Education Faculty Members' Perceptions of and Responses to the Ssci-Oriented Academic Evaluation Systems in Taiwan

The main purpose of this research is first to investigate Education Faculty members’ perceptions of and responses to the SSCI-oriented academic evaluation systems in Taiwan, and then to analyze the relevant factors of how the faculty members perceive and respond to these systems. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 academics in the Field of Education from across Taiwan including 17 full professors, 10 associate professors, and 11 assistant professors. P. Bourdieu’s field theories, M. Burawoy’s theory of voluntary servitude, and neo-liberalism that has become globally dominant in higher education policies were referred as the primary theoretical frameworks.

      The conclusions are as follows.

1.In terms of Education Faculty members’ perceptions, the SSCI-oriented academic evaluation systems were established top-down and followed in the logic of natural science. The main purpose and underlying logic  of the SSCI-oriented academic evaluation systems are against the professional scholarships of Education, and the resistance of faculties thus is inescapable.

2.What Education Faculty members propose to modify the SSCI-oriented academic evaluation systems reflects authentically their calling of re-emphasizing the education core values.

3.The research contributes mainly to unearthing the difference of practical concerns and responsive strategies amongst full, associate, and assistant professors. Theories of field, capital, and social space proposed  by Bourdieu present a substantially analytic framework, while neo-liberalism and Burawoy’s voluntary servitude theory offer modest explanations. 

4.The research provides delicate analyses of relevant factors in the institutional field, although the difference within gender, university types, and dis/advantaged positions are not yet systematically discovered. The  relevant factors in the institutional field include the messages embedded in and transferred from the institutional practices, and the hidden rule of the review process. The factors explain why different faculty  members share the same response.