基本科研业务费(以下简称基科费)作为稳定支持经费的一种,旨在解决我国以竞争性项目经费为主导的科技经费配置模式所带来的竞争过度和稳定不足的问题,同时作为启动和杠杆经费以支持国立科研机构和高校开展前沿课题研究和培养优秀人才。本文立足政策评估视角,从科研人员角度出发,以激励-保健双因素为理论基础,构建了基本科研业务费政策执行满意度分析模型,并基于4016份问卷样本,采用多元线性回归和文本分析法,分析基科费政策执行满意度影响因素及提升建议。回归分析结果表明:科研人员所获经费量与政策执行满意度呈正相关;对于低满意度人群,经费获得压力同政策执行满意度呈负相关;科研人员年龄和职称同政策执行满意度呈负相关。文本分析结果表明:整体样本人群均建议未来应加大基科费投入力度,发挥其启动经费的杠杆作用并在配置上有所侧重;高满意度人群关注设立奖惩机制和加大平台与科研仪器投入等激励性因素;低满意度人群关注程序正义、配置公平、机制保障等保障性因素。为进一步提升政策实施满意度,发挥基科费的杠杆经费与稳定支持作用,国立科研机构未来应(1)进一步优化基科费布局,围绕国家战略布局部署科研项目;(2)重视基科费启动和杠杆经费功能,关注重点群体;(3)保证项目管理与流程机制公开透明。

Fundamental Research Funds (FRF) represents one type of science and technology block grant policies in China, aiming to address the challenges of the current research funding mode dominated by competitive project funding, characterized by excessive competition and insufficient stability; and to support national research institutions and universities in conducting cutting-edge topic research and cultivating outstanding talents as the startup and leveraged funding. Based on a policy assessment perspective, this paper constructs a satisfaction analysis model for the FRF policy implementation, grounded in the dual-factor theory of motivation and hygiene. Employing a dataset comprising 4,016 survey responses, the study leverages multiple linear regression and textual analysis to examine the factors influencing policy implementation satisfaction and to suggest policy implications.

The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated: (1) a positive relationship between the FRF amount obtained by researchers and their satisfaction with policy implementation; (2) among the low-satisfaction group, a negative relationship between funding pressure and the satisfaction with FRF policy implementation; (3) a negative relationship between researchers' age and satisfaction with FRF policy implementation; and (4) a negative relationship between researchers' job ranks and satisfaction with FRF policy implementation.

Textual analysis revealed that: (1) the entire sample group agreed on the necessity for an increased amount of FRF funding, to fully leverage its startup mechanism and allocate the funding catering to practical needs; (2) the high-satisfaction group suggested to set up a reward-and-punishment mechanism and advocates more investment in major research equipment and platforms; and (3) the low-satisfaction group focused more on the justification and fairness of the policy implementation.

Lastly, the paper proposed the following policy implications based on the research findings: (1) further optimization of the FRF distribution patterns and alignment research projects with national strategic needs; (2) emphasis on the startup and leveraging roles of FRF, targeting at key groups; and (3) ensuing transparency in project management and processes.