•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

Keywords

new types of think tanks with Chinese characteristics, think tank evaluation, responsive evaluation, governance model, performance management

Abstract

Over a decade has passed since the issuance of the “Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of New Types of Think Tanks with Chinese Characteristics”. During this period, the number of think tanks in China has continued to grow, and evaluation activities have evolved from spontaneous exploration to institutionalized practice. Examining think tank evaluation from both the supply and demand sides of think tank development, this study systematically reviews the practical progress and theoretical exploration of think tank evaluation in China over the past decade. Building upon an analysis of the conceptual connotation of think tank evaluation, the study argues that the key to evaluation lies not in indicator design, but in clarifying the fundamental purposes and intentions of evaluation. The study identifies several challenges confronting the current evaluation system: the theoretical premises of think tank evaluation have not been fully clarified; standardized evaluation criteria are inadequate for accommodating the diversity of think tank types and developmental stages; the short-cycle orientation of annual performance assessments neglects the cultivation of latent foundational capacities such as data accumulation, methodological reserves, and talent development; and the unidirectional operation of evaluation processes undermines the diagnostic and developmental functions of evaluation. In response to these issues, this study proposes optimization pathways from multiple dimensions, including broadening the functional positioning of evaluation, integrating KPI and OKR management concepts, introducing deliberative mechanisms informed by responsive evaluation theory, and establishing a differentiated and dynamic system of evaluation indicators and weightings. The study further argues that Chinese think tank evaluation should shift from pursuing a single set of perfect indicators toward building a collaborative evaluation ecosystem involving multiple stakeholders, so as to promote improvement through evaluation and serve the high-quality development of new types of think tanks with Chinese characteristics.

First page

951

Last Page

964

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

1. 帕瑞克·克勒纳, 韩万渠. 智库概念界定和评价排名：亟待探求的命题. 中国行政管理, 2014, (5): 25-28. Kellner P, Han W. The definition and evaluation ranking of think tanks: A proposition urgently to be explored. Chinese Public Administration, 2014, (5): 25-28. (in Chinese)

2. 李刚. 建立智库全层次全要素评价体系. 决策探索（下半月）， 2017, (2): 45-46. Li G. Establishing a full-level and full-element evaluation system for think tanks. Policy Research & Exploration, 2017, (2): 45-46. (in Chinese)

3. 汤建军, 郑代良, 黄渊基. 中国特色新型智库评价体系初探. 湘潭大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 42(4): 12-16. Tang J J, Zheng D L, Huang Y J. A preliminary study on the evaluation system of new-type think tanks with Chinese characteristics. Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 42(4): 12-16. (in Chinese)

4. 上海社会科学院智库研究中心. 2013年中国智库报告：影响力排名与政策建议. 上海: 上海社会科学院出版社, 2014. Think Tank Research Center of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. 2013 China think tank report: Influence ranking and policy suggestions. Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2014. (in Chinese)

5. 荆林波. 全球智库评价报告（2015）. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2016. Jing L B. Global think tank evaluation report (2015). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2016. (in Chinese)

6. 方茜, 廖冲绪. 中华智库影响力报告（2015—2017年）. 北京: 人民出版社, 2018. Fang Q, Liao C X. China think tank influence report, 2015-2017. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2018. (in Chinese)

7. “中国智库透明度研究”课题组, 朱旭峰, 韩万渠. 中国智库透明度报告. 智库理论与实践, 2017, 2(1): 63-82. Research Group of China Think Tank Transparency Research, Zhu X F, Han W Q. China think tank transparency report. Think Tank: Theory & Practice, 2017, 2(1): 63-82. (in Chinese)

8. 淡晶晶, 陈光春, 马尊武, 等. 基于冰山理论的科研机构管理人员能力结构模型构建. 管理现代化, 2019, (6): 52-55. Dan J J, Chen G C, Ma Z W, et al. Construction of competency structure model for scientific research institution managers based on iceberg theory. Modernization of Management, 2019, (6): 52-55. (in Chinese)

9. 张民选. 回应、协商与共同建构——“第四代评价理论”评述. 外国教育资料, 1995, (3): 53-57. Zhang M X. Response, negotiation and co-construction: A review of “fourth generation evaluation theory”. International and Comparative Education, 1995, (3): 53-57. (in Chinese)

10. Guba E G, Lincoln Y S. Fourth generation evaluation. California: Sage, 1989.

11. 田五星, 王海凤. 大数据时代的公共部门绩效管理模式创新——基于KPI与OKR比较的启示与借鉴. 经济体制改革, 2017, 204(3): 17-23. Tian W X, Wang H F. Performance management model innovation in the public sector in the era of big data: Enlightenment and reference based on the comparison of KPI and OKR. Reform of Economic System, 2017, (3): 17-23. (in Chinese)

12. 西楠, 彭剑锋, 曹毅, 等. OKR是什么及为什么能提升团队绩效？——柔性导向绩效管理实践案例研究. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2020, 41(7): 116-138. *Corresponding author Xi N, Peng J F, Cao Y, et al. What is OKR and why can it improve team performance? A case study of flexibility-oriented performance management practices. Science of Science and Management of S.& T., 2020, 41(7): 116-138. (in Chinese)

13. 胡中锋, 李奕霏. 现代教育评价往何处去：兼评第四代评价理论. 教育研究与实验, 2025, (6): 126-134. Hu Z F, Li Y F. Where is modern educational evaluation heading: A review of the fourth generation evaluation theory. Educational Research and Experiment, 2025, (6): 126-134. (in Chinese)

14. 张兰, 孙旌凯, 薛东波. 混改背景下国有企业绩效考核体系创新研究——基于KPI与OKR比较的借鉴与启示. 税务与经济, 2022, 245(6): 101-106. Zhang L, Sun J K, Xue D B. Research on innovation of performance appraisal system in state-owned enterprises under the background of mixed ownership reform: enlightenment and reference based on the comparison of KPI and OKR. Taxation and Economy, 2022, 245(6): 101-106. (in Chinese)

Download
Request a Copy

Share

COinS