지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Evaluating the research performance of university professors involves special expertise and should be different from simply measuring lengths or heights. However, the way professors are evaluated at universities in present-day Korea is no different from the way lengths or weights are measured: scores are given based on the quantity of academic publications. Papers published in English language journals, especially SSCI or A & HCI journals by commercial publishers, are given heavier weight - two to six times (depending on the university) more than papers published in Korean journals. Worse still, evaluations are performed by simply totaling up such quantity-based scores. Although qualitative peer review criteria is a factor taken into consideration, it has no real impact on the assessment result.
It is common for research institutions in so-called STM fields (Science, Technology and Mathematics) in the US or Europe to apply quantitative indexes based on bibliometrics to assess research performance. Nevertheless, qualitative evaluation is also performed on individual researchers. What is more, when it comes to research performance in humanities and social sciences, quantitative indicators, for example the number of publications, are only used as a form of reference while qualitative evaluation is the major focus.
In contrast, Korean universities, especially in regard to the humanities and social sciences, almost completely depend on quantitative measurements. Many problems related to this have occurred and there is a shared understanding of such problems, but shifting the current quantitative framework to a qualitative one seems to be a remote possibility for the time being. Unfortunately, the current framework is crippling the academic ecosystem in humanities and social sciences.
In this regard, this paper first reviews, from a historical and social perspective, why qualitative assessment has not been successfully implemented in universities in Korea. Secondly, foreign faculty evaluation cases in humanities and social sciences are examined. In conclusion, it is argued that qualitative assessment is essential in order to recover the health of the ecosystem in the various academic fields.
It is common for research institutions in so-called STM fields (Science, Technology and Mathematics) in the US or Europe to apply quantitative indexes based on bibliometrics to assess research performance. Nevertheless, qualitative evaluation is also performed on individual researchers. What is more, when it comes to research performance in humanities and social sciences, quantitative indicators, for example the number of publications, are only used as a form of reference while qualitative evaluation is the major focus.
In contrast, Korean universities, especially in regard to the humanities and social sciences, almost completely depend on quantitative measurements. Many problems related to this have occurred and there is a shared understanding of such problems, but shifting the current quantitative framework to a qualitative one seems to be a remote possibility for the time being. Unfortunately, the current framework is crippling the academic ecosystem in humanities and social sciences.
In this regard, this paper first reviews, from a historical and social perspective, why qualitative assessment has not been successfully implemented in universities in Korea. Secondly, foreign faculty evaluation cases in humanities and social sciences are examined. In conclusion, it is argued that qualitative assessment is essential in order to recover the health of the ecosystem in the various academic fields.
목차
들어가며
1. 현행 ‘평가’제도의 문제점
2. 인문ㆍ사회 분야 연구업적평가에 관한 외국의 연구사례 : 유럽과 일본
나가면서
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-900-002480200