摘要
本文基于2015年全国博士论文抽检材料,对学科文化与博士学位论文的创新标准这一命题展开研究,得出如下三点主要结论:其一,在学科文化各异的学科中,同行专家对博士学位论文的创新标准评价呈现明显差异,哲学、社会学倾向于将学位论文视为一种带有学术训练性质的学业评价,物理学则将学位论文视为一种强调原创性的学术评价。其二,从一致度看,与软学科相比,硬学科中同行专家对学位论文创新标准界定的一致性和共识度明显更高;从严松度看,同行专家对创新性的评价尺度在硬学科中较为严格而在软学科中则相对宽松。其三,博士学位论文质量保障具有涵盖"规范性底线"和"创新性底线"在内的双重底线,但底线保障程度与学科文化呈现相关性。
The evaluation of doctoral dissertations is less concerned with the discussion of the quality of doctoral education. Based on the 2015 National Ph.D.dissertation sampling basic data and textual comments from reviewers,this article studies the new propositions of academic culture and doctoral dissertation innovation standards, and draws the following conclusions:Firstly, there are obvious differences in the evaluation of the innovative standard of doctoral dissertation during the review process in soft and hard disciplines whose cultures are quite different. In soft disciplines represented by philosophy and sociology, dissertations are more inclined to be regarded as a kind of learning evaluation with the nature of academic training. But in hard disciplines represented by physics, dissertations are obviously regarded as a kind of academic evaluation, and especially emphasize originality and publishing of high quality academic papers. Secondly,taking consistency into consideration,compared with soft disciplines, the extent of consistency on the innovative standard of dissertations from reviewers is significantly higher in hard disciplines. Taking strictness into consideration,the innovative standard from peer experts is relatively stricter in hard disciplines and looser in soft disciplines. Lastly, the guarantee of doctoral dissertation quality has a"Double Bottom Line",which consists, respectively,of a" Normative Bottom Line"and an "Innovative Bottom Line",but the extent of guarantee is related to disciplinary culture.
出处
《北京大学教育评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第1期15-38,共24页
Peking University Education Review
基金
国家社会科学基金青年项目(17CGL070)
