高校科研成果的非学术影响及其评估：是什么，为什么，怎样做？

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.04.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要： “非学术影响”评估是指科研成果对学术界以外的更宽泛的社会、经济、文化、公共政策、医疗、环境以及公民生活质量所产生的影响和推动作用。近年来，国际科研评估范式正在发生转型：由单纯地关注科研成果的学术影响转向兼顾其对外部社会辐射的更广泛的非学术影响。非学术影响评估在科学与社会的不断重构中逐步兴起，它遵循了知识生产的自身逻辑，更好地回应了公共投入的社会问责，同时有利于增强研究人员的社会责任意识。开展非学术影响评估的方法主要包括计量学（如计量经济学，替代计量学）、影响力调查（如问卷和访谈）以及影响力案例三种，它们各具特点，相互补充。在我国开展科研评估制度改革与创新的探索中，可考虑引入非学术影响评估，发挥其社会价值导向，推动研究成果产生多样的非学术影响，提升研究者的社会责任意识，重建良好的科研生态体系。

关键词: 科研评估, 评估范式转型, 非学术影响评估, 评估方法

Abstract: Non-academic impact of scientific research is assessed by their contribution outside academia to the whole society, economy, culture, public policy, health care, environment and life quality of citizens etc. In recent years, some international cases have demonstrated the transformation of evaluation paradigm of scientific research, with a new dimension of impact assessment which focuses on comprehensive impact involving both academic and non-academic. With the evolution of science and society, impact assessment of scientific research is increasingly valued which follows the logic of knowledge production, facilitates public accountability, and helps strengthen social responsibility of researchers. So far, the three main methods of impact assessment are metrics (e.g. econometrics, altermetrics), filed investigations (e.g. survey, interview) and case studies which complement to one anther. We recommend involving non-academic impact assessment in China's reforming evaluation system of scientific research so that more diverse contribution of research to the whole economy and society can be made, together with increased awareness of social responsibility of researchers and improved research environment.

Key words: research evaluation, evaluation paradigm transformation, non-academic impact assessment, evaluation methods

王楠, 罗珺文. 高校科研成果的非学术影响及其评估：是什么，为什么，怎样做？[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(4): 62-71.

Wang Nan, Luo Junwen. Non-academic Impact of Scientific Research and its Assessment: What, Why and How?[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(4): 62-71.

参考文献

刘爱生. (2018). 国外学术评价体系中的“网文”: 兴起、行动与挑战. 清华大学教育研究,39(05),90-98
刘春丽. (2016). Altmetrics指标在科研评价与管理方面的应用. 科学学与科学技术管理,37(06),13-21
刘烜贞, 湛乐. (2017). 替代计量指标评价科研成果社会影响的研究. 情报探索,2017(10),35-38
吉本斯. (2011). 知识生产的新模式当代社会科学与研究的动力学(陈洪捷, 沈文钦等译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
王楠, 罗珺文. (2017). 英国高校“科研卓越框架”的改革与创新. 中国行政管理,2017(10),141-145
武学超. (2015). 大学科研非学术影响评价及其学术逻辑. 中国高教研究,2015(11),23-28
Baker, D., Clements, A., Grout, C., Kerridge, S., McCutcheon, V., Newnham, H. (2017). CASRAI-UK: Using the CASRAI Approach to Develop Standards for Communicating and Sharing Research Information in the UK, 13th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems, CRIS2016. Procedia Computer Science, (106), 100-103
Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28(4), 397-422
Benneworth, P. (2017). We need better understanding of ‘good’ research impacts. Retrieved from https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/we-need-better-understanding-good-research-impacts
Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research?An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of informetrics, 8(4), 895-903
Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of The American Society of Information and Technology, 64(2), 217-233
Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2001). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1-23
Burke, J., Bergman, J., & Asimov, L. (1985). The Impact of Science on Society. Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of The American Society of Information and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
Bush, V. (1945). Science the Endless Frontier. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Buxton, M. (2011). The payback of "Payback": Challenges in assessing research impact. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 259-260
De, J. S., Barker, K., Cox, D., Sveinsdottir, T., & Van, D. B. P. (2014). Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 89-102
Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Research quality framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia. (Issue paper). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Donovan C. (2008). The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environment, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(118), 47-60
Donova, C. (2010). Impact is a Strong Weapon for Making an Evidence-Based Case Study for Enhanced Research Support but a State-of-the-Art Approach to Measurement is Needed. Retrieved from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impact of social sciences/tag/claire-donovan.
Drooge, L et al. (2010). Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: A guide.. Retrieved from: http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:8fa07276-cf52-41f3-aa70.
Duryea, M., Hochman, M., & Parfitt, A. (2007). Measuring the impact of Reasearch. Research Global, 2007(27), 8-9
Gibbons, M et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe. (2008). Medical research: What’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. Evaluation Forum. London: Office of Health Economics.
KNAW, VSNU, NWO. (2014). Standard Evaluation Protocol2015-2021, Protocol for Research Assessment in the Netherlands (Amended Version, 2016). Amsterdam.
Martínez, E. C., Gallar, J. M. (2010). Social Impact Assessment Methods for Research and Funding Instruments Through the Study of Productive Interactions(SIAMPI). Retrieved from: http://www.siampi.eu/Content/SIAMPI/Report%20SIAMPI%20Workshop.pdf.
Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12
Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247-254
Meulen, B., Rip, A. (2000). Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands. Research Evaluation, 9(1), 11-25
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring Third Stream Activities: Final Report to the Russel Group of Universities. SPRU-Science and Technoly Policy Research, 2002(85)
Penfield, T et al. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Research Evaluation, (23), 21-32
Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2011). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509-532
Smith, R. (2011). Measuring the social impact of research. British Medical Journal, 3237312, 528
Toole, A. A. (2011). The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 41(1), 1-12
University of York. (2015). What is research impact?. Retrieved from https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/research/research-impact/impact-definition.
Van Vught, F. A., & Ziegele, F. (2011). U-Multirank: design and testing the feasability of a multidimensional global university ranking: Final report. Brussels: Consortium for Higher Education and Research Performance Assessment.