基于循证设计的科学基金绩效国际评估研究

科研管理 ›› 2012, Vol. ›› Issue (6): 137-145.

基于循证设计的科学基金绩效国际评估研究

吴建南¹, 马亮², 郑永和³

1. 西安交通大学公共政策与管理学院, 陕西西安 710049;
2. 西安交通大学管理学院, 陕西西安 710049;
3. 国家自然科学基金委员会计划局, 北京 100085

收稿日期:2009-12-07 修回日期:2010-06-11 出版日期:2012-06-27 发布日期:2012-06-20
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金委主任基金项目(J0910011,科学基金资助与管理绩效国际评估研究项目,2009-04至2010-03);国家自然科学基金项目(J0910012,国家自然科学基金资助与管理绩效评估总体方案研究,2009-04至2010-03);国家自然科学基金项目(70873092,目标责任考核、财政管理与组织创新——面向中国地方政府绩效改进的实证研究,2009-01至2011-12);西安交通大学腾飞人才特聘教授项目(2008-06至今)。

International evaluation of NSFC’s performance by evidence-based design

Wu Jiannan¹, Ma Liang², Zheng Yonghe³

1. School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China;
2. School of Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China;
3. Bureau of Planning, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing 100085, China

Received:2009-12-07 Revised:2010-06-11 Online:2012-06-27 Published:2012-06-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 针对科学基金国际评估总体方案设计面临的方法论难题,本文尝试构建了循证评估设计方法,对其原理与应用进行了阐述,并通过科学基金国际评估总体方案设计展示了它的可行性。通过提取评估方案的关键构成要素并寻找支撑其内容的证据来源,构建了评估要素—证据矩阵并将之用于评估方案设计。研究表明,循证评估设计方法能为科学基金国际评估方案设计提供很好的支持。

关键词: 国家自然科学基金, 资助与管理绩效, 国际评估, 循证评估设计

Abstract: The Natural Science Fund of China (NSFC) has kicked off an international evaluation program since 2008 in order to assess its global funding and management performance establishing in 1986, which is faced with grave challenges. An evidence-based evaluation design approach is proposed to deal with the challenges for designing the overall international evaluation system of NSFC. The essentials of the international evaluation system are identified, appropriate evidences are searched to support them, and the evaluation essential-evidence matrix, which is applied to design the international evaluation system of NSFC, is constructed. The study reveals that the evidence-based evaluation design approach provides the sufficient support for designing the international evaluation system of NSFC, and could be widely used in other science and technology performance evaluation arenas.

Key words: NSFC, funding and management performance, international evaluation, evidence-based evaluation design

中图分类号:

N945.16

吴建南, 马亮, 郑永和. 基于循证设计的科学基金绩效国际评估研究[J]. 科研管理, 2012, (6): 137-145.

Wu Jiannan, Ma Liang, Zheng Yonghe. International evaluation of NSFC’s performance by evidence-based design[J]. Science Research Management, 2012, (6): 137-145.

参考文献

[1] Chen Chen(陈晨). Chen Yi-yu: The Nation must ensure all disciplines of basic research being supported(陈宜瑜:国家必须保障所有学科的基础研究都能得到支持). Science Times(科学时报), 2008-6-16.
[2] Wu Jian-nan(吴建南), Ma Liang(马亮), Zheng Yong-he(郑永和). The Framework, Issues, and Methods of International Evaluation of National Science Funding Institutions: A Cross-national Comparative Multi-Case Study(科学基金国际评估的框架、内容与方法—基于多案例的跨国比较研究)[J]. Studies in Science of Science(科学学研究), 2010, 28(5): 704-712.
[3] Zhao Xue-wen(赵学文), Gong Xu(龚旭). Theory and Practice of Science Research Performance Evaluation(科学研究绩效评估的理论与实践)[M]. Beijing(北京): Higher Education Publisher(高等教育出版社), 2007.
[4] Wu Jian-nan(吴建南). International Practice of Performance Evaluation of S&T Program (Foundation): A Report from G-8 Research Assessment 2008 Workshop(科技计划(基金)绩效评估的国际实践—参加八国集团研究评估2008年会议的报告)[J]. Science Foundation in China(中国科学基金), 2009, 23 (4): 240-243.
[5] Han Jian-guo(韩建国), Chen Le-sheng(陈乐生), Zhu Dong-hua(朱东华). International Evaluation Practices of Science Foundation — Evaluation of Sino-German Center for Research Promotion(科学基金国际评估的实践—中德科学中心评估工作)[J]. Science Foundation in China(中国科学基金), 2009, 23 (3): 173-176.
[6] Zhang Jie(张杰). Thoughts on Mid and Long term International Evaluation of Colleagues and Departments(院系中长期国际评估的思考). Guangming Daily(光明日报), 2007-10-10.
[7] Zhang Xue-quan(张学全). The First International Evaluation of Institutes in China(中国科研所将首次进行国际评估). CCTV International(央视国际), 2004-1-15.
[8] Wu Jian-nan(吴建南). Public Sector Performance Evaluation: Theory and Practice(公共部门绩效评估:理论与实践)[J]. Science Foundation in China(中国科学基金), 2009, 23 (3): 149-154.
[9] Coplin WD, Merget AE, Bourdeaux C. The Professional Researcher as Change Agent in the Government Performance Movement[J]. Public Administration Review, 2002, 62 (6): 699-711.
[10] Wu Jian-nan(吴建南), Yan Bo(阎波). The Path Choices of Local Government Performance Evaluation System—An Analysis of Fujian Province(地方政府绩效评估体系的路径选择—福建的分析)[J]. Chinese Public Administration(中国行政管理), 2008, (2): 25-29.
[11] Forss K, Bandstein S. Evidence-based Evaluation of Development Cooperation: Possible? Feasible? Desirable?[J]. IDS Bulletin, 2008, 39 (1): 82-89.
[12] Solesbury W. Evidence Based Policy: Whence it Came and Where it's Going. London: Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, 2001.
[13] Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't[J]. British Medical Journal, 1996, 312 (7023): 71-72.
[14] Sanderson I. Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making[J]. Public Administration, 2002, 80 (1): 1-22.
[15] Pfeffer J, Sutton RI. Evidence-Based Management[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2006, 84 (1): 63-74.
[16] Roessner D. Quantitative and qualitative methods and measures in the evaluation of research[J]. Research Evaluation, 2000, 9 (2): 125-132.
[17] Stufflebeam D. Program Evaluations Metaevaluation Checklist. Michigan: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, 1999.
[18] Dewar B, Sharp C. Using evidence: how action learning can support individual and organisational learning through action research[J]. Educational Action Research, 2006, 14: 219-237.
[19] Hartley J, Benington J. Copy and Paste, or Graft and Transplant? Knowledge Sharing Through Inter-Organizational Networks[J]. Public Money & Management, 2006, 26 (2): 101-108.
[20] Fincham R, Clark T. Introduction: Can We Bridge the Rigour-Relevance Gap?[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2009, 46 (3): 510-515.
[21] Neely A, Mills J, Platts K, et al. Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based approach[J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2000, 20 (9/10): 1119-1145.
[22] Behn RD. Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures[J]. Public Administration Review, 2003, 63 (5): 586-606.
[23] McDavid JC, Hawthorn LRL. Key Concepts and Issues in Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement. Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Sage Publications, Inc, 2006: 1-38.
[24] Arnold E, Balázs K. Methods in the evaluation of publicly funded basic research. London: Technopolis, 1998.
[25] Wu Jian-nan(吴建南), Ma Liang(马亮), Zheng Yong-he(郑永和). How do International Science Foundations Report Their Performance?: A Narrative Analysis on the Performance Report of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(科学基金国际评估如何报告绩效:关于日本学术振兴会绩效报告的叙事分析)[J]. Science of Science and S&T Management(科学学与科学技术管理), 2009(12): 55-59.
[26] Nagarajan N, Vanheukelen M. Evaluating EU Expenditure Programmes: a Guide[M]. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997.
[27] Horn J. A Checklist for Developing and Evaluating Evaluation Budgets. The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, 2001.
[28] Ma Liang(马亮), Yang Yu-qian(杨宇谦). Promoting International Cooperation and Enhancing NSFC Performance Evaluation—A Report on the International Conference of S&T Performance Management and Research Methods(加强国内外合作交流推进科学基金绩效评估—"科技绩效管理与研究方法国际会议"综述)[J]. Science Foundation in China(中国科学基金), 2009, 23 (6): 359-362.
[29] Nutley S, Walter I, Davies HTO. From Knowing to Doing: A Framework for Understanding the Evidence-into-Practice Agenda[J]. Evaluation, 2003, 9 (2): 125-148.