本文關(guān)鍵詞： 國(guó)家社科基金 通訊評(píng)審 評(píng)審策略 評(píng)審態(tài)度　出處：《外語(yǔ)界》2017年01期 　論文類(lèi)型：期刊論文

【摘要】：本研究通過(guò)深度訪(fǎng)談,調(diào)查探析了14名國(guó)家社會(huì)科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目通訊評(píng)審專(zhuān)家的評(píng)審策略與態(tài)度。研究發(fā)現(xiàn),受訪(fǎng)專(zhuān)家在社科基金項(xiàng)目評(píng)審的總體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)指導(dǎo)下,主要采用兩類(lèi)評(píng)審策略:一類(lèi)是"一點(diǎn)淘汰法",即只要不符合關(guān)鍵標(biāo)準(zhǔn),課題就被否定;另一類(lèi)是"比較法",即在同等條件下根據(jù)自己制定的優(yōu)先順序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)優(yōu)中選優(yōu)。在評(píng)審態(tài)度方面,所有受訪(fǎng)專(zhuān)家均視評(píng)審為"神圣"任務(wù)。他們態(tài)度認(rèn)真,盡力做到客觀、公平;碰到不熟悉課題時(shí),他們會(huì)查閱資料,防止誤判。最后,受訪(fǎng)專(zhuān)家還為項(xiàng)目申請(qǐng)者提出了中肯的建議。
[Abstract]:Through in-depth interviews, this study investigated the evaluation strategies and attitudes of 14 national social science fund project communication review experts. The study found that the experts interviewed were guided by the general criteria of the social science fund project review. Two kinds of evaluation strategies are mainly adopted: one is the "one point elimination method", that is, as long as it does not meet the key criteria, the subject will be denied; The other is "comparative law", that is, under the same conditions according to the criteria of priority. In terms of evaluation attitude, all the experts interviewed regard the evaluation as "sacred" task. They are serious, try their best to be objective and fair; When they are unfamiliar with the subject, they will consult the data to prevent misjudgment. Finally, the experts interviewed have made pertinent suggestions for the project applicant.
【作者單位】： 北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)中國(guó)外語(yǔ)與教育研究中心;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：H0-0
，

本文編號(hào)：1514192