科学网

 找回密码
  注册

tag 标签: 系统评价学

相关帖子

版块 作者 回复/查看 最后发表

没有相关内容

相关日志

一些有用的评价研究组织及其网站
热度 1 lxj6309 2011-9-23 17:31
国外: 1. Western Michigan University Evaluation Center The Evaluation Center’s mission is to advance the theory, practice, and utilization of evaluation. The Center’s principal activities are research, education, service, dissemination, and national and international leadership in evaluation. Providing evaluation, research, and capacity-building services to a broad array of University, public, community-based, national, and international organizations to assist them in assessing and improving their programs Conducting research on evaluation supported by federal grants to contribute to the evaluation knowledge base and to advancing theory and methodology of evaluation Engaging in academic leadership by publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, by presenting on cutting-edge evaluation issues, and through service to professional organizations and scholarly journals Administering the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Evaluation, which provides doctoral education and state-of-the-art research and evaluation opportunities for the next generation of evaluation scholars and practitioners. Values The core values of The Evaluation Center are excellence, integrity, service orientation, professionalism, innovation, diversity, and scholarship. http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/home/ 2. American Evaluation Association The American Evaluation Association is an international professional association of evaluators devoted to the application and exploration of program evaluation, personnel evaluation, technology, and many other forms of evaluation. Evaluation involves assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs, policies, personnel, products, and organizations to improve their effectiveness. AEA has approximately 6800 members representing all 50 states in the US as well as over 60 foreign countries. The American Evaluation Association seeks to act in ways that embody our mission, vision, and values in pursuit of our defined policies and goals. MISSION: The American Evaluation Association’s mission is to improve evaluation practices and methods, increase evaluation use, promote evaluation as a profession, and support the contribution of evaluation to the generation of theory and knowledge about effective human action. VISION: The American Evaluation Association’s vision is to foster an inclusive, diverse, and international community of practice positioned as a respected source of information for and about the field of evaluation. VALUES: The American Evaluation Association values excellence in evaluation practice, utilization of evaluation findings, and inclusion and diversity in the evaluation community. i. We value high quality, ethically defensible, culturally responsive evaluation practices that lead to effective and humane organizations and ultimately to the enhancement of the public good. ii. We value high quality, ethically defensible, culturally responsive evaluation practices that contribute to decision-making processes, program improvement, and policy formulation. iii. We value a global and international evaluation community and understanding of evaluation practices. iv. We value the continual development of evaluation professionals and the development of evaluators from under-represented groups. v. We value inclusiveness and diversity, welcoming members at any point in their career, from any context, and representing a range of thought and approaches. vi. We value efficient, effective, responsive, transparent, and socially responsible association operations. http://www.eval.org 3.the European Evaluation Society The primary goal of the European Evaluation Society is to promote theory, practice, and utilization of high quality evaluation especially, but not exclusively, within the European countries. This goal is obtained by bringing together academics and practitioners from all over Europe and from all professional sectors, thus creating a forum where all participants can benefit from the co-operation and bridge building opportunities of the organization. The society was founded in the Hague in 1994. The first official board was elected in autumn 1995 and started its work in January 1996. http://www.europeanevaluation.org/ 4.the UK Evaluation Society www.evaluation.org.uk 5. theCanadian Evaluation Society www.evaluationcanada.ca 6. The Australasian Evaluation Society www.aes.asn.au 7. the Source Evaluation Society www.sesnews.org 8. The Swiss Evaluation Society www.seval.ch/en/index.cfm 9.the Malaysian Evaluation Society www.mes.org.my 10. Finnish Evaluation Society (FES) http://www.finnishevaluationsociety.net/index.php?lk_id=6 11.theJapan Evaluation Society http://evaluationjp.org/english/index.html 12. Pilipinas Monitoring and Evaluation Society http://pmes.ph/ 13.Slovak Evaluation Society (SES) http://www.evaluacia.sk/en/ 14.African Evaluation Association http://www.afrea.org/home/index.cfm
个人分类: 科技普及|3678 次阅读|2 个评论
2010年未获批的国家自然科学基金申报书
lxj6309 2010-9-2 21:32
对于申请基金我已经身心疲惫,但也没有怨言的理由。只能说自己不适合。今把本人的申报书放在这儿的意思是希望供愿意做这样的基础研究的同行参考。我在系统评价学理论领域不准备再深入下去了(虽然还继续教学工作),但自认为系统评价学的基础理论仍然任重而道远,需要艰辛的工作。现在的系统评价理论还远不是科学,系统评价实践缺乏科学基础。 我国目前的自然科学基金制度不适合于支持科学大师类型的研究,如牛顿、马克思、爱因斯坦等的工作是难以获得基金支持的。这不是我个人的看法,记得国家基金委的某学部的某管理者曾明确这样指出过。恐怕有大师素质的人才经过我们的两轮基金申请以后也会丢失大师的思维方式的。 下面是同行评议意见:(声明:这里没有怨言,谨供参考。) 1 建立系统评价的公理基础是综合评价的重要课题,本项目选题有新颖之处,具有明显的学术探讨价值。 本项目提出要借用物理 - 事理 - 人理方法论,申请书中说明: 本项目的关键科学问题是为系统评价方法论中各个步骤环节发掘揭示出隐藏其后的物理、事理和人理 。但物理 - 事理 - 人理方法论是从宏观层面提供的指导,而公理是从微观层面建立的基础,两者如何匹配,形成一个协调的整体,本项目未作必要的论述和深入的分析。 项目研究内容较多,缺乏一条主线,显得比较杂乱。研究方法与技术路线泛泛而论,抓不住要领,缺乏亮点。 申请人及其课题组有一定的研究基础,但缺乏高水平国际期刊论文。 鉴于本项目重点不突出,创新不明显,此次申请不宜立项资助。建议申请人围绕评价公理深入挖掘科学问题,再作申请。 2 对基于物理 - 事理 - 人理方法论的系统评价公理基础问题开展研究是个有意义的想法。 申请书写的有条理和认真,但对这一极具挑战性和复杂性的课题,本评审人没有看出近期有实质性重要进展的可能。另外,该项目在管理科学领域申请似乎更合适。 3 对复杂系统进行评价是非常困难的。在本质上就是寻找刻画系统演化核心机制的基础上,将描述系统的高维变量进行综合并抽象并投影到低维变量系统,并用这些稍维变量反映系统的特征。本项目提出基于物理事理人理方法论的系统评价公理基础问题,所提问题不明确具体,所提关键科学问题比较空泛,没有阐述如何应用物理 - 事理 - 人理开展评价研究的思路,对复杂系统评价中涉及的核心问题不明确。因此,建议不予资助。 4 本项目以物理 - 事理 - 人理系统方法论为指导,选取评价相关群决策法的科学基础、权重基础理论、指标间相关性对评价结果的影响等重要科学问题进行研究,拟提出系列公理和系统评价应用研究的科学规范框架,这些研究是有实际和现实意义的,特别是针对目前系统评价侧重于技术方法的多,而涉及评价体制、机制与评价方法的则少,这就涉及到事理和人理,从这个角度看本项目有一定的新意。建立大家公认的系统评价科学规范是可能的,但建立公理体系是很难的,希望申请者注意到这个问题的复杂性。 申请者及其团队在这方面已有较长时间的研究基础,建议予以资助。 申请书中的个人信息我删除了。 基金申请书
个人分类: 系统科学与系统工程学|9117 次阅读|1 个评论

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-6-18 12:42

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部