致力于公共福祉的教育研究？ ——反思西方循证决策实践的负面影响-清华大学教育研究

文章信息/Info

Title:: Educational Research for Public Well-being? ——Negative Effects of Evidence-based Policy-making in Western Countries

Author(s):: WANG Xi SHI Xiao-kun; Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University

Keywords:: evidence-based policy-making; evidence-based research; educational research; public well-being; practice

摘要:: 从批判理论视角出发，西方国家近年来的循证决策实践在很大程度上受控于新自由主义话语。遵循效率原则，倚重评估和问责的公共服务领域对特定类型的科学证据产生了巨大需求。在这种背景下，学术致力于公共福祉的理念被窄化为研究向决策提供“技术支持”。为获取“最佳证据”，西方国家在推动循证决策的过程中，以决策部门的力量为学术研究设置了一系列的质量标准。这些标准通过对研究产出与研究方法做出规制，控制了学术研究的议题、研究问题和理论视角。此外来的控制力在一定程度上破坏了学术研究的自有逻辑，窄化了人们对“科学性”的理解，也没能使学术跳出精英的圈子。基于哈贝马斯的“审议民主”概念，致力于公共福祉的学术研究不仅仅是为实践提供技术支持，还应走入社会实践生活，与普通实践者就日常实践的意义、价值和权力问题进行探讨，且始终保持质疑、批判的精神。

Abstract:: From the critical theoretical perspective, evidence-based policy-making boomed in Western countries has been driven by the neoliberalist discourse. Public service, which relies on performance evaluation and accountability system, has vast demand for scientific evidence. In these circumstances, academic research for public well-being is considered as providing technical support and service to such demand. In order to gain “best evidence”, governments and other policy-making agencies in western countries have made a set of criteria for the quality of academic research. By controlling the quality of research outputs and research methods, this body of criteria has controlled research questions and theoretical perspectives. To a certain extent, such non-academic control tramples the autonomy of academia. It oversimplifies the meaning of science and restricts academic to the Ivory tower. Drawing on Habermas’ theory on deliberative democracy, academic research for public well-being should not only provide the public with technical support, but also engage with the communication with the public. A critical and reflective stance should also be adopted.