大学教师的职称晋升与学术生产行为

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (1)

Download: PDF (910 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Since the beginning of this century, there have been fierce debates in the field of Chinese higher education research over the quantity-based professional evaluation system in Chinese universities. Unfortunately there is no empirical evidence to assess either positively or negatively the performance of this reform. This paper tries to provide some empirical evidences on how academic promotion affects academic production at the individual faculty level in Chinese universities in an era of quantity-based evaluation system. We examine how an individual faculty member changes his/her academic output after the adoption of the quantity-based promotion system in his/her three sequential academic positions of lecturer, associate professor, and full professor respectively, with respect to both the quantity and the quality of research publications.We manually collect the individual career and academic output data of 114 professors of economics at 12 top universities who went through three sequential academic positions from lecturer to full professor between the years of 2003 and 2019. For each faculty we construct the quantity and quality indicators using information of the authors’ position in the research paper and the impact factor of the journal in which the paper is published. We also manually collect the eligibility information of the quantity-based promotion system in each stage of promotion from each university’s website. We construct the pressure index at the position and university level using the eligibility information of promotion. The lecturers’ (associate professors’) pressure index measures the difficulty for them to be promoted to associate professors (full professors respectively) at their university. And we let full professors pressure index be 0. We find that associate professors face the highest promotion pressure.First, for each economist the quality of academic output increases with academic positions. In the stage of associate professor, he/she faces fierce promotion pressure, while the quality of his/her academic output is not at the highest level. After he/she becomes full professor, he/she has the least promotion pressure and produces high-quality papers.Second, the economics professors exhibit no significant difference in the number of academic publications at each stage of their academic position. They always pursue the quantity of publications at each stage. Even in the stage of full professor with minimum pressure, low-quality papers still account for nearly 70% of their publications. With the promotion to the more advanced position, there exists no fundamental change in distortions. These professors of economics pursue the quantity of publication with low quality. The promotion pressure is a crucial reason to distort economists’ academic production in Chinese universities. We test this mechanism by introducing the promotion pressure index into the mediating effect model. Empirical evidences show that high-quality academic output mainly comes from the relaxation of the promotion pressure. Professors produce high-quality paper in the low-pressure environment. The environment with high promotion pressure shaped by the quantity-based evaluation system is an important reason of the short-term behavior of academic production in Chinese universities.These empirical findings exhibit very significant policy implications. It is important to relax the promotion pressure and provide a liberal academic environment for academic staff for the improvement of academic research quality in Chinese universities. For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce reforms of the quantity-based evaluation system in Chinese universities.

Key words： university teachers quantity-based evaluation system academic production promotion recruitment system promotion pressure

Received: 13 November 2020

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Jin Xiangrong
	Chao Songlei
	Luo Deming
	Sheng Peifeng

Cite this article:

Jin Xiangrong,Chao Songlei,Luo Deming等. Promotion and Academic Production in Chinese Universities[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(2): 128-145.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/ OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2022/V52/I2/128

1 阎光才：《高校教师聘任制度改革的轨迹、问题与未来去向》，《中国高教研究》2019年第10期，第1-9页。
2 沈红、刘盛：《大学教师评价制度的物化逻辑及其二重性》，《教育研究》2016年第3期，第46-55页。
3 黄亚婷：《聘任制改革背景下我国大学教师的学术身份构建——基于两所研究型大学的个案研究》，《高等教育研究》2017年第7期，第31-38页。
4 卢威：《我国高校需要什么样的聘任制改革》，《发展教育研究》2020年第3期，第43-50页。
5 贾永堂：《大学教师考评制度对教师角色行为的影响》，《高等教育研究》2012年第12期，第57-62页。
6 王全林、程东峰：《大学教师学术生态问题与重构》，《教师教育研究》2013年第2期，第12-17页。
7 周光礼、马海泉：《教学学术能力：大学教师发展与评价的新框架》，《教育研究》2013年第8期，第37-47页。
8 陈时见、胡娜：《新时代高等学校教师学术评价的改进》，《教育研究》2020年第2期，第133-142页。
9 Iaria A.， Schwarz C. & Waldinger F.， “Frontier knowledge and scientific production： evidence from the collapse of international science，” The Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 133， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 927-991.
10 Leon F. L. L. D. & McQuillin B.， “The role of conferences on the pathway to academic impact： evidence from a natural experiment，” Journal of Human Resources， Vol. 55， No. 1 （2020）， pp. 164-193.
11 Borjas G. J. & Doran K. B.， “Cognitive mobility： native responses to supply shocks in the space of idea，” Journal of Labor Economics， Vol. 33， No. S1 （2015）， pp. S109-S145.
12 Borjas G. J.， Doran K. B. & Shen Y.， “Ethnic complementarities after the opening of China： how Chinese graduate students affected the productivity of their advisors，” Journal of Human Resources， Vol. 53， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 1-31.
13 Blackburn R. T. & Lawrence J. H.， “Aging and the quality of faculty job performance，” Review of Educational Research， Vol. 56， No. 3 （1986）， pp. 265-290.
14 Levin S. G. & Stephan P. E.， “Research productivity over the life cycle： evidence for academic scientists，” American Economic Review， Vol. 81， No. 1 （1991）， pp. 114-132.
15 Xie Y. & Shauman K. A.， “Sex difference in research productivity： new evidence and an old puzzle，” American Sociological Review， Vol. 63， No. 6 （1998）， pp. 847-870.
16 Laband D. N. & Piette M. J.， “Favoritism versus search for good papers： empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 81， No. 1 （1994）， pp. 114-132.
17 Borjas G. J. & Doran K. B.， “Prizes and productivity： how wining the fields medal affects scientific output，” Journal of Human Resources， Vol. 50， No. 3 （2015）， pp. 728-758.
18 Jia R.， Nie H. & Xiao W.， “Power and publication in Chinese academia，” Journal of Comparative Economics， Vol. 47， No. 4 （2019）， pp. 792-805.
19 梁文艳、周晔馨、于洪霞：《社会资本与大学教师学术创新能力研究》，《经济研究》2019年第11期，第133-148页。
20 Morichika M. & Shibayama S.， “Impact of inbreeding on scientific productivity： a case study of a Japanese university department，” Research Evaluation， Vol. 24， No. 2 （2015）， pp. 146-157.
21 Tavares O.， Cardoso S. & Carvalho T. et al.， “Academic inbreeding in the Portuguese academia，” Higher Education， Vol. 69， No. 6 （2015）， pp. 991-1006.
22 Cole S.， “Age and scientific performance，” American Journal of Sociology， Vol. 84， No. 4 （1979）， pp. 958-977.
23 Oster S. M. & Hamermesh D. S.， “Aging and productivity among economists，” Review of Economics and Statistics， Vol. 80， No. 1 （1998）， pp. 154-156.
24 Zhang X.， Liao H. & Li N. et al.， “Playing it safe for my family： exploring the dual effects of family motivation on employee productivity and creativity，” Academy of Management Journal， Vol. 64， No. 6 （2020）， pp. 1923-1950.
25 Dutcher E. G.， “The effects of telecommuting on productivity： an experimental examination，” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization， Vol. 84， No. 1 （2012）， pp. 355-363.