大學人文社會科學評鑑指標芻議

A Personal View of the Evaluation of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Higher Education

本文探討高等教育界人文社會科學的研究成果的評鑑問題。全文共分4節，第2節首先討論「一流大學」應有的指標與內涵，第3節討論人文社會科學研究成果的評鑑指標，第4節提出結論。
本文首先指出現階段我國教育部所提出的所謂「一流大學」的考評指標，潛藏著3項特徵：(1)完全以定量指標為準，忽視定性指標；(2)強調科技發展重於人文社會之研究與教學；(3)重視大學的研究功能遠過於教學功能。因為教育部考評指標潛藏著以上三大傾向，所以雖然具有可比較性與可操作性，但是如果徹底執行落實，則就「邁向一流大學」之目標而言，不僅如孟子所說「緣木求魚」，而且「後必有災」，因為在教育部所訂的指標之強力規範之下，大學教師終不能免於淪為SCI或SSCI或A&HCI論文的生產機器，而大學的社會功能也將窄化為資本主義社會既得利益階級後備部隊的培養工廠，而大學在經濟功能上也將被轉化為高科技產業的研發工廠，使大學成為「有體無魂」的行屍走肉！在教育部考評指標引導之下，獲得特別預算的大學在學校治理上，許多早已存在多年的現象更加快發展：(1)大學治理重機制而輕氛圍；(2)大學治理重視「可操作性」而忽視「不可操作性」。
本文接著強調：所謂「一流大學」應有的內涵包括：第一，一流大學應致力於知識的創新；第二，一流大學應參與學生生命的成長；第三，一流大學師生對於社會政治經濟生活中的不公不義應有批判的能力與節操。
本文第3節分析現在漢語學術界以英文發表並收錄於SSCI或A&HCI的期刊的論文之數量作為評鑑指標。這種評鑑指標的優點在於因為易於與英語學術界接軌，而較易取得可比較性，也較易提昇研究成果的國際能見度。所以，以期刊論文作為人文社會科學研究成果之評鑑指標，當是可行的一種方法。畢竟，在人文社會科學的許多領域中如計量經濟學、分析哲學等，期刊論文是較好的研究成果展現方式。
但是，如果完全以英文SSCI或A&HCI期刊論文為唯一評鑑指標之做法，也很容易產生嚴重的弊病。第一，這種評鑑方式墮入「形式主義的謬誤」(the fallacy of formalism)；第二，以英文SSCI或A&HCI期刊論文為唯一標準，不免過度服從英語學術界的人文社會科論述霸權；第三，在人文社會科學界過度強調發表論文之篇數，將導致學者致力於淺而窄的專精研究，以至於無力從事需要長期時間累積的專書之撰寫，其流弊所及將使21世紀難以產生偉大的學者如康德、黑格爾、馬克斯等。
最後，本文針對當前以SSCI或A&HCI論文篇數作為評鑑人文社會科學研究成果之指標所造成的流弊，建議：(1)評鑑原則從「形式主義」(formalism)轉向「本質主義」(substantialism)，並以專書作為評鑑之對象；(2)評鑑指標建議以下三項為主：(a)研究論著在知識上的創新性，(b)研究論著對學生價值觀與世界觀的啟發，(c)研究論著對社會與文化之貢獻。

This essay explores the problems of evaluation conducted in the field of the humanities and social sciences. After the Introduction, section 2 explains what criteria should be followed in identifying the so-called ”top university.” Section 3 discusses the indices currently used in evaluating the research outcomes of the humanities and social sciences, and the article concludes with some comments and expectations.
It is identified in section 2 that the current indices for evaluating the ”top university” are characterized by: (1) exclusive focus on ”quantitative” standards; (2) overemphasis on natural science and technology; (3) stress on research over teaching. Although the evaluation could be more operable and comparable given the above features, it will lead the professors and researchers in the university to become writing machines for meeting the standards of SCI, SSCI, or A&HCI. In the long term, the higher education will be reduced to the training base of high-tech industry and the uncritical defender of capitalist society. Counter to the current institution, it is proposed the ”top university” shall meet three criteria: (1) innovation in knowledge; (2) involvement in the growth of students' lives; (3) critical consciousness toward the society.
In the Chinese-speaking world, the quantity-oriented academic standards set up by English journals are widely pursued. There is no doubts that such standards more easily warrant international credit, and for some fields like econometrics and analytic philosophy, journals serve as a better platform to demonstrate research outcomes. However, such evaluation will also lead us into the ”fallacy of formalism” and over-exaggerate the hegemony of English language. Moreover, it will focus the scholars on narrow topics, in the sacrifice of well-thought and full-length books.
Finally, for the humanities and social sciences, this essay urges a shift in the way of evaluation from ”formalism” to ”substantialism,” as well as a shift of focus from ”paper” to ”monograph.” Three new indices should be contained in the evaluation: (1) innovation in knowledge; (2) enlightening power to the students; (3) contribution to society and culture.