"历史模型"——现代科研方法的新进展(二)

近几十年间,历史科学与水利科学的交叉和融合形成了独立的水利史学科,提出了带有普遍意义的宏观论证方法即“历史模型”方法。“历史模型”方法可以为人们提供一种发展的综合思维方式,从而比较有效地避免学科单一的局限和依赖纯经验的判断。因此,“历史模型”方法在许多学科领域尤其在气候、地质、地貌、水利、环境上有着广阔的应用前景。     

世界城市理论研究的发展脉络与新进展

文章通过梳理中外世界城市理论的研究文献指出,世界城市理论发展主要经历四个发展阶段,并演化为基础:新国际劳动分工—主体:控制中心—形式:生产者服务业—内容:流动的研究框架。20世纪90年代以来,世界城市理论研究领域进一步扩展,研究方法不断更新,但其在解析世界城市历史演进、形成与发展内在逻辑等方面仍显乏力。     

Still enamoured of the glocal: A comment on ‘From local to grobal,and back’

This is a comment on M. Hoogenboom, D. Bannink, & W. Trommel (2010), ‘From local to grobal, and back’ (Business History, 52(6), 932–954). While great appreciation is expressed for the authors’ effort to test empirically the theoretical ideas developed by G. Ritzer (2007) in The globalization of nothing (2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press), a number of reservations are expressed about the way his ideas are interpreted. The article has the unfortunate tendency to support the idea of glocalisation rather than the broader model developed by Ritzer.     

土地利用总体规划与城市总体规划衔接阻力源分析与实务研究

根据笔者近些年来参与＂两规＂编制的实际经验,首先阐述＂两规＂的联系,其次着重分析二者衔接的阻力源,然后在此基础上提出了研究的重点——＂两规＂衔接的实务,最后论述了＂两规＂实现衔接后的现实意义。     

关于高校科研团队建设的思考

高校加强科研团队建设要制定明确目标,合理配置队伍,创新高层次人才培养与引进机制,建立管理平台,完善评价考核体系,创造宽松和谐的团队工作环境。     

Knowledge of campaign finance regulation reduces perceptions of corruption

We use an experimental survey design to measure how campaign finance regulation influences perceptions of political corruption and trust in politicians when citizens are exposed to information about regulation. Unlike most observational studies, results of this experimental study suggest that knowledge of campaign finance regulation substantially reduces citizens’ perceptions of corruption but has only limited effect on trust in politicians. Findings have crucial implications for public policy. At a time when public cynicism about politics is high, a significant reduction in perceptions of political corruption through successful dissemination of campaign finance regulation would be a boost to the legitimacy of democracies.     

Transdisciplinarity in land use science – A review of concepts,empirical findings and current practices

In the search for solutions to complex real-world problems, the benefits of transdisciplinary research (TDR) have been widely heralded. Land use science appears to be a designated field for TDR. However, to date, the additional expenses of TDR are accompanied by a so far not proved added value, and empirical findings are claimed to be scarce and dispersed over several disciplines and case studies.We reviewed 299 articles obtained from a structured literature search to (1) investigate the current differences between theory and practice, (2) identify empirical findings, and (3) ascertain the contributions of TDR to promoting sustainable land use management.Our results demonstrate that, in spite of an increasing conceptual consistency in the theoretical discussion of TDR, the implementation of TDR remains a substantial challenge, in part because of the gap between theory and practice. In addition, research on TDR is science and process centred. The benefits of TDR in addressing real-world problems within the field of land use remain unproven.     

Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center

As a method of investigating complex socially relevant phenomena, transdisciplinary research (TDR) is gaining increasing centrality as a model of knowledge production. However, it is being discouraged by a scientific reward system based on disciplinary logic. The disincentive is even stronger for junior scholars who should be developing the capabilities necessary for achieving long-term scientific excellence.Building on theories of the coordination of scientific communities and using the case of a research center of Kyoto University investigating the boundary between cell and material sciences, we aim to disentangle the interplay between institutional incentives and intrinsic motivation in the prioritization of TDR over monodisciplinary research.We find that, despite strong interest in TDR among scientists and the center's mission to promote this orientation, only a minority of scientists prioritize this approach. Choice of research strategy is associated with its perceived benefits for idea generation, publication opportunities, intellectual effort required, the costs of team coordination, and satisfaction with organizational resources. Furthermore, the propensity to prioritize TDR drops among scientists beginning their careers.Therefore, we recommend the development of evaluation schemes grounded in activity-based measures and the granting of permanent positions to scientists pursuing TDR.