In 2024, the initiative to break the "Five Onlys" in Chinese higher education enters its sixth year. Over these years, universities in China have been advancing with categorized evaluations, yielding some promising practices. However, in the process of development, some universities and faculty members find it challenging to keep up with the pace of reform, and questions remain about what should be established after breaking the "Five Onlys."
What should be the next steps in breaking the "Five Onlys"? To address this question, Chinese Science Bulletin interviewed Zhang Rong, a National People's Congress delegate and the Party Secretary of Xiamen University, and Xu Xudong, a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and a professor at Central China Normal University.
Chinese Science Bulletin: What do you think makes breaking the "Five Onlys" difficult?
Zhang Rong: The essence of breaking the "Five Onlys" lies in breaking the old ecological system and establishing a new one. The "Five Onlys," due to their quantifiable evaluation methods and other factors, have become a cognitive inertia and path dependence, permeating into the existing institutional systems in many aspects. This phenomenon is universal to a certain extent and is a problem across the entire ecosystem.
The process of breaking the "Five Onlys" is essentially a transition from old to new concepts and ecosystems. This inevitably entails facing various contradictions and conflicts. However, even so, we still need to explore and practice the path of breaking the "Five Onlys" within the microcosm of universities. Once a certain level is achieved, it will certainly promote the establishment of a new ecological environment on a larger scale.
Xu Xudong: We often talk about the difficulties of breaking the "Five Onlys" being external factors, but I am increasingly concerned that researchers themselves may unconsciously turn the evaluation model of the "Five Onlys" into a path dependence. It gradually becomes a collective habit and even subtly integrates into the values of university teachers and researchers, influencing their behaviors and becoming their pursuit. Achieving top-tier publications, competing for projects, and pursuing titles all receive recognition and approval, eventually forming intrinsic rewards. More importantly, these values are passed from senior scientists to young researchers and students, becoming a barrier to change.
I've noticed a phenomenon where some university teachers and researchers express a rejection of the "Five Onlys," but when it comes to evaluating others, they fail to align their actions with their words. For example, some project evaluations, talent recruitments, and outcome assessments do not have strict indicators requiring a focus on publications or titles. However, reviewers often naturally use these standards because it's quicker, easier, and more conducive to consensus.
Many times, reviewers spend only 5 to 10 minutes reviewing an application. Unless they are already familiar with the project area, how many people can carefully read an applicant's paper and judge the value and contribution of the results? If researchers themselves cannot evaluate the academic core when they have discretion, why do they still question the delay in breaking the "Five Onlys"?
Chinese Science Bulletin: What are the reasons behind the difficulty in breaking the "Five Onlys"?
Zhang Rong: At the macro level, at different stages of development, universities have different degrees and scopes of problems regarding the "Five Onlys." From the top-level design of the national system to the implementation in various universities, there are issues concerning goals, pace, and consistency.
At the micro level, the driving force behind the "Five Onlys" is the pursuit of quick success. For a long time, universities have been keen on producing "short, flat, and fast" papers and awards, striving to boost rankings and indicators to gain more social influence and resources from relevant departments.
On the other hand, some university teachers themselves contribute to this issue. Some teachers see university work merely as a means of livelihood advancement, lacking lofty goals, pursuits, and genuine passion. These factors create fertile ground for the proliferation of the "Five Onlys."
It's undeniable that even after years of efforts to break the "Five Onlys," some universities still have issues with standardized, one-size-fits-all approaches and an excessive emphasis on quantification. Within universities, different disciplines and teachers have diverse strengths and talents, posing a significant challenge. Using a uniform, quantitative approach to evaluate teachers' performance lacks scientific rigor. How to further categorize evaluations, utilize the representative works system effectively, evaluate the intrinsic value of different types of achievements, and enhance the role of academic communities are all difficult and crucial aspects of reform, and they are the directions that urgently need to be deepened in the next steps of reform.
Xu Xudong: An important reason is that the formulation and use of evaluation standards primarily serve administrative management needs, attempting to evaluate different issues, disciplines, and even different types of outcomes with quantifiable, exchangeable standards. For management departments, quantitative standards seem to imply fairness and reliability. This approach is effective and reasonable in many areas. However, when it comes to evaluating scientific research outcomes and talents, it may deviate from genuine academic contributions.
Evaluating the academic contributions of researchers and the academic value of research outcomes is not an area where administrative power excels. This implies that the discretion for evaluation should be entrusted to top-notch peers with academic discernment. However, this premise requires establishing a responsible and trustworthy academic ecosystem, a culture that is still immature in the Chinese academic community.
Chinese Science Bulletin: What suggestions do you have regarding this issue?
Zhang Rong: Universities need to create an inclusive environment that encourages genuine innovation, where everyone has a deeper understanding of national needs, personal growth, and especially the laws governing talent development and scientific research. We should reduce the emphasis on utilitarian pursuits. Only when we reach a consensus and join forces in "abandoning utilitarianism" can we truly help address the problems of the "Five Onlys."
For instance, instead of focusing on the quantity of papers, evaluations should emphasize what problems the research work genuinely solves. By adopting a combination of team and individual assessments according to disciplinary characteristics, we can promote organized cooperation and improve the organizational level of teaching and research, avoiding disorder and excessive competition. Furthermore, we can integrate the values of scientific and innovative spirits into education, systematically and thoroughly incorporating them into the cultivation of top talents, fostering a sense of national pride and goal pursuit.
In the process of breaking the "Five Onlys," we must persist in the "multidimensional approach" and create "multidimensional" outlets, encouraging personalized development among teachers. Instead of solely focusing on papers, projects, and excessive competition, we should encourage them to excel in their respective fields. Additionally, universities should be cautious of various quantifiable indicators during this process. Some university teachers humorously refer to themselves as "hexagonal warriors," which reflects the additional pressure brought by various quantifiable indicators.
Xu Xudong: The answer to "what matters" has always been simple - adhering to academic integrity, respecting scholarly judgment, and prioritizing substantive academic contributions as the core evaluation criteria. Take talent, for example; we examine what questions they have raised, what problems they have solved, the originality of their work, the impact they have had on relevant fields, and whether they have advanced the field or even human society.
Under such criteria, it's not that we don't consider papers; rather, papers serve as vehicles for research outcomes. Instead, the focus is on contribution, guided by peer review, to provide a comprehensive assessment.
