http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
조현대(Cho Hyun-Dae),홍사균(Hong Sa-Gyun),송완흡(Song Wan-Heup),성태경(Sung Tae-Kyung),김명관(Kim Myung-Gwan),오윤정(Oh Yoon-Jung),정윤성(Jung Yoon-Sung) 과학기술정책연구원 2016 정책연구 Vol.- No.-
The performance of Korean national R&D programmes and projects has improved in terms of quantity, but the qualitative aspects and the utilization of the R&D results have not been satisfactory. For this reason, there have been attempts to promote a new R&D evaluation paradigm for nurturing creative and challenging research culture and developing high quality R&D outcomes. However, despite the needs and significance of qualitative evaluation, there are limitations such as existing practices, excessive emphasis on quantitative indices. Therefore, this research aims to suggest an approach for qualitative evaluation, measures for improving evaluation institutions and systems. To achieve the aims above, first, this report present the philosophy and a suggested approach for qualitative evaluation. Second, the current national R&D programmes and evaluation institutions have been analysed. Third, foreign cases of qualitative evaluation have been analysed and implications were drawn. Forth, this report propose a future direction for policy paradigm to accommodate qualitative evaluation of national R&D programmes and projects. Fifth, we suggest plans to improve qualitative evaluation by types of national R&D. Sixth, this report provide policy recommendations summarizing the above. The direction for policy paradigm to accommodate qualitative evaluation include ‘enhancing recognition of qualitative evaluation with a human-focus’, ‘establishing a system for qualitative evaluation on the basis of expertism and autonomy’, and ‘establishing a field-oriented system and infrastructure’. As for plans to improve qualitative evaluation by types of national R&D, this report suggest ‘qualitative evaluation based on scientific and social performance via amendment of qualitative evaluation indices reflecting the characteristics of programmes and projects’ in the case of basic research, ‘qualitative evaluation based on technological performance in the case of fundamental research, ‘qualitative evaluation focusing on economic and technological performance and follow-up evaluation’ in the case of mid to long term industrial technology research, and ‘qualitative evaluation focusing on economic and social performance’ in the case of short term industrial technology research. The conclusion part of this report, summarizing the above discussions, proposes ‘establishing dedicated organization for economic evaluation to enhance qualitative evaluation of industrial technology development’, ‘mandating ex-ante qualitative review by dedicated organization’, ‘providing field-oriented and real-time information for systemic qualitative information’, and ‘plans for qualitative evaluation of R&D outcomes’. The results and policy suggestions in this report are expected to be used as basic materials for improving qualitative evaluation in Korea.