高校科研成果的社会影响评估新趋势：基于研究前沿的文献述评与展望

doi:10.6049/kjjbydc.2022110612

科技进步与对策

2023, Vol. 40

Issue (16): 153-160 DOI: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2022110612

综述

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

高校科研成果的社会影响评估新趋势：基于研究前沿的文献述评与展望

王楠^1,2,李若芷¹

（1.首都师范大学教育学院，北京 100048；2.新疆大学研究生院，新疆乌鲁木齐 830046）

New Trends in Social Impact Assessment of Research Results in Universities:A Review of the Literature and Prospects Based on Research Frontiers

Wang Nan^1,2,Li Ruozhi¹

(1. School of Education,Capital Normal University,Beijing 100048, China;2.Graduate School,Xinjiang University,Urumqi 830046, China)

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1281 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要科研成果社会影响评估是近年来各国科研评估框架中的重要维度，也是我国科研评估改革破除“唯论文”“SCI至上”等不良评价导向、建立多元评价标准的重要抓手。全面系统梳理科研成果社会影响评估领域的知识结构和研究前沿，及时总结研究新趋势，对于深化理论研究、推动实践创新具有重要意义。系统分析梳理近20年国内外科研成果的社会影响评估相关文献，从评估导向、评估理念、评估方法、评估主体4个维度对该研究领域文献进行述评，发现研究趋势主要包括：评估导向过程化，即从关注影响结果到关注互动过程；评估理念人本化，即从关注绩效到关注受益人；评估方法综合化，即从线性评价到非线性评价；评估主体多元化，即在学术同行中纳入非学术评审。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	王楠
	李若芷

关键词 ：科研评价, 社会影响评估, 非学术影响, 研究趋势, 文献综述

收稿日期: 2022-11-22 修回日期: 2023-02-07

ZTFLH:

G311

基金资助:北京市教委“十三五” 规划优先关注项目（AEGA17011）

作者简介: 王楠（1985—），女，北京人，博士，首都师范大学教育学院、首都教育发展协同创新中心副教授、硕士生导师，新疆大学研究生院副院长，研究方向为教育经济与管理、高等教育评估；李若芷（1997—），女，河南洛阳人，首都师范大学教育学院硕士研究生，研究方向为高等教育评估。

引用本文:

王楠,李若芷. 高校科研成果的社会影响评估新趋势：基于研究前沿的文献述评与展望[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2023, 40(16): 153-160.
Wang Nan,Li Ruozhi. New Trends in Social Impact Assessment of Research Results in Universities:A Review of the Literature and Prospects Based on Research Frontiers. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS AND POLICY, 2023, 40(16): 153-160.

链接本文:

http://www.kjjb.org/CN/10.6049/kjjbydc.2022110612 或 http://www.kjjb.org/CN/Y2023/V40/I16/153

[1] PENFIELD T, BAKER M J, SCOBLE R, et al. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact:a review[J]. Research Evaluation, 2014, 23(1): 21-32.
[2] JACK S,LEONIE V D. Introducing 'productive interactions' in social impact assessment[J].Research Evaluation,2011,20(3):211-218.
[3] MUHONEN R, BENNEWORTH P, OLMOS-PEUELA J. From productive interactions to impact pathways: understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact[J]. Research Evaluation, 2020, 29(1): 34-47.
[4] DAZ MARIO B L, CABALLERO-RICO F C, ROQUE HERNNDEZ R V, et al. Towards the construction of productive interactions for social impact[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(2):1-20.
[5] BORNMANN L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(2): 217-233.
[6] SMITS, KUHLMANN.The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy [J]. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 2004, 1(1-2):4-32.
[7] 高慧.知识生产的时空转变与科技成果评价范式转型[J].科技进步与对策,2022,39(2):121-127.
[8] 殷昊,万力,刘大锰,等.以人为本的高校科研活力与创新能力评价探讨——以中国地质大学(北京)为例[J].中国高校科技,2022,36(8):40-44.
[9] MEYER R. The public values failures of climate science in the US[J]. Minerva, 2011, 49(1): 47-70.
[10] BENNEWORTH P.We need a better understanding of 'good' research impacts[EB/OL]. (2017-10-17)[2022-03-08].https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/we-need-better-understanding-good-research-impacts.
[11] BONACCORSI A, CHIARELLO F, FANTONI G. Impact for whom? mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(2): 1745-1774.
[12] King's College London. The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: an initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies[R]. HEFCE, 2015.
[13] WEISS C H. Knowledge creep and decision accretion[J]. Knowledge, 1980, 1(3): 381-404.
[14] HAZELKORN E, RYAN M, GIBSON A, et al. Recognising the value of the arts and humanities in a time of austerity[R]. HERAVALUE Final Report,2013.
[15] BENNEWORTH P, JONGBLOED B W. Who matters to universities? a stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation[J]. Higher Education, 2010, 59(5):567-588.
[16] 茹宁,闫广芬. 非学术影响评价:英国REF科研影响评估的创新性评析[J]. 国家教育行政学院学报,2020,34(9):24-34.
[17] ROSS C,NICHOL L,ELLIOTT C,et al.From chain to net:assessing interdisciplinary contributions to academic impact through narrative case studies[J].Studies in Higher Education,2020,46(18):1-16.
[18] CRONIN B, SUGIMOTO C. The citation: from culture to infrastructure[M].Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 2014:47-66.
[19] MARTIN B R. The Research Excellence Framework and the 'impact agenda': are we creating a Frankenstein monster[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 247-254.
[20] PEDERSEN D B, GRNVAD J F, HVIDTFELDT R. Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities:a literature review[J]. Research Evaluation, 2020, 29(1):4-21.
[21] WATERMEYER R, CHUBB J. Evaluating 'impact' in the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF): liminality, looseness and new modalities of scholarly distinction[J]. Studies in Higher Education, 2019, 44(9):1554-1556.
[22] LATOUR B, WOOLGAR S. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts[M]. Princeton University Press, 2013.
[23] BOZEMAN B, BOARDMAN C. Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: passing the buck on science and social impacts[J]. Social Epistemology, 2009, 23(3-4): 183-198.
[24] HOLBROOK J B,HROTIC S. Blue skies, impacts, and peer review[J]. Rt: a Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation,2013,1(1):1-24.
[25] NIGHTINGALE P, SCOTT A. Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy-makers[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2007, 34(8): 543-553.
[26] LUO J, MA L, SHANKAR K. Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2021, 48(6): 763-775.
[27] DERRICK G . The evaluators' eye[M]. Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan,2018.
[28] LAMONT M. How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2009.
[29] 周玲.“双一流”成效评估:基于技术价值合理性的思考[J].上海教育评估研究,2022,11(5):1-6.
[30] 王熙,侍晓坤.致力于公共福祉的教育研究——反思西方循证决策实践的负面影响[J].清华大学教育研究,2022,43(4):53-59.
[31] MA L, AGNEW R. Deconstructing impact: a framework for impact evaluation in grant applications[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2022, 49(2): 289-301.