高校教师科研胜任力：核心构成、区分性与测量的系统性文献综述

摘要

科研产出是高校教师职业成功的核心，也是高校在国内外获得声誉的重要来源，但学界至今没有一个统一的科研胜任力框架，测量工具也彼此割裂。本研究采用系统性文献综述方法，按 PRISMA 流程在 SCOPUS、PubMed、EBSCOhost 与 Google Scholar 四个数据库检索 2010—2024 年发表的英文期刊论文，经去重、题录初筛与全文复核，最终纳入 6 项以高校教师为对象的实证研究，另以 40 项以研究生、本科生等非教师群体为对象的研究作为对照。研究发现，高校教师的科研胜任力可归纳为六项核心能力：查找与述评文献、规划研究、数据收集与分析、撰写研究方案与报告、传播研究成果、管理科研项目；其下可细分为 15 项具体指标。与非教师群体相比，教师群体的区分性主要体现在科研项目管理、基金申请书撰写与团队协作三个方面，而这三项恰恰是现有测量工具覆盖最薄弱的环节。已有的六项教师研究在测量方式上高度依赖自评量表，样本量、国别与学科分布均不均衡，且几乎都未报告效度证据。本研究建议开发一套覆盖六项核心能力、兼顾科研管理与传播维度的高校教师科研胜任力量表，并在多国样本中检验其结构效度，为教师发展项目的设计与评估提供依据。

Abstract

Research productivity is central to faculty career success and to the national and international reputation of universities, yet the field still lacks a unified framework of research competencies, and existing measures remain fragmented. This study conducted a systematic literature review following the PRISMA protocol, searching SCOPUS, PubMed, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar for English-language journal articles published between 2010 and 2024. After deduplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, six empirical studies of faculty were included, with 40 studies of non-faculty populations (graduate and undergraduate students) retained for comparison. Six core competencies emerged: gathering and reviewing literature, planning a study, collecting and analyzing data, writing research proposals and reports, disseminating research, and managing research projects; these were further specified as 15 indicators. Compared with non-faculty populations, faculty were distinguished mainly by research project management, grant proposal writing, and working within a research team, which are precisely the areas least covered by current instruments. The six faculty studies relied heavily on self-report scales, were uneven in sample size, country and discipline, and almost never reported validity evidence. We recommend developing a faculty research competency scale covering all six core competencies, including the management and dissemination dimensions, and testing its structural validity across multinational samples, so as to inform the design and evaluation of faculty development programs.