Действенность мер российской научной политики: что говорит мировой опыт

Виталий Леонидович Тамбовцев

Ссылка при цитировании


Тамбовцев В. Л. Действенность мер российской научной политики: что говорит мировой опыт / // Управление наукой: теория и практика, 2020. Том. 2. № 1. C. 15-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2020.2.1.1.

Аннотация


Исходя из анализа большого числа эмпирических исследований, выявляющих последствия мер научных политик, проводимых во многих странах мира, в статье показано, что проводимая в России государственная научная политика включает инструменты, которые на самом деле препятствуют достижению продекларированных в ней целей. Установлено, что лишены научных оснований такие компоненты отечественной научной политики, как включённые в неё механизмы повышения публичной подотчётности науки, намерения финансировать исследования в основном на конкурсной основе, стремления развивать науку преимущественно в университетах (причём силами преподавателей), а также реализуемый на практике тренд на укрупнение исследовательских организаций. Приводимые результаты эмпирических исследований, проведённых во многих странах, показывают, что подотчётность обществу в действительности превращена в подотчётность чиновникам органов государственного управления. Финансирование исследований на конкурсной основе снижает вероятность проведения принципиально новых исследований. Принуждение всех преподавателей публиковать научные статьи, притом в высокоцитируемых журналах, заставляет сокращать время на повышение качества учебных занятий, а укрупнение учебных и научных организаций увеличивает издержки координации и не приводит к получению более значительных научных результатов.


Ключевые слова


научная политика; научная обоснованность политики; подотчётность обществу; библиометрические индикаторы; продуктивность научных исследований

Полный текст:

PDF

Литература


Doern B. G., Stoney C. Federal Research and Innovation Policies and Canadian Universities: A Framework for Analysis // Research and Innovation Policy: Changing Federal Government-University Relations / Ed. by G. B. Doern and C. Stoney. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2009. P. 3–34.

Martin B. R. R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know // Industry and Innovation. 2016. Vol. 23. Iss. 2. P. 157–176.

Майминас Е. З., Тамбовцев В. Л., Фонотов А. Г. О разработке концепции экономического и социального развития СССР // Экономика и математические методы. 1983. Т. 19. № 4. С. 583–597.

Майминас Е. З., Тамбовцев В. Л., Фонотов А. Г. К методологии обоснования долгосрочных перспектив экономического и социального развития СССР // Экономика и математические методы. 1986. Т. 22. №. 3. С. 397–411.

Polanyi М. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory // Minerva. 1962. Vol. 1. № 1. P. 54–74.

Tuunainen J. Science Transformed? Reflections on Professed Changes in Knowledge Production // Organizations, People and Strategies in Astronomy / Ed. by A. Heck. 2013. Vol. 2. P. 43–71.

Leitch S., Motion J., Merlot E., Davenport S. The fall of research and rise of innovation: Changes in New Zealand science policy discourse // Science and Public Policy. 2014. Vol. 41. Iss. 1. P. 119–130.

Prettner K., Werner K. Government-Funded Basic Research: What’s in It for Firms? // Rutgers Business Review. 2017. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 64–69.

Larivière V., Macaluso B., Mongeon P., Siler K., Sugimoto C. R. Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research // PLoS ONE. 2018. 13(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202120

Тамбовцев В. Л. О научной обоснованности научной политики в РФ // Вопросы экономики. 2018. № 2. С. 5–32.

Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K. Motivated Rejection of Science // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2016. Vol. 25. Iss. 4. P. 217–222.

Kovacic Z. Conceptualizing Numbers at the Science–Policy Interface // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2018. Vol. 43. Iss. 6. P. 1039–1065.

Vahabi M. A positive theory of the predatory state // Public Choice. 2016. Vol. 168. P. 153–175.

Sarewitz D. Social Change and Science Policy // Issues in Science and Technology. 1997. Vol. 13. № 4. P. 29–32.

Bovens М. Public Accountability // Oxford Handbook of Public Management / Ed. by E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn Jr., C. Pollitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. P. 182–208.

Lindberg S. Mapping accountability: core concept and subtypes // International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2013. Vol. 79. Iss. 2. P. 202–226.

Dubnick M. Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms // Public Performance and Management Review. 2005. Vol. 28. № 3. P. 376–417.

Erkkilä T. Governance and Accountability – a shift in conceptualization // Public Administration Quarterly. 2007. Vol. 31. № 1/2. P. 1–38.

Ossege C. Accountability – are We Better off Without It? // Public Management Review. 2012. Vol. 14. Iss. 5. P. 585–607.

Christensen T., Lægreid P. Performance and accountability – A theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment // Public Organization Review. 2015. Vol. 15. Iss. 2. P. 207–225.

Francis J. R. The credibility and legitimation of science: A loss of faith in the scientific narrative // Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. 1989. Vol. 1. Iss. 1. P. 5–22.

Demsetz H. Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint // Journal of Law & Economics. 1969. Vol. 12. № 1. P. 1–22.

Besley J. C. The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understanding of science and technology // Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2013. Vol. 33. Iss. 1–2. P. 12–20.

Нефедова А. И., Фурсов К. С. Общественное мнение о развитии науки и технологий. М.: Институт статистических исследований и экономики знаний НИУ ВШЭ. 2016.

Sanz-Menéndez L., Van Ryzin G. G. Economic crisis and public attitudes toward science: A study of regional differences in Spain // Public Understanding of Science. 2015. Vol. 24. Iss. 2. P. 167–182.

Benner M. and Sörlin S. Shaping Strategic Research: Power, Resources, and Interests in Swedish Research Policy // Minerva. 2007. Vol. 45. Iss. 1. P. 31–48.

Крупина С. М., Клочков В. В. Перспективы российской фундаментальной науки в условиях институциональных реформ: моделирование и качественные выводы // Материалы 17-х Друкеровских чтений «Инновационные перспективы России и мира: теория и моделирование». Москва-Новочеркасск: ЮРГТУ (НПИ). 2014. С. 11–24.

Bornmann L., Daniel H. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior // Journal of Documentation. 2008. Vol. 64. № 1. P. 45–80.

Glänzel W. Seven Myths in Bibliometrics: About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies // COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management. 2008. Vol. 2. Iss. 1. P. 9–17.

Курбатова М. В., Апарина Н. Ф., Донова И. В., Каган Е. С. Формализация деятельности преподавателя и эффективность деятельности вузов // Теrrа Economicus. 2014. Т. 12. № 4. С. 33–51.

Курбатова М. В., Каган Е. С. Оппортунизм преподавателей вузов как способ приспособления к усилению внешнего контроля деятельности // Journal of Institutional Studies (Журнал институциональных исследований). 2016. Т. 8. № 3. С. 116–136.

Ferro M. J., Martins H. F. Academic plagiarism: yielding to temptation // British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science. 2016. Vol. 13. № 1. P. 1–11.

Van Wesel M. Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications // Science and Engineering Ethics. 2016. Vol. 22. Iss. 1. P. 199–225.

Oravec J. A. The manipulation of scholarly rating and measurement systems: constructing excellence in an era of academic stardom // Teaching in Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 22. Iss. 4. P. 423–436.

Shoaib S. and Mujtaba B. G. Perverse Incentives and Peccable Behavior in Professionals: A Qualitative Study of the Faculty. Public Organization Review. 2018. Vol. 18. № 4. DOI: 10.1007/s11115-017-0386-2

Holland C., Lorenzi F., Hall T. Performance anxiety in academia: Tensions within research assessment exercises in an age of austerity // Policy Futures in Education. 2016. Vol. 14. Iss. 8. P. 1101–1116.

Onder C. and Erdil S. E. Opportunities and opportunism: Publication outlet selection under pressure to increase research productivity // Research Evaluation. 2017. Vol. 26. № 2. P. 66–77.

Abramo G., D’Angelo C. A., Di Costa F. Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2010. Vol. 61. Iss.1. P. 132–140.

Bowman J. D. Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences // American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2014. Vol. 78. № 10. Article 176. DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7810176.

Al-Khatib A. Protecting Authors from Predatory Journals and Publishers // Publishing Research Quarterly. 2016. Vol. 32. Iss. 4. P. 281–285.

López-Cózar E. D., Robinson-García N., Torres-Salinas D. The Google Scholar Experiment: How to Index False Papers and Manipulate Bibliometric Indicators // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014. Vol. 65. № 3. P. 446–454.

Orduna-Malea E., Martín-Martín A. and López-Cózar E. D. Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers? // Revista Española de Salud Pública. 2016. Vol. 90: e1–5.

Van Bevern R., Komusiewicz C., Niedermeier R., Sorge M., Walsh T. H-index manipulation by merging articles: Models, theory, and experiments // Artificial Intelligence. 2016. Vol. 240. P. 19–35.

Bornmann L. Mimicry in science? // Scientometrics. 2011. Vol. 86. Iss. 1. P. 173–177. 45. Müller R., de Rijcke S. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences // Research Evaluation. 2017. Vol. 26. Iss. 3. P. 157–168.

Chapman D. W., Lindner S. Degrees of integrity: the threat of corruption in higher education // Studies in Higher Education. 2016. Vol. 41. Iss. 2. P. 247–268.

Woelert P. The ‘Economy of Memory’: Publications, Citations, and the Paradox of Effective Research Governance // Minerva. 2013. Vol. 51. Iss. 3. P. 341–362.

Woelert P. Governing knowledge: the formalization dilemma in the governance of the public sciences // Minerva. 2015. Vol. 53. Iss. 1. P. 1–19.

Holmström B. Moral hazard and observability // Bell Journal of Economics. 1979. Vol. 10. № 1. P. 74–91.

Franck G. The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science // Scientometrics. 2002. Vol. 55. № 1. P. 3–26.

Ziman J. Academic Science as a System of Markets // Higher Education Quarterly. 1991. Vol. 45. Iss. 1. P. 41–61.

Simon H. A. Designing organizations for an information-rich world // Computers, Communications and the Public Interest / Ed. by M. Greenberger. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1971. P. 38–72.

Andersen L. B., Pallesen T. “Not Just for the Money?” How Financial Incentives Affect the Number of Publications at Danish Research Institutions // International Public Management Journal. 2008. Vol. 11. Iss. 1. P. 28–47.

Lam A. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? // Research Policy. 2011. Vol. 40. Iss. 10. P. 1354–1368.

Rousseau S., Rousseau R. Being metric-wise: Heterogeneity in bibliometric knowledge // El profesional de la información. 2017. Vol. 26. Iss. 3. P. 480–487.

Laredo P. Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? // Higher Education Policy. 2007. Vol. 20. Iss. 4. P. 441–456.

Geuna A. The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are there Negative Unintended Consequences? // Journal of Economic Issues. 2001. Vol. 35. № 3. P. 607–632.

Gulbrandsen M., Smeby J.C. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance // Research Policy. 2005. Vol. 34. Iss. 6. P. 932–950.

Schmidt E. University funding reforms in Nordic countries // Cycles in university reform: Japan and Finland compared / Ed. by F. Maruyama and I. Dobson. Tokyo: Center for National University Finance and Management. 2012. P. 31–56.

Banal-Estañol A., Macho-Stadler I., Castrillo D. Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia? // CESifo Working Paper Series. 2016. № 5852.

Blumenthal D., Campbell E. G., Gokhale M., Yucel R., Clarridge B., Hilgartner S., Holtzman N. A. Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalence and predictors // Academic Medicine. 2006. Vol. 81. Iss. 2. P. 137–45.

Zhang B., Wang X. Empirical study on influence of university-industry collaboration on research performance and moderating effect of social capital: evidence from engineering academics in China // Scientometrics. 2017. Vol. 113. Iss. 1. P. 257–277.

Auranen O., Nieminen M. University Research Funding and Publication Performance – An International Comparison // Research Policy. 2010. Vol. 39. Iss. 6. P. 822– 834.

Вольчик В. В., Посухова О. Ю. Прекариат и профессиональная идентичность в контексте институциональных изменений // Terra Economicus. 2016. Т. 14. № 2. С. 159–173.

Вольчик В. В., Посухова О. Ю. Реформы в сфере образования и прекариатизация учителей // Terra Economicus. 2017. Т. 15. № 2. С. 122–138.

Aarrevaara T., Dobson I. R. Academics under Pressure: Fear and Loathing in Finnish Universities? // Forming, Recruiting and Managing the Academic Profession. / Ed. by U. Teichler, W. Cummings. Cham: Springer, 2015. P. 211–223.

Blackburn R. T., Bentley R. J. Faculty research productivity: Some moderators of associated stressors // Research in Higher Education. 1993. Vol. 34. Iss. 6. P. 725–745.

Kinman G. Pressure points: A review of research on stressors and strains in UK academics // Educational Psychology. 2001. Vol. 21. № 4. P. 473–492.

Van Looy B., Callaert J., Debackere K. Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? // Research Policy. 2006. Vol. 35. Iss. 4. P. 596–608.

Drivas K., Balafoutis A. T., Rozakis S. Research funding and academic output: evidence from the Agricultural University of Athens // Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation. 2015. Vol. 33. Iss. 3. P. 235–256.

Garcia R., Araújo V., Mascarini S., Gomes dos Santos E., Ribeiro Costa A. The academic benefits of long-term university-industry collaborations: a comprehensive analysis. [Электронный ресурс] // Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia: [веб-сайт]. 2017. URL: https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro/2017/submissao/

files_I/i9-37eb54ec2895954e09d70ddc72561777.pdf (дата обращения: 13.01.2020).

Hottenrott H., Lawson C. Fishing for Complementarities: Research Grants and Research Productivity // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2017. Vol. 51. Iss.1. P. 1–38.

Cattaneo M., Meoli M., Signori A. Performance-based funding and university research productivity: the moderating effect of university legitimacy // Journal of Technology Transfer. 2016. Vol. 41. Iss.1. P. 85–104.

Bolli T., Somogyi F. Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity? // Research Policy. 2011. Vol. 40. Iss. 1. P. 136–147.

Schneider J. W., Aagaard K., Bloch C. W. What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models // Research Evaluation. 2016. Vol. 25. Iss. 3. P. 244–256.

Butos W. N., McQuade T. J. Nonneutralities in Science Funding: Direction, Destabilization, and Distortion // Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines. 2012. Vol. 18. Iss. 1. Article 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/1145-6396.1262.

Osuna C., Cruz-Castro L., Sanz-Menéndez L. Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance // Scientometrics. 2011. Vol. 86. Iss. 3. P. 575–592.

Amara N., Landry R., Halilem N. What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members? // Scientometrics. 2015. Vol. 103. Iss. 2. P. 489–530.

Ebadi A., Schiffauerova A. How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 106. Iss. 3. P. 1093–1116.

Anderson R. Before and after Humboldt: European universities between the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries // History of Higher Education Annual. 2000. Vol. 20. P. 5–14.

Тамбовцев В. Л., Рождественская И. А. Реформа высшего образования в России: международный опыт и экономическая теория // Вопросы экономики. 2014. № 5. С. 97–108.

Hattie J. and Marsh H. W. The Relationship between Research and Teaching: A Meta-analysis // Review of Educational Research. 1996. Vol. 66. Iss. 4. P. 507–542.

Marsh H.W., Hattie J. The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? // Journal of Higher Education. 2002. Vol. 73. Iss. 5 P. 603–641.

Cadez S., Dimovski V., Zaman Groff M. Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: the salience of quality // Studies in Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 42. Iss. 8. P. 1455–1473.

Hardré P. L., Beesley A. D., Miller R. L., Pace T. M. Faculty Motivation to do Research: Across Disciplines in Research-Extensive Universities // Journal of the Professoriate. 2011. Vol. 5. Iss. 1. P. 35–69.

Barrier J. Merger Mania in Science: Organizational Restructuring and Patterns of Cooperation in an Academic Research Centre // Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation / Ed. by R. Whitley, J. Gläser. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2014. P. 141–172.

Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity // Scientometrics. 2005. Vol. 63. Iss. 1. P. 87–120.

Seglen P. O., Aksnes D. W. Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research // Scientometrics. 2000. Vol. 49. Iss. 1. P. 125–143.

Horta H., Lacy T.A. (2011). How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics’ scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors // Science and Public Policy. 2011. Vol. 38. Iss. 6. P. 449–460.

Leitner K.-H. , Prikoszovits J., Schaffhauser-Linzatti M., Stowasser R., Wagner K. The impact of size and specialisation on universities’ department performance: A DEA analysis applied to Austrian universities // Higher Education. 2007. Vol. 53. Iss. 4. P. 517–538.

Brandt T., Schubert T. Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science // Scientometrics. 2013. Vol. 94. Iss. 2. P. 541–565.

Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. The organization of science. Size, agglomeration and age effects in scientific productivity. Paper submitted to the SPRU Conference «Rethinking science policy». 2002. March 21–23.

Coccia M. Research performance and bureaucracy within public research labs. Scientometrics. 2009. Vol. 79. Iss. 1. P. 93–107.

Walsh J. P., Lee Y. N. The bureaucratization of science // Research Policy. 2015. Vol. 44. Iss. 8. P. 1584–1600.

Aagaard K., Kladakis A., Nielsen M. W. Concentration or dispersal of research funding? // Quantitative Science Studies. 2019. P. 1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002




DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2020.2.1.1

Ссылки

  • Ссылки не определены.