“有才者有位、有为者有位” ——首批科普工作者职称评审满意度分析与启示

The Analysis and Enlightenment for Satisfaction of the First Batch ofScience Popularizers’Professional Title Evaluation

中文关键词: 科学普及 科普工作者 职称评审 评审标准 评审服务

英文关键词: science popularization  science popularizer  professional title evaluation  evaluation standard  evaluation service

中文摘要:

      科普职称评价是科普工作者学术技术水平和专业能力的主要标志，对于稳定人才队伍、激发科普工 作者的积极性具有重要作用。本文以首批参加“图书资料系列（科学传播）”职称评审的科普工作者为研究 对象，采用问卷调查法和半结构化访谈法，从评审指标、评审流程和评审服务三个方面，分析科普工作者对 此次职称评审工作的满意度及其存在的问题。结果表明，科普职称评审存在以下问题：“体制外”参评者占比 很低；宣传渠道较为传统，不完全符合当今信息获取的习惯；对“评审标准”及“公平公正感”的满意度不 十分理想；代表作评审方式未做详细规定；专家提问内容和方式尚有改进空间；等等。针对上述问题，提出 加大宣传力度让更多的科普工作者参与职称评价、评审标准更加贴近科普工作实际且体现差异、依据评审指 标细化评审方式、代表作答辩环节全方位优化的对策，以期保证参评主体多元化、指标客观化和适度透明化、 评价方法多元化，实现科学评分的目的。

英文摘要:

      Evaluation of science popularization professional title is the main symbol of the academic technical level and professional ability of science popularizers，which plays an important role in stabilizing the talent team and stimulating their enthusiasm. Taking the first batch of science popularizers who participated in the professional title evaluation of“Library Materials Series（Science Communication）”as the research objects，using questionnaires and semi-structured interviewing，this study analyzes the satisfaction of the participants and the hidden problems in this professional title evaluation from three aspects：evaluation index， evaluation process and evaluation service. The results show that there are still some problems. Although the professional title evaluation of science popularizers in the non-stated sector has been solved，the proportion of participants from these sectors is very small. And then，the propaganda channel is more traditional and does not fully conform to the current habit of obtaining information. Next，the participants’satisfaction with“evaluation standard”and“fair and justice sense”is not ideal. Once again，the evaluation method of representative works is not specified in detail，which is not conducive to the participants’grasp. Finally， there is room for improvement in the content and methods of expert questioning. In view of above problems， this study puts forward some countermeasures，such as increasing publicity to allow more science popularizers to participate in professional title evaluation，making evaluation standards closer to the reality of science popularization and reflecting differences，refining evaluation methods according to evaluation indexes，and optimizing defense process of“representative achievement”，to ensure the diversification of participants， objectification and moderate transparency of indexes，diversification of evaluation methods，and realization of scientific scoring.