|
|
|
| Study on Academic Productivity of Young Faculty Members in Research Teams under the Reform of the Appointment System |
| Yang Xi,Li Huan |
| (Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract As the reform on the appointment system is being implemented in China's universities, it creates opportunities to select talents and improve the quality of faculty members. However, the reform could also add stress to young faculty members, especially for those working in research teams, who are required to conduct cooperation with other team members. Taking young faculty members from the State Key Laboratories (SKLs) as the objects, this study examines the effects of both the tenure reform and appointment assessment on the quantity and quality of academic publications and patents. It is found that the tenure policy has no significant effect in stimulating academic outputs for young faculty members, while adopting appointment assessment could improve the quality of academic outputs for young faculty members at SKLs. Besides, it is found that strictly implementing appointment assessment might have a weaker effect on academic publications for faculty members in engineering than those in non-engineering fields. Based on the findings, it is suggested that the appointment reform should take the research organization into consideration. For young faculty members at research teams, a mild reform on the appointment assessment might be more suitable than the "up-or-out" assessment. Moreover, the policymakers should consider the different effectiveness when implementing the appointment reform in different disciplines.
|
|
Received: 06 March 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 李志峰, 江俐. 高校教师长聘教职制度：权利博弈与制度变迁[J]. 高等教育研究, 2017, 38(2): 25-31.[2]阎光才. 学术聘任制度及其政策风险[J]. 教育科学文摘, 2016, 35(4): 12-14.[3]LAUDEL G. How do national career systems promote or hinder the emergence of new research lines[J]. Minerva, 2017, 55(3): 341-369.[4]COSTAS R, VAN LEEUWEN THED N, BORDONS M. A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: the effects of age on productivity and impact[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2010, 61(8):1564-1581.[5]VAN ARENSBERGEN P, VAN DER WEIJDEN I, VAN DEN BESSELAAR P. Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 93(3):857-868.[6]MISHRA V, SMYTH R. Are more senior academics really more research productive than junior academics? evidence from Australian law schools[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 96(2):411-425.[7]SHIN J C, CUMMINGS W K. Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: research preference, collaboration, and time on research[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 85(2):581-594.[8]CARAYOL N, MATT M. Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists' productivity[J]. Information Economics and Policy, 2006, 18(1): 55-72.[9]BLAND C J, FINSTAD D A, RISBEY K R, et al. The impact of appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral institutions[J]. Journal of Higher Education, 2006, 77(1):89-123.[10] AAUP. The 1940s statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure [EB/OL]. [2018-04-07]. https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure.[11]PONJUAN L,CONLEY V M,TROWER C.Career stage differences in pre-tenure track faculty perceptions of professional and personal relationships with colleagues[J]. Journal of Higher Education, 2011, 82(3):319-346.[12]TIEN F F.Faculty research behaviour and career incentives: the case of Taiwan[J]. International Journal of Educational Development, 2007, 27(1): 4-17.[13]COUP T, SMEETS V, WARZYNSKI F. Incentives, sorting and productivity along the career: evidence from a sample of top economists[J]. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 2006, 22(1):137-167.[14]YOON A H. Academic tenure[J]. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2016, 13(3): 428-453.[15]PIETIL M. Incentivising academics: experiences and expectations of the tenure track in Finland[J]. Studies in Higher Education, 2017(3): 1-14.[16]THOENIG J C, PARADEISE C. Organizational governance and the production of academic quality: lessons from two top U.S. research universities[J]. Minerva, 2014, 52(4):381-417.[17]FERRIS J S, MCKEE M. Matching candidates with academic teams: a case for academic tenure[J]. International Review of Law & Economics, 2005, 25(2):290-310.[18]ACKER S,WEBBER M,SMYTH E.Tenure troubles and equity matters in Canadian academe[J]. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2012, 33(5): 743-761.[19]NIR A E, ZILBERSTEIN-LEVY R. Planning for academic excellence: tenure and professional considerations[J]. Studies in Higher education, 2006, 31(5): 537-554.[20]LAI M, DU P, LO L N K. Restricted opportunities under employment reform: the experiences of select universities in the Chinese Mainland[J]. Higher Education Research & Development, 2016, 35(3): 516-530.[21]由由, 闵维方, 周慧珺. 高校教师队伍结构与科研产出——基于世界一流大学学术排名百强中美国大学数据的分析[J]. 清华大学教育研究, 2017, 38(3):4-14.[22]李志峰. 高校长聘教职制度：实践困境与改进策略[J]. 清华大学教育研究, 2017 (4): 27-33.[23]戴智华. 大学基础科研投入产出与教师背景特征关系实证研究——以上海交通大学一流学科建设为例[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(18):146-151.[24]阎光才. 学术聘任制度及其政策风险[J]. 教育科学文摘, 2016(4):12-14.[25]DALEN H P V, HENKENS K. Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2012, 63(7):1282-1293.[26]（美）托尼·比彻, 保罗·特罗勒尔. 学术部落及其领地[M]. 唐跃勤等,译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2015.[27]胥秋. 大学学科文化的冲突与融合[M]. 武汉: 华中科技大学出版社, 2016:61-65.[28]刘莉, 季子楹. 现实与理想：目标群体认同视角下的高校科研评价制度[J]. 高等教育研究, 2018, 39(3): 37-44.[29]郑政捷, 陈兴明, 郑文力. 我国高校权力主体关系的嬗变与重构——基于“放管服”改革视角[J].中国高教研究, 2018(1):43-47. |
|
|
|
