“2011协同创新中心”绩效及其影响因素分析
|
摘要
基于DEA-Topit模型对H省立项资助的35个"2011协同创新中心"绩效(投入产出效率)及其影响因素进行了实证研究,结果表明:15个协同创新中心投入产出高有效、3个弱有效、17个低(无)效率,显示H省立项的35个项目整体绩效水平不高,且各学科间绩效差异较大。学科排名、高校所在地域、高校层级分类以及项目所属学科类型与"2011协同创新中心"绩效存在正相关性;学位点数量与"2011协同创新中心"绩效呈显著负相关性。政府在推进协同创新过程中,应尽量打破项目遴选校际间平衡的思维,充分发挥平台优势,提升各协同高校的共享共建水平;着力提升学位点竞争实力,提高人才培养质量;实施分类评价与指导,健全项目持续支持与淘汰机制。
Based on DEA-Topit model, this paper empirically studies the performance(input-output efficiency) and its influencing factors of 35 "2011 Collaborative Innovation Centers" funded by H province. The results show that the input-output efficiency of 15 Collaborative Innovation Centers is high, 3 weak and 17 low(no) efficiency. It shows that the overall performance level of 35 projects funded by H province is not high, and the performance differences among disciplines are large. Discipline ranking, university location, university level classification and project subject type are positively correlated with the performance of "2011 Collaborative Innovation Center". The number of degree points is negatively correlated with the performance of "2011 Collaborative Innovation Center". In the process of promoting collaborative innovation, the government should try its best to break the balanced thought among the universities in project selection, give full play to the advantages of the platform, and enhance the level of sharing and co-construction among the collaborative universities; focus on enhancing the competitiveness of degree points and improving the quality of personnel training; implement classified evaluation and guidance, and improve the mechanism of sustained project support and elimination.
Based on DEA-Topit model, this paper empirically studies the performance(input-output efficiency) and its influencing factors of 35 "2011 Collaborative Innovation Centers" funded by H province. The results show that the input-output efficiency of 15 Collaborative Innovation Centers is high, 3 weak and 17 low(no) efficiency. It shows that the overall performance level of 35 projects funded by H province is not high, and the performance differences among disciplines are large. Discipline ranking, university location, university level classification and project subject type are positively correlated with the performance of "2011 Collaborative Innovation Center". The number of degree points is negatively correlated with the performance of "2011 Collaborative Innovation Center". In the process of promoting collaborative innovation, the government should try its best to break the balanced thought among the universities in project selection, give full play to the advantages of the platform, and enhance the level of sharing and co-construction among the collaborative universities; focus on enhancing the competitiveness of degree points and improving the quality of personnel training; implement classified evaluation and guidance, and improve the mechanism of sustained project support and elimination.
引文
[1]郑方辉,廖逸儿,卢扬帆.财政绩效评价:理念、体系与实践[J].中国社会科学,2017(4):84-108.
[2]孙玉栋,臧芝红.新医改视角下我国政府卫生支出绩效评价[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2016(2):78-85.
[3]郑方辉,廖逸儿,卢扬帆.财政绩效评价:理念、体系与实践[J].中国社会科学,2017(04):85-109+208-209.周光礼.相似的挑战、不同的逻辑--院校研究的中国化[J].高等工程教育研究,2017(2):118-121.
[4]朱娅妮,余玉龙,汪海燕.面向协同创新的高校科研绩效评价体系研究[J],科研管理,2016(4):180-187.
[5]闫青.协同创新中心模糊综合绩效评价研究[J],中国高新科技,2017(9):48-53.
[6]赵德武,协同创新中心绩效评价体系的构建[J],中国高校科技,2014(01):14-16.
[7]丁欣茹,胡永红.协同创新绩效评价体系分析研究及启示[J].教育教学论坛,2018,No.361(19):81-83.
[8]王碧云,陈晓会.首届“双一流”建设与评价论坛综述[J].高教发展与评估,2017,33(4):27-35.
[9]刘笑霞.政府公共受托责任与国家审计[J].审计与经济研究,2010,25(2):23-31.
[10]李燕凌.基于DEA-Tobit模型的财政支农效率分析--以湖南为例[J],中国农村经济,2008(9):52-62.
[11]陆根书,刘蕾,孙静春,等.教育部直属高校科研效率评价研究[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2005,25(2):75-79.
[12]官海滨,武德昆,王兴起.基于“2011计划”的高校科研绩效评价改进研究[J],大学(学术版),2013(4):26-33.
[13]李永周,黄珍珍,谭蓉,等.高校协同创新中心的创新人才网络嵌入与绩效评价指标体系设计[J],中国科技论坛,2015(10):142-148.
[14]姜彤彤.“985”高校科研效率测算及区域差异对比[J].高等工程教育研究,2014(4):35-40.
[15]刘天佐,许航.我国不同区域高校科研投入产出绩效及其影响因素分析--基于DEA-Tobit模型的实证研究[J].科技管理研究,2018(13):113-118.
[16]胡咏梅,范文凤.“211工程”高校科研生产效率评估:基于DEA方法的经验研究[J].重庆高教研究,2014(3):1-14.
[17]罗杭.2011年中国“985”大学效率评价--效率水平排序、影响因素研究与松弛变量分析[J].清华大学教育研究,2013,34(2):87-95.
[18]李群霞,马风才,张群.理工农医类高校科研配置效率评价[J].科研管理,2016(S1):6-10.
[19]沈立宏.综合性地方高校科研绩效研究[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2016,38(2):58-63.
[20]郑世珠.面向区域创新发展的省级协同创新中心认定评价指标体系构建[J],科技进步与对策,2014(22):102-105.
[2]孙玉栋,臧芝红.新医改视角下我国政府卫生支出绩效评价[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2016(2):78-85.
[3]郑方辉,廖逸儿,卢扬帆.财政绩效评价:理念、体系与实践[J].中国社会科学,2017(04):85-109+208-209.周光礼.相似的挑战、不同的逻辑--院校研究的中国化[J].高等工程教育研究,2017(2):118-121.
[4]朱娅妮,余玉龙,汪海燕.面向协同创新的高校科研绩效评价体系研究[J],科研管理,2016(4):180-187.
[5]闫青.协同创新中心模糊综合绩效评价研究[J],中国高新科技,2017(9):48-53.
[6]赵德武,协同创新中心绩效评价体系的构建[J],中国高校科技,2014(01):14-16.
[7]丁欣茹,胡永红.协同创新绩效评价体系分析研究及启示[J].教育教学论坛,2018,No.361(19):81-83.
[8]王碧云,陈晓会.首届“双一流”建设与评价论坛综述[J].高教发展与评估,2017,33(4):27-35.
[9]刘笑霞.政府公共受托责任与国家审计[J].审计与经济研究,2010,25(2):23-31.
[10]李燕凌.基于DEA-Tobit模型的财政支农效率分析--以湖南为例[J],中国农村经济,2008(9):52-62.
[11]陆根书,刘蕾,孙静春,等.教育部直属高校科研效率评价研究[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2005,25(2):75-79.
[12]官海滨,武德昆,王兴起.基于“2011计划”的高校科研绩效评价改进研究[J],大学(学术版),2013(4):26-33.
[13]李永周,黄珍珍,谭蓉,等.高校协同创新中心的创新人才网络嵌入与绩效评价指标体系设计[J],中国科技论坛,2015(10):142-148.
[14]姜彤彤.“985”高校科研效率测算及区域差异对比[J].高等工程教育研究,2014(4):35-40.
[15]刘天佐,许航.我国不同区域高校科研投入产出绩效及其影响因素分析--基于DEA-Tobit模型的实证研究[J].科技管理研究,2018(13):113-118.
[16]胡咏梅,范文凤.“211工程”高校科研生产效率评估:基于DEA方法的经验研究[J].重庆高教研究,2014(3):1-14.
[17]罗杭.2011年中国“985”大学效率评价--效率水平排序、影响因素研究与松弛变量分析[J].清华大学教育研究,2013,34(2):87-95.
[18]李群霞,马风才,张群.理工农医类高校科研配置效率评价[J].科研管理,2016(S1):6-10.
[19]沈立宏.综合性地方高校科研绩效研究[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2016,38(2):58-63.
[20]郑世珠.面向区域创新发展的省级协同创新中心认定评价指标体系构建[J],科技进步与对策,2014(22):102-105.