摘要
现代意义上的博士学位诞生于19世纪初的德国柏林大学,自那时起博士论文就成为获得博士学位的必要条件,原创性知识贡献是评判论文质量的首要标准,这种以博士论文为主要评价标准的博士生教育却面临众多质疑。首先,博士生教育的目的已经由培养学术精英转而培养知识工人,博士论文由原创性知识贡献的载体转向一种研究能力或职业技能训练的工具。其次,由于原创性概念自身的模糊性,具体指标呈现泛化的趋势,对于博士论文的评价已由过往对于知识发现的推崇转为更看重知识的应用和拓展;而理想的定义与现实的评价存在较大偏差,导师和同行评审专家也不再将原创性作为评判论文质量的主要标准;同时,不同学科对原创性的理解也存在不可通约性。再次,博士论文形式的多样性迎合了大学文化、学科传统和学位类型多元化的趋势,但可能也损害了博士学位代表最高学术水平的文凭信号功能。这些实践或技术层面变革的背后是博士生教育理念及其知识价值的嬗变,更进一步说是高校、国家和市场等力量的相互博弈。
Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) in modern senses was first established at University of Berlin in the early nineteenth century. Since then,doctoral dissertation became the necessary condition of receiving a doctoral degree, and making original contributions to the scholarship was the standard of quality dissertations. However,prioritizing dissertation writing in doctoral education faces doubts. Firstly, the purpose of doctoral education has shifted from educating elites in scholarship to educating knowledge workers. Instead of a means to achieve originality in scholarship, dissertation becomes a tool for training research methods and professional skills. Secondly,because the very idea of originality is vague and its standards turn out to be more generalized,the purpose of doctoral dissertations changes from promoting the production of knowledge to the application and extension of knowledge. Such gap between the ideal and reality of dissertations results in the fact that originality in scholarship ceases to be the dominating standard in the peer-review process of doctoral dissertations. Different disciplines also have different understandings of what an original piece of research is. Lastly, the tendency in universities to diversify academic cultures,disciplinary traditions,and types of academic degrees coincides with the multiplication of forms of doctoral dissertation. At the same time,this process might debase Ph. D. as the most prestigious degree in graduate level of scholarship. These changes in practice and technology reflect changes in the idea of doctoral education and the value of knowledge. They further suggest the power dynamics between universities,the state,and the market.
出处
《北京大学教育评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第1期1-14,186,共14页
Peking University Education Review
基金
国家社科基金青年项目(14CRK018).
