臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在國際化與市場化的浪潮驅策下，亞洲地區的大學紛紛致力與國際接軌，全球學術資本主義因此逐漸形成，其中影響各國對學術評鑑產生動機之英國研究品質評鑑更成為一種學術評鑑中具支配性的意識型態。且人文社會科學在此學術資本主義浪潮中，面臨了如何建立具客觀又公正之評鑑指標的空前挑戰，因此本研究旨在探討影響教育學門活躍研究人力之學術生產相關因素，希冀透過研究結果發現影響國內教育學門之研究人力之研究生產力提升之個人因素與外在環境因素，以進一步提供學術領導者建立適當之教育學門學術評鑑指標，促進教育學門研究人力之研究活力與品質。
本研究首先經由文獻探討彙整影響研究生產力之相關因素，進一步分類為個人相關因素及外在環境相關因素，並依據此兩大向度之影響因素以調查問卷式，針對國內各大學校院教育學門相關系所之專任教師進行調查研究，同時亦根據研究對象91至95年度在「外審期刊論文數」、「非外審期刊論文數」、「國科會研究計畫數」、及「論文被博碩士論文引用總次數」等四項指標之資料，進行主成份分析後，建構出之綜合性指標位居前百分之二十五者，即為本研究所指之教育學門活躍研究人力，並進行其與一般研究人力之比較，茲分述根據研究結果所作成之研究結論如下：
一、教育學門活躍研究人力有持續發展個人學術成就之趨勢
二、外在環境因素對研究高峰期之教育學門活躍研究人力之影響較大
三、婚姻及家庭因素對教育學門活躍研究人力之研究生產力的影響會隨著性別而有所差異
四、研究生產力之表現會隨著不同的個人成就相關因素而有所差異
五、外在環境因素對教育學門活躍研究人力之研究生產力的影響有一致程度之影響力
最後根據研究結論，本研究提出我國在教育學門學術評鑑指標發展上的相關建議如下，俾供政策制訂與未來研究之參考。
一、學術領導者若要提升研究生產力，須明確訂定學術發展之目標及策略，以及營造正向之學術研究環境。
二、教育相關單位應建立適合國內教育學門學術研究型態之學術評鑑指標，並於大學教師評鑑針對不同類型之教師以加權式的指標評估學術表現。

Under the trend of internationalization and marketization, universities in
Asia are determined to make connections with the world. Thus, the academic
capitalism is gradually established. The Research Assessment Exercise in
England, inspires other countries’ motivation in developing academic evaluation.
And it has become a kind of dominating ideology. Besides, the area of
humanities and social science faces a challenge of making objective and
equitable evaluating indicators. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to discuss
the relative factors of research active staff in educational disciplines, and
through the research result, discover the personal/external factors that enhance
the research productivity. Furthermore, another purpose is to make appropriate
academic evaluating indicators in educational disciplines, and improve the
research quality and power.
This study coordinates the relative factors that influence research
productivity, through working up with relative studies and papers. Then, this
study puts those factors into “personal factors” and “external factors.” By using
questionnaire survey, this study finds out the research active staff in Taiwan. The
indicators are as following, “academic journal articles (peer review)”,
“non-academic journal articles”, “NSC research programs”, “cited academic
articles.” In addition, the research population is the full-time staff in educational
disciplines in Taiwan, and they fill in their data from the year of 2002 to 2006.
Then, after the principal component analysis, this study takes the former 25%
population as the research active staff, and compares them with “typical staff”.
Conclusions are as followings.
1. There is a trend which research active staff in educational disciplines is
continue developing their academic achievements.
2. The external factors influence the research active staff while in the apex of their research most.
3. “Marriage” and “family” influence research active staff’s productivity vary
through the sex factor.
4. The performance of the research productivity varies in different relative
personal achievement factors.
5. The external factors make certain influence towards active staff’s
productivity.
Finally, some suggestions based on the conclusion to policy making and
further studying are as followings.
1. Leaders should set up goals and strategies in academic developing, and they
should also make a positive academic environment.
2. Educational authorities should establish appropriate academic evaluating
indicators for educational disciplines in Taiwan. Besides, they should set a
weighted indicator system for teachers in different categories, for the use of
teacher evaluation in universities.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與研究目的..............................1
第二節 研究問題.......................................2
第三節 重要名詞釋義...................................3
第四節研究範圍與限制..................................5
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 學術生產與學術評鑑..............................7
第二節 活躍研究人力之內涵與參考指標....................22
第三節 影響學術生產之相關因素.........................26
第三章 研究設計與實施
第一節 研究架構與假設................................53
第二節 研究設計.....................................54
第三節 研究工具.....................................56
第四節 實施程序與步驟................................64
第五節 資料分析方法..................................65
第四章 研究結果
第一節 教育學門活躍研究人力之現況及其學術生產相關因素
之結果分析...................................67
第二節 不同背景變項之教育學門活躍研究人力在個人成就相
關因素差異之結果分析..........................77
第三節 不同背景變項之教育學門活躍研究人力在外部環境因
素差異之結果分析.............................139
第四節 不同背景變項之教育學門活躍研究人力在研究生產力
差異之結果分析...............................146
第五節 不同影響因素對教育學門活躍研究人力之研究生產力
差異之結果分析...............................158
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論........................................209
第二節 建議........................................213
參考文獻
壹、中文部分.......................................215
貳、英文部分.......................................218
附錄一............................................225
附錄二............................................229
附錄三............................................233

壹、中文部份
王如哲（1995）。英國大學研究評鑑作業活動的緣起、現況與展望－兼論我國高等教育研究發展的啟示。載於中國教育學會（主編），教育評鑑（頁359-390）。臺北市：師大書苑。
王保進（1993）。高等教育表現指標之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
王保進（2003）。從論文引用指引數評估教育類期刊之品質。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（計畫編號：NSC91- 24 13-H-133-012-）。
王保進（2005a）。波隆那（Bologna）宣言後歐洲國家高等教育品質保證機制之發展。載於楊國賜（主持人），大學品質保證制度。「大學評鑑進退場機制提昇國際競爭力」學術研討會，淡江大學。
王保進（2005b）。英國1996年及2001年高等教育研究品質評鑑(RAE)之比較分析及對我國研究型大學定位之啟示。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（計畫編號：NSC93-2413-H-133- 004-）。
王保進（2007）。共生或互觸：高等教育教學與研究關係之探討。楊國賜（主持人），提升大學教學品質。大學評鑑與提升大學教學品質學術研討會，淡江大學。
王梅玲（2005）。大學研究評鑑與引文分析應用。圖書館學與資訊科學，31(1)，5-13。
田芳華（1999）。我國大學教師升等制度對獎勵研究生產力功效之分析－事件史分析法應用實例。人文及社會科學集刊，11(3)，359-394。
田芳華（2003）。台灣學術研究資源的分配－教師知覺與歸因理論。教育與心理研究，26，133-165。
各級學校原住民籍教師人數－93學年度（2005年7月31日）。原住民族學生概況統計－94學年度（附錄二）。教育部電子書刊。臺北市：教育部。取自：http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/ STATISTICS/EDU7220001/ebooks/native/94/appendix/appendix2.htm?open
吳文月（2004）。英國大學研究評鑑(RAE)制度之研究及其對台灣高等教育評鑑制度之啟示。臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
吳清山（2007）。ESI不是提升學術研究水準的萬靈丹。評鑑雙月刊，5，1。
呂美霓（2002）。大學競爭力指標之分析。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，南投縣。
侯永琪（2006a）。剖析「美國新聞與世界報導」大學排行。評鑑雙月刊，1，26-28。
侯永琪（2006b）。「世界大學排行榜」龍頭寶座爭奪戰－英國「時報高等教育增刊」。評鑑雙月刊，4，26-30。
侯永琪（2007）。誰才是研究型大學？－美國佛羅里達中心「全美頂尖研究大學」排名。評鑑雙月刊，5，46-51。
孫志麟（2003）。評鑑什麼？－大學教學表現指標之建構。溫振源（主持人），二十一世紀大學新展望。提昇高等教育競爭力：二十一世紀大學教育的發展國際學術研討會，國立臺灣大學。
馬信行（1985）。影響我國大專校院教師研究出產力因素之研究。臺北市：桂冠。
張維容（2005）。激勵大學教師研究之機制探討－以國科會專題研究計畫為例。世新大學行政管理學系碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。
符碧真（2005）。英國學術研究評估簡介。臺灣大學教育實習輔導通訊，34，2。
莊惠文（2000）。大學教學評鑑指標建構之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳伯璋（2005）。學術資本主義下台灣教育學門學術評鑑制度的省思。載於反思會議工作小組（主編），全球化與知識生產-反思台灣學術評鑑。臺北市：唐山。
陳碧祥（2001）。我國大學教授升等制度與教師專業成長及學校發展定位關係之探究。國立台北師範學院學報，14，163-208。
彭森明（2006）。大學教師評鑑機制之研究。教育部委託專案研究計畫成果報告（報告編號：94A1004EI），臺北市，教育部。
黃雅容（2001）。大學提升教授研究表現的途徑。理論與政策，15(4)，71-84。
黃雅容（2002）。系主任難為？學系環境的領導有利性分析。教育研究資訊，10(1)，1-28。
黃增榮（1991）。我國大學校院教師研究出產力之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃慧瑜（2003）。我國大專校院教師研究出版行為之研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
黃慕萱（2006）。社會科學者學術評鑑之研究：以經濟學者與社會學者為例（1）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中進度報告(報告編號：NSC94-2413-H-002-024-)，未出版。
黃璧惠（1986）。我國大學教師研究生產力及其相關因素之分析。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
楊瑩（2004）。英國高等教育評鑑制度。教育資料集刊，29，437-491。
劉念才、程瑩、劉莉（2005）。世界大學學術排名的現狀與未來。清華大學教育研究，26(3)，1-16。
劉曉芬（2000）。我國大學教師資格審查制度之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。
錢永祥（編譯）（1991）。學術與政治：韋伯選集(I)（原作者：M. Weber）。臺北市：遠流。
貳、英文部份
Babu, A.R., & Singh, Y. P. (1998). Determinants of research productivity. Scientometrics, 43 (3), 309-329.
Bailey, T. G. (1992). Faculty research productivity. Paper presented at the ASHE annual meeting, Minneapolis, MN, October 28-November 1, 1992.(ERIC Document: ED352895)
Bannister, B. (1991). Valuing academic research: towards a policy for Hong Kong future universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 16 (3), 215-224.
Barbezat, D. A., & Hughes, J. W. (2001). The effect of job mobility on academic salaries. Contemporary Economic Policy, 19 (4), 409-423.
Bayer, A. E., & Dutton, J. C. (1977). Career age and research professional activities of academic scientist. Journal of Higher Education, 48 (3), 259-282.
Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education, 51, 132-141.
Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D.A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80 (3), 225-237.
Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D.A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2006). The impact of appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (1), 89-123.
Braskmp, L. A., Brandenburg, D. C., & Ory, J. C. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness: A practical guide. Beverly Hills : Sage. University.
Carmen, A. D., & Bing, R.L. (2000). Academic productivity of African Americans in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11 (2), 237-249.
Carotenuto, G., Lapegna, M., Zollo ,G., Donato,A. D., & Nicholais, L. (2001). Evaluating research performance: the strategy of the university of Naples Federico II (Italy). Higher Education Policy, 14, 82-85.
Cole J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of sociology, 84, 958-977.
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699-714.
Dewett, T., & Denisi, A. S. (2004). Exploring scholarly reputation: It’s more than just productivity. Scientometrics, 60 (2), 249-272.
Edwards, W. J., White, N., Bennett, I., & Pezzella, F. (1998). Who has come out of the pipeline? African Americans in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9.
Fairweather, J. S. (1999). The highly productive faculty member: confronting the mythologies of faculty work. In W. G.Tierney (Ed.): Faculty Productivity: Facts, fictions, and issues(pp. 107-136). NY: Garland.
Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2003). Academics: How do they spend their time? Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.aare.edu.au/ 03pap/for03109.pdf
Fox, M. F. (1983).Publication productivity among scientists: a critical. Social Studies of Science, 13, 289-301.
Fox, M.F. (1985). ‘Publication, performance, and reward in science and scholarship’, in J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol I(pp. 57-82). New York: Agathon Press.
Fulton, O., & Trow, M. (1974). Research activity in American higher education. Sociology of Education, 47, 29-73.
HEFCE (2005). RAE 2008 guidance on submissions. Retrieved December 8, 2006, from http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/
Hemmings, B., Rushbrook, P., & Smith, E. (2004). Factors related to academic publishing productivity. AARE Conference Papers by Paper Code. http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/hem04322.pdf
Joseph, R. (2005). A quantitative study of the strength of correlation between the characteristics of institutional and faculty vitality with research productivity of selected allied health faculty at public health science universities within the United States. Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Jungnickel, P. W. (1997). Scholarly performance and related variables: a comparison of pharmacy practice faculty and developmental chairpersons. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 61, 34-44.
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university (5th ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kim, E. (2005). Impacts of discipline mobility on scientific productivity. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from http://etd.gatech. edu/theses/available/etd-05172005-003032/unrestricted/kim_euiseok_200507_mast.pdf
Kyvik, S. (1990). Age and scientific productivity difference between field of learning. Higher Education, 19, 37-55.
Lawren, J. H., & Blackburn, R. T. (1988). Age as a predictor of faculty productivity: three conceptual approaches. Journal of Higher Education, 59 (1),22-38.
Lee, J. (2005).Faculty productivity and salary by type of institution and gender. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Lehman, H. C. (1958). The chemist’s most creative year’s. Science, 127 (23), 1213-1222.
Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1989). Age and research productivity of academic scientists. Research in Higher Education, 30 (5), 531-549.
Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.
Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1979). Entrance into the academic career. American Sociological Review, 44, 816-831.
Luwel, M., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, A. J., De Samblanx, V., Verbrugghen, K., & van der Wurff, L.J. (1999). Towards indicators of research performance in the social sciences and humanities：an exploratory study in the fields of law and linguistics at Flemish Universities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Flemish Inter-University Council(V.L.I.R.), Brussels, Belgium.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (5), 603-641.
Moore, C. B. (2006). The evaluation of departments, programs, research centers and faculty at U.S. universities and research laboratories. Powerpoint data presented at the meeting of faculty evaluation, Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1993). Research performance indicators survey. Commissioned report No.21. Canberra: AGPS.
National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1994). Research performance indicators survey. Commissioned report No.27. Canberra: AGPS.
Over, R. (1982). Does research productivity decline with age. Higher Education, 11, 511-520.
Perkins, J. A. (1973). The university as an organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pratt, M., Margaritis, D., & Coy, D. (1999). Developing a research culture in a university faculty. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21 (1), 43-55.
Print, M., & Hattie, J. (1997). Measuring quality in universities: an approach to weighting research productivity. Higher Education, 33, 453-469.
Provost, M. W. (2005). A study of four public higher education institutions in Florida: the relationships between faculty and administrator goal congruence, faculty productivity and job satisfaction. Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.
Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & DicrisiⅢ, F. A. (2002). Faculty research productivity: exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43 (4), 423-446.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Sliver, E. A. (2006). Some ideas on enhancing research productivity. Retrieved December 8, 2006, from http://www.haskayne.ucalgary. ca/research/media/opma_working_papers/wp200603.pdf
Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in higher education, 45 (8), 891-920.
Stern, N. (1978). Age and achievement in mathematic: a case-study in the sociology of science. Social Studies of Science, 18, 127-140.
Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: a cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39 (2), 201-222.
Tierney, W. G. (1991). Organizational culture in higher education: defining the essentials. In W. G. Tierney(4th ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp.126-130). Boston: Simon and Schuster.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Faculty productivity and academic culture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty productivity: facts, fictions, and issues (pp.39-53). NY: Garland.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.) (1999). Faculty productivity: Facts, fictions, and issues. NY: Garland.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Firestone, W. A., Hoy, W. K., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The write stuff: A study of productive scholars in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36 (3), 358-390.
Virginia Tech Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Dossiers. (n. d.). Retrieved December 30, 2006, from http://www.provost.vt.edu/pt_ handouts.pdf
Zainab, A. N. (2000). Publication productivity, focus on institutional, collaborative and communicational correlates: A review of literature. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 5 (1), 53-94.
Zajkowski, M. E., & Dakin, S. R. (1997). Leadership in the university research center: two Australian cases. Journal of Institutional Research in Australasia, 6 (2), 1-17.
Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review, 32, 391-403.