超越行政标准:人文学科的素质认定模式

Kęstas Kirtiklis, Aldis Gedutis
{"title":"超越行政标准:人文学科的素质认定模式","authors":"Kęstas Kirtiklis, Aldis Gedutis","doi":"10.15388/socmintvei.2022.1.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article seeks to discern the criteria or the quality of research, formulated and accepted within the scholarly community of the humanities. We argue that the scholars implicitly use these criteria opposing administrative evaluation. The analysis of these criteria revealed that they might be summarized in three broad categories – the novelty (originality, innovativeness) of the research; the excellence of the researcher (ability to conduct and describe the research); and the impact (academic as well as social-political). We argue that relevant criteria for the administrative evaluation of research in the humanities should draw on these perspectives.","PeriodicalId":33062,"journal":{"name":"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond Administrative Criteria: The Patterns of the Recognition of Quality in the Humanities\",\"authors\":\"Kęstas Kirtiklis, Aldis Gedutis\",\"doi\":\"10.15388/socmintvei.2022.1.38\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present article seeks to discern the criteria or the quality of research, formulated and accepted within the scholarly community of the humanities. We argue that the scholars implicitly use these criteria opposing administrative evaluation. The analysis of these criteria revealed that they might be summarized in three broad categories – the novelty (originality, innovativeness) of the research; the excellence of the researcher (ability to conduct and describe the research); and the impact (academic as well as social-political). We argue that relevant criteria for the administrative evaluation of research in the humanities should draw on these perspectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15388/socmintvei.2022.1.38\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/socmintvei.2022.1.38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图辨别研究的标准或质量,在人文学科的学术社区内制定和接受。我们认为,学者们含蓄地使用这些标准来反对行政评价。对这些标准的分析表明,它们可以概括为三大类:研究的新颖性(原创性、创新性);研究人员的卓越(进行和描述研究的能力);以及影响(学术和社会政治)。我们认为人文学科研究行政评价的相关标准应该借鉴这些观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond Administrative Criteria: The Patterns of the Recognition of Quality in the Humanities
The present article seeks to discern the criteria or the quality of research, formulated and accepted within the scholarly community of the humanities. We argue that the scholars implicitly use these criteria opposing administrative evaluation. The analysis of these criteria revealed that they might be summarized in three broad categories – the novelty (originality, innovativeness) of the research; the excellence of the researcher (ability to conduct and describe the research); and the impact (academic as well as social-political). We argue that relevant criteria for the administrative evaluation of research in the humanities should draw on these perspectives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信