歷史學需要的是自由，不是評比！―揭穿國科會〈歷史學門國內期刊評比之研究〉的陰謀

Historians Need Freedom, Not Assessment!-Unmasking the National Science Council's Plot "Study on the Comparative Assessment of Domestic Historiographic Journals"

陳君愷(Chun-Kai Chen)

《中華人文社會學報》 14期 (2011/03) Pp. 162-187

摘要

國家科學委員會所推動的國內學術期刊評比，已行之有年；針對歷史學門國內期刊進行評比的國科會研究計畫，至今共執行過3次。本論文針對2008年最新的〈歷史學門國內期刊評比之研究〉專題研究計畫成果報告內容，以及其所得出之第一級、第二級、第三級的期刊分級結論，分析該研究計畫主持人及共同主持人的身分、和做為決議機構的諮詢委員會成員名單，發現該成果報告所得期刊分級結論，與計畫主持人們及諮詢委員所屬機構的高度重疊性，清楚顯示出國科會、中央研究院以及臺灣大學在其中的寡佔性質。此外，本論文亦就該成果報告的問卷調查方法，進行細密的討論分析。具體指陳其「主觀評量」問卷，以近兩年國科會歷史學門「計畫申請通過者」與「計畫審查者」為發放的對象，嚴重違反從事問卷調查應遵守的隨機抽樣原則；並且進一步分析與批判其他不恰當的評比判準；更點明評比的結果公布之後，將會導致強者越強、弱者越弱的嚴重後果。最後，作者在結論中嚴肅呼籲：應該給予歷史學更自由的研究環境，而非假借「提升學術水準」的藉口，以期刊評比的做法，遂行學術威權意圖寡佔與壟斷學界的目的。

關鍵字

歷史學門 ； 期刊評比 ； 學術威權 ； 寡佔

並列摘要

The comparative assessment of domestic academic journals as promoted by the National Science Council has been practiced for many years. Research projects on the Comparative Assessment of Domestic Historiographic Journals by the National Science Council have so far been carried out three times. In the light of the report on the research results of the latest study ”Study on the Comparative Assessment of Domestic Historiographic Journals” from 2008 and its conclusions in classifying academic journals in grades I, II and III, this article analyses the status of the head of that research project and of his associates as well as of the list of members of the consultative committee in its capacity as the decision making body. It was found that the conclusion of classifying academic journals as a result of the aforesaid report involves a great degree of overlapping with the institutions that the heads of the research project and the consultative members belong to. This clearly reveals the character of monopolisation by the National Science Council, the Academia Sinica and by Taiwan University.Moreover, this article carries out a detailed discussion and analysis of the methods used for the questionnaire of the study on research results. This particularly involves the questionnaire of ”subjective assessment,” as during the last two years the National Science Council's questionnaire was directed at those, whose ”applications for research projects had been accepted” and those, who ”examined the research projects.” Such a practice severely runs counter to the principle of questionnaire surveys to choose samples at random. This article further analyses and criticises other inappropriate assessment criteria. It also points out to the fact that the publication of the results leads to such severe consequences as those already strong are made even stronger and those weak even weaker. Finally, in his concluding remarks the author of this article launches a solemn appeal: historians should be given a freer research environment. It should be avoided that under the guise of ”raising research standards” and by employing the method of comparative assessment of academic journals, the goal of authoritarian academic tendencies to monopolise academia is pursued.

並列關鍵字

Historiography ； Assessment of Journals ； Academic Authority ； Monopolisation