A Personal View of the Evaluation of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Higher Education

Abstract

This essay explores the problems of evaluation conducted in the field of the humanities and social sciences. After the Introduction, section 2 explains what criteria should be followed in identifying the so-called ”top university.” Section 3 discusses the indices currently used in evaluating the research outcomes of the humanities and social sciences, and the article concludes with some comments and expectations. It is identified in section 2 that the current indices for evaluating the ”top university” are characterized by: (1) exclusive focus on ”quantitative” standards; (2) overemphasis on natural science and technology; (3) stress on research over teaching. Although the evaluation could be more operable and comparable given the above features, it will lead the professors and researchers in the university to become writing machines for meeting the standards of SCI, SSCI, or AH (2) involvement in the growth of students' lives; (3) critical consciousness toward the society. In the Chinese-speaking world, the quantity-oriented academic standards set up by English journals are widely pursued. There is no doubts that such standards more easily warrant international credit, and for some fields like econometrics and analytic philosophy, journals serve as a better platform to demonstrate research outcomes. However, such evaluation will also lead us into the ”fallacy of formalism” and over-exaggerate the hegemony of English language. Moreover, it will focus the scholars on narrow topics, in the sacrifice of well-thought and full-length books. Finally, for the humanities and social sciences, this essay urges a shift in the way of evaluation from ”formalism” to ”substantialism,” as well as a shift of focus from ”paper” to ”monograph.” Three new indices should be contained in the evaluation: (1) innovation in knowledge; (2) enlightening power to the students; (3) contribution to society and culture.