科学学研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (2): 193-198.

• 科学学理论与方法 •    下一篇

我国科技奖励制度的改革及其问题———基于行动者网络理论的思考

孟宪飞1,李正风2,张寒3   

  1. 1. 清华大学科学技术与社会研究所
    2. 清华大学科学技术与社会研究中心
    3. 中国传媒大学马克思主义学院
  • 收稿日期:2020-04-18 修回日期:2020-07-07 出版日期:2021-02-15 发布日期:2021-02-20
  • 通讯作者: 张寒
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(高校科技成果转化的行动者网络构建与知识产权激励机制研究);清华大学自主科研计划资助“提升国家创新体系整体效能若干关键问题研究”

The Reform of National Science and Technology Awards and its Problems in the New Era: Based on the Perspective of the Actor Network Theory

  • Received:2020-04-18 Revised:2020-07-07 Online:2021-02-15 Published:2021-02-20

摘要: 为完善国家科技奖励制度,回归奖励制度鼓励创新、促进科研的宗旨,2017年,国务院出台了《关于深化科技奖励制度改革的方案》,提出了评审方式从“限额制”向“提名制”转变、建立定标定额的评审制度、明晰专家评审委员会和政府部门的职责、健全科技奖励诚信制度等改革措施。如何理解这些改革措施及其可能的作用与问题,本文基于行动者网络理论的视角,对比分析了改革前后国家科技奖评审过程中行动者网络构建和发展的特点。研究发现,实行提名制后,虽然弱化了评审过程中的“强制通行点”,但包括报奖人、报奖单位等行动者“招募”和“动员”利益相关者的现象并没有发生根本变化,国家科技奖功利化导向问题仍然存在。在科层制的科技奖励结构中,要让评奖体系中的关键行动者保持独立,减少行动者在评奖网络中的利益互动和磋商,回归激励创新并创造公平公正的竞争环境的制度初衷,政策制定者还需要进一步研究,推进深化改革。

Abstract: The State Council issued the Plan of Deeply Reform the Science and Technology System in 2017 aims to improve the national science and technology awards system, and to realize the original intention of the system that to promote the innovation and the scientific research. In this reform, the awards system ranges from the quota-recommend system to the nomination system, adopts the specific quantity awards system, clarifies the responsibility of the Expert Evaluation Committee and the authorities, ameliorates the credite system of science and technology, etc. How to interpret these reforms and the potential prolems, the study compares the construct and the development of the actor networks that forms before and after the passage of the plan from the Actor Network Theory (ANT). It leads to the conclusion, although the ‘obligatory passage point’ has been weakened after the reform, no significant changes occurs, for instance, the ‘enrollment’ and the‘mobilization’ from the applicants in the network remain the same. The utilitarian orientation of the national science and technology awards system has not been solved. In the bureaucratical science and technology awards structure, a further reform is needed in order to keep the crucial actors to play an independent role, reduce their active participation in terms of interest interaction and negotiation in the awarding system, thereafter, to form a fair and just environment for the competition.