本文選題：數(shù)據(jù)包絡(luò)分析　切入點：中國高等教育有效性　出處：《天津大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：自2003年開始，數(shù)據(jù)包絡(luò)分析（DEA）被國內(nèi)學(xué)者普遍應(yīng)用于評價中國高等教育的有效性。但其評價結(jié)果差異巨大，亂象紛呈�；贒EA評價原則與應(yīng)用條件，對國內(nèi)16篇關(guān)于高校有效性評價的論文進行初步分析，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，其表層原因在于：（1）不少論文違背了DEA評價所要求的決策評價單元可比性原則；籠統(tǒng)將不同類別高校、不同地域的高校一并放在一起進行比較。這樣比較的結(jié)果不能給高等教育的良好發(fā)展提供科學(xué)的指導(dǎo)性意見，而且將不同類別高校（如師范類和理工類）放在一起，評價的結(jié)果未免差強人意，容易惹來反對意見。（2）投入產(chǎn)出評價指標(biāo)體系設(shè)計歧義、混亂甚至投入與產(chǎn)出誤設(shè)置；一些文獻未對指標(biāo)相互包含性進行分析。（3）指標(biāo)數(shù)量過多，不符合指標(biāo)數(shù)與被評價決策單元數(shù)量間的規(guī)范要求。（4）文獻研究內(nèi)容與主題不一致，內(nèi)容前后不一致，言語不通，邏輯有誤，甚至出現(xiàn)低級的文獻引用錯誤。有的文獻的改進措施并沒有針對文獻中的分析，讓學(xué)者難以信服。另一個相對深層的原因是這些論文研究幾乎是獨立的，后繼研究很少學(xué)習(xí)、甚至不參考前期相關(guān)研究，談不上繼承與改進，很難有實質(zhì)的學(xué)術(shù)進步與發(fā)展。這一點可以從學(xué)者們的選取的指標(biāo)各不相同體現(xiàn)出來。因此，缺乏學(xué)術(shù)研究繼承性和改進，很難在DEA有效性評價方面有所改進。 嚴(yán)格按照DEA方法應(yīng)用條件和原則，選取中國20所985綜合類高校作為決策單元，確定以充分代表中國高等教育投入的“人、財、物”的教學(xué)人員、科技經(jīng)費和圖書館藏書作為投入指標(biāo)，確定以最能證明中國高等教育產(chǎn)出的國外及全國性刊物發(fā)表論文作為產(chǎn)出指標(biāo)，進行實證分析。針對國內(nèi)20所985綜合類高校有效性的實證分析的結(jié)果為：上海交通大學(xué)、南京大學(xué)、中國人民大學(xué)、廈門大學(xué)等4所高校為DEA有效，處于規(guī)模收益不變的階段；北京大學(xué)、復(fù)旦大學(xué)等其余16所高校為DEA無效，或者處于規(guī)模收益遞增階段，或者處于規(guī)模收益遞減階段。 論文的創(chuàng)新和特色主要是： 第一，為中國高等教育未來良好的發(fā)展提供科學(xué)、有效、具有價值性的評價思路。 第二，，有利于擺脫評價中國高等教育有效性DEA評價存在巨大差異以及評價結(jié)果混亂不堪的局面。 第三，有利于為今后學(xué)者研究中國高等教育有效性構(gòu)建出更加科學(xué)、合理、有效的指標(biāo)體系。 第四，本文能夠深化今后基于DEA去評價中國高等教育有效性中決策單元與指標(biāo)體系數(shù)量之間的關(guān)系，指引學(xué)者在今后的研究中更能準(zhǔn)確的把握好基于DEA來評價中國高等教育有效性的正確性。 第五，從實證角度舉例分析，提供直觀的評價思路與過程。
[Abstract]:Since 2003, data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been widely used by domestic scholars to evaluate the effectiveness of higher education in China. Through a preliminary analysis of 16 papers on the effectiveness evaluation of colleges and universities in China, it can be found that the superficial reason lies in the fact that many papers violate the principle of comparability of decision evaluation units required by DEA evaluation. The results of this comparison do not provide scientific guidance for the good development of higher education, but also put together different types of universities (such as teachers' colleges and engineering). The result of evaluation is not satisfactory, and it is easy to cause disapproval. 2) the design of input-output evaluation index system is ambiguous, confusion and even input-output mis-setting; some literatures do not analyze the inclusiveness of the index each other, and the number of indicators is too many. The content of the literature research is inconsistent with the subject, the content is inconsistent, the language is impassable, and the logic is wrong. There are even low-level citation errors. Some of the improvement measures are not based on the analysis in the literature, which makes the scholars hard to believe. Another relatively deep reason is that the research in these papers is almost independent, and the subsequent studies are seldom studied. Even without reference to previous relevant studies, there is no inheritance and improvement, and it is difficult to make substantial academic progress and development. This can be reflected in the different indicators selected by scholars. Therefore, there is a lack of inheritance and improvement in academic research. It is difficult to improve the effectiveness of DEA. In strict accordance with the application conditions and principles of the DEA method, 20 Chinese 985 comprehensive colleges and universities are selected as decision-making units to determine the teaching staff who fully represent the investment in higher education in China. Science and technology funds and library collections are used as input indicators, and foreign and national publications that can best prove the output of China's higher education are chosen as output indicators. The results of empirical analysis are as follows: Shanghai Jiaotong University, Nanjing University, Renmin University of China, Xiamen University and other four universities are DEA effective and at the same stage of scale income; The other 16 universities, such as Peking University and Fudan University, have no effect on DEA, or are in the stage of increasing or decreasing the return of scale. The innovation and characteristics of the thesis are as follows:. First, to provide scientific, effective and valuable evaluation ideas for the future good development of higher education in China. Second, it is helpful to get rid of the huge difference in DEA evaluation of the effectiveness of higher education in China and the confusion of the evaluation results. Thirdly, it is helpful to construct a more scientific, reasonable and effective index system for the future research on the effectiveness of higher education in China. In 4th, this paper can deepen the relationship between the number of decision making units and index system in evaluating the effectiveness of higher education in China based on DEA in the future. In the future research, the guide scholars can accurately grasp the validity of higher education in China based on DEA. 5th, from the perspective of empirical example analysis, provide intuitive evaluation ideas and processes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：G649.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱文藻;高�？蒲心芰υu價指標(biāo)體系的建立及評價[J];安徽工程科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(自然科學(xué)版);2003年03期

2 朱喬，盛昭瀚，吳廣謀;DEA模型中的有效性問題[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報;1994年02期

3 張小剛;;論高等教育與區(qū)域經(jīng)濟的協(xié)調(diào)發(fā)展[J];湖南師范大學(xué)教育科學(xué)學(xué)報;2006年03期

4 周澤昆,陳s

本文編號：1631803