2014-03-21)[2019-03-14] https://www.knaw.nl/en/news/publications/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2013-2021?set_language=en.
[3] Australian Research Council. Australian research council corporate plan 2015-16 to 2018-19[R]. Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia, 2015.
[4] 汪雪锋, 张硕, 刘玉琴, 等. 中国科技评价研究40年:历史演进及主题演化[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2018, 39(12):67-80. Wang Xuefeng, Zhang Shuo, Liu yuqin, et al. Forty years of research on science and technology evaluation in china:Historical and theme evolution[J]. Science of Science and Management of S.& T., 2018, 39(12):67-80.
[5] 陈兆莹. 关于科技评价和科技评价改革的讨论[J]. 科学通报, 2018, 63(7):611-617. Chen Zhaoying. Reflections on science and technology evaluation in China[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2018, 63(7):611-617.
[6] David C, Ian M C, Molly M J, et al. Making the Grade:Methodologies for assessing and evidencing research impact[EB/OL]. (2013-01-01)[2019-03-15]. https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/research/ourresearchexcellence/describeproject/pdfs/2013_06_04_7_Essays_on_Impact_FINAL.pdf.
[7] Stand Up for Research of University and College Union[EB/OL]. (2009-10-16)[2019-03-12]. http://www.ucu.org.uk/events.
[8] Meulen B V D, Daemen F, Drooge L V, et al. Evaluating Research in Context:Pilot Study at Faculty of Architecture TU Delft[EB/OL]. (2010-03-01)[2019-03-15]. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:f0a713f1-1564-4b79-be66-4f5299ebba2c?collection=research.
[9] Van d M B, Rip A. Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands[J]. Research Evaluation, 2000, 9(1):11-25.
[10] Catriona M, Molly M J, Michael F. et al. Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014:An evaluation[EB/OL]. (2015-03-25)[2019-03-15]. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9833.html.
[11] King's College London and Digital Science. The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact:An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies[J]. Revista Da Sociedade Brasileira De Medicina Tropical2015, 41(1):27-33.
文章导航

/