China Youth Daily: Why young researchers are enthusiastic about chasing "hats" and so on. Some hats and young people
The talent "hat" that is hotly discussed in the technology community mainly refers to talent programs and research projects funded by talents. The purpose of talent programs is to care for, select, and support talents, while scientific research projects provide research funding for outstanding scientific and technological talents, playing a role in cultivating and motivating them. These policies have played an irreplaceable role in the construction of China's scientific and technological talent team, and a large number of outstanding scientists have emerged in various talent programs.
However, some talent plans and projects have been given too many additional benefits unrelated to their policy objectives and positioning during their use, distorting the original policy intention. Many young researchers feel that "hats flying all over the sky" has become one of the stubborn diseases that make it difficult for researchers to concentrate on scientific research; Liu Yun, a professor of the School of Public Policy and Management of the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, believes that the original intention of the establishment of talent titles was in line with the needs of the time, and the current problem is "alienation".
The Opinions on Deepening the Reform of Project Evaluation, Talent Evaluation, and Institutional Evaluation issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council in 2018, in response to prominent issues such as the "multiple hats" of talents, the "one size fits all" standards, and the disconnection between evaluation and application, propose not to use honorary titles of talents as restrictive conditions for undertaking various national science and technology projects, obtaining national science and technology awards, professional title evaluation, job employment, and salary and benefits, so as to return the essence of academic and honorary titles and avoid being directly linked to material interests; Strengthening the main position of talent evaluation in employers, not just determining salary and benefits based on academic titles and talent titles, but also allocating academic resources
In recent years, relevant departments have also introduced a series of reform measures to clean up the "hat" of talents. In 2020, the Ministry of Education issued the "Several Opinions on Correctly Understanding and Standardizing the Use of University Talent Titles", which mentioned that teaching evaluation and subject evaluation should adhere to comprehensive evaluation of the quality of the teaching staff, not use talent titles and quantities as direct basis for evaluation, and reduce the direct linkage between evaluation results and academic resource allocation. In the same year, the Ministry of Science and Technology and four other departments issued the Notice on Continuously Carrying out the Special Action to Reduce the Burden of Scientific Researchers and Stimulate Innovation Vitality, which mentioned the use of talent "hats" as evaluation indicators in scientific and technological evaluation activities, and the direct linkage between talent "hats" and material interests.
The implementation of policies has achieved certain results, for example, the Ministry of Science and Technology has carried out a cleaning up of the practice of using talent "hats" as evaluation indicators, and cancelled the entry for filling in talent titles in the evaluation of national science and technology plan projects. The fifth round of discipline evaluation work plan of the Ministry of Education proposes to evaluate teachers not only based on academic qualifications and titles, but also without setting talent "hat" indicators to avoid the practice of one-sided evaluation of academic level based on academic titles. In Liu Yun's view, there has been phased progress in breaking the "four only" system, but the "historical inertia" of the "only hat" problem still exists in the recruitment and employment of employers, especially some universities.
Why is the hat still flying? Recently, a journalist from China Youth Daily and China Youth Network conducted a frontline research on the issue of alienation in the use of talent titles.
Some "hats" have become iron magnets for resource allocation
Young researchers Wen Wu used the "Matthew effect of resources" to describe the impact of "hats" on the allocation of scientific and technological resources. A researcher who has participated in project review work stated that although the requirement of not relying solely on hats has been clearly stated in the review rules of science and technology plan projects, there are still differences in the evaluation results of experts. "Having a hat makes it easier to undertake large projects.".
Wen Wu is 36 years old and an assistant researcher. Starting from 2019, he has been applying for a scientific foundation project for four consecutive years, but all of them have failed. Due to the lack of his own projects and funding, he self deprecatingly referred to himself as a "research migrant worker" and said, "70% to 80% of the young people around me are, perhaps even more so.".
"Young people, if they don't get a 'hat', their development in all aspects will be affected. With a 'hat', their professional titles, benefits, and resource allocation will all be tilted towards them," Liu Yun said.
A technology evaluation policy researcher who refused to be named analyzed that the reason why research institutions are willing to offer various special preferential policies to hire "hat talents" is because "as long as this person is introduced, it is equivalent to introducing the resources behind him", and the projects and funds they can bring often play a key role in the research institutions standing out in the superior assessment and evaluation. Introducing "hat talents" is actually introducing a "chip" to compete for rankings and resources. In order to gain more support from superiors, most research institutions are either actively or forced to participate in the "competition for talent".
Some researchers have reported that the phenomenon of "grabbing people" is more common in universities. Although the policy explicitly requires that the number and level of "hats" no longer be filled in evaluation activities such as subject evaluation, when it comes to the iconic projects, awards, and representative works filled in the current subject evaluation, a director of the Science and Technology Department of a southern university admitted that they still believe that "hat talents" should have a "higher probability of obtaining", and that "the ability to obtain resources is definitely valued by the school".
Some people believe that the inertia of "hat only" is also related to the excessive discourse power of "hat talents". The ability to acquire resources is often sought after. Li Li, who is engaged in research related to science and technology policies at a university in Beijing, said that after obtaining a "hat", it is relatively easy to become a person who evaluates it, leading to research resources being monopolized in the "hat" circle.
A hat can attract more resources like a magnet, forming the "Matthew effect" mentioned by Wen Wu - allowing researchers to have more research resources, and correspondingly, less.
The aforementioned policy researchers, who declined to be named, believe that the emergence of "hats flying all over the sky" is largely related to the government's evaluation criteria and usage of outstanding talents. Due to the relative lack of credible talent evaluation channels such as academic evaluation and market evaluation, the support targets of talent plans and technology projects established by the state - so-called "hat talents" - have become important benchmarks for governments at all levels to judge whether a person is an excellent talent. The allocation of scientific and technological resources and policy support are tilted towards them, leading to excessive accumulation of resources towards "hat talents", making them the "magnet" of resources, thereby exacerbating the resource gap between "hat talents" and non "hat talents", and exacerbating the trend of "chasing hats and grabbing hats".
He analyzed that in this context, "hats" have become a "passport" in the academic workplace, to some extent, hindering the academic growth of young talents. If young people want to make progress, they have to "compete for hats" and "produce results as soon as possible" before the age limit for applying for various "hats", "do some short-term and fast projects as soon as possible", which in turn brings unreasonable application pressure and burden. However, this is clearly not conducive to researchers dedicating themselves to research and overcoming difficulties, nor does it meet the development needs of high-level technological self-reliance and self-improvement.
Some "hats" have become academic and career "passes"
Young professor Wang Feng joined a certain university in 2021 and his career development was "very smooth". He believes that "getting a" hat "as soon as he returned to China" played a crucial role in it. He said that six months after receiving the national level talent "hat", he was promoted to professor through the "green channel" from an assistant researcher.
After Wang Feng joined a domestic university, he judged that having a title would lead to better development and carefully prepared an application for several months.
While waiting, he saw people posting good news on social media one after another, and Wang Feng thought he had "hung up" at one point. He was very frustrated - "If not, it would be difficult to apply for projects and evaluate job titles.". More importantly, he believes that if one year doesn't pass the evaluation, the next year will require a considerable amount of time and effort. Therefore, after receiving the news that he was rated, he felt relieved.
37 year old associate professor Li Qingshan, who works at a university in Beijing, was filled with admiration and envy upon hearing this story. He has continuously applied for national level fund projects and a certain national high-level talent support plan for many years. The age limits for males in these two declarations are 38 and 40 respectively, indicating that there is not much time left for them to compete for hats.
Li Qingshan learned that in the universities where he works, having a "hat" allows him to be directly recognized as a high-level talent. However, as someone who has not yet received a "hat", he can only be selected for the lower level talent program of his unit. Compared to people with "hats," he not only feels "without status," but also has "multiplied differences" in treatment.
In his view, a "hat" is like a "passport" to the academic workplace. If you don't step on the ground and get various "hats", it will be difficult to open up the upward path in the academic and professional field.
Researchers Wei Shijie and Zhang Wenxia from the China Academy of Science and Technology Development Strategy pointed out in their analysis of the article "Exploration, Problems, and Policy Suggestions of National Research Institutions Supporting Young Researchers to Concentrate on Research" that currently, China's science and technology plans, talent plans, and science and technology rewards have formed a path that needs to be "eliminated and upgraded" to some extent. Young researchers must step by step overcome each obstacle in order to smoothly embark on the path of scientific research. If a young researcher fails to achieve a high starting point in the early stages of their career, it is difficult for them to achieve a turnaround in their subsequent careers. Therefore, young researchers must participate in intense resource competition from the beginning, and under tremendous pressure and anxiety, it is difficult for them to grow slowly in their own way and pace.
Li Qingshan believes that "hats" can screen out some excellent people, but "it is not normal for everyone to compete for hats.".
Liu Yun analyzed that it is precisely because the presence or absence of a "hat" can bring significant differences to the development of researchers in various aspects that many young people still believe that a "hat" is worth fighting for. But in fact, compared with the large group of young scientific researchers, the number of talent "hats" is very limited. "There are more monks than porridge", and everyone wants to compete, which ultimately leads to the rhythm of "chasing hats" "disturbing the natural growth law of talent".
The ruler for evaluating diverse talents needs to be "hard"
Liu Yun believes that the alienated use of talent titles is a manifestation that the concepts of talent work and scientific research management have not kept up with the pace of development of the times, and relevant policies need to be adjusted. The government can commend scientific and technological talents who have made outstanding contributions, but the matter of awarding academic honors to scientific researchers should be entrusted to the academic community. He said that employers should bear the responsibility of selecting and employing legal entities, and not use "hats" as the sole criterion for measuring talent.
Li Qingshan believes that in order to make the ruler of the hat appear less effective, it is necessary for other talents to evaluate the ruler as well.
He observed some positive changes, such as some units having begun to reform and expand talent evaluation channels, including social services, teaching achievements, and the transformation of scientific and technological achievements into the talent evaluation system. However, during implementation, these evaluation channels have not yet received widespread recognition like a hat. Taking his own research field of air pollution as an example, the proportion of social technology services is very high. "Since the beginning of this year, I have served five or six steel mills, more than ten coking plants, and more than ten brick factories." However, due to the lack of a mature system for evaluating the effectiveness of technology services, his work results cannot prove his abilities well, let alone obtain career promotion opportunities or more scientific research resources through this.
How to make other evaluation criteria harder? Experts suggest increasing evaluation channels, fully leveraging the role of academic communities and industry associations, and establishing a diverse evaluation system beyond the government evaluation system. Some researchers have also proposed that the proportion of non hat rated experts in project evaluation should be increased.
At the same time, Liu Yun suggested that the function of national talent honorary titles should be adjusted to recognize individuals who have made outstanding contributions, and a few can be selected each year to serve as role models. He also suggested that national talent research projects targeting young people should avoid labeling them as "national brands" to avoid being mistaken by society and employers as "talent labels".
Li Li believes that significantly reducing the number of "hats" may be a "temporary solution" option, so that most young people can "focus" on their work and return to their academic aspirations; By adjusting the evaluation system and downplaying or even canceling the "added value" corresponding to talent plans and scientific research projects, it is the "fundamental" way to solve the "hat only" problem.
