论科学治理中的科学共同体

 现代科学技术生产方式的新特点和公共治理理念的新变革要求改变传统的以“统治”为核心的科学宏观管理模式,走向以“治理”为核心的新管理模式。在科学治理中,科学共同体作为谋求特定利益的科学家组成的社会团体,具有组织性、地方性、民间性、科学性等特征,是科学治理的重要参加者和学术权威,在科学评价、决策咨询、科学传播等领域发挥着更加重要的作用。     

科学群落的梯度结构及其生产函数

本文将“科学群落”定义为科学子系统之一 ,并从角色期望、人格积淀、结构化机制和社会性差异等方面与“科学共同体”、“科学学派”及“科学组织”进行了比较 ,进而讨论了基于生态场类比的群落梯度结构属性 ,并基于发文数的洛特卡统计提出了梯度产出数学模型。     

虚拟科研团队及其管理研究

早期的科学研究以个人为主，随后他们被组织在大学与科学院中共同进行科研活动，但学科之间也产生了条块分割。大科学时代的到来，人文科学与自然科学的相互融合，呼唤不同研究者之间的交流。20世纪末高速发展的通信与网络技术，为形成新型的科研方式提供了物质条件，虚拟的科研团队将是未来科研方式发展的主要方向。     

新世纪以来广东省科技奖励工作发展情况探析

聚焦2000-2019年广东省获得的国家级和省级科技项目成果,从获奖项目的专业领域、创新主体性质、地域来源等信息分析了新世纪以来广东省科技奖励工作的特征.研究发现,广东省科技奖励工作存在地域分布不平衡、个人奖励制度建设缓慢、科技获奖项目后评估缺乏可操作性等问题,因此建议优化个人奖励设置、引导社会力量参评科技奖励、建立符...     

科学媒体塑造科学家形象的思考与启示北大核心CSCDCSSCI

媒体对科学家形象的良好形塑不仅关乎科学家精神的厚植与弘扬,更深刻影响公众对科学家乃至科学的整体认知与态度。研究综合运用定性和定量分析方法,以《中国科学报》和Wiely 2015-2020年科技人物报道为数据源,探索分析了国内外科学媒体在中国科学家形象塑造时的异同。结果显示:《中国科学报》科技人物报道以叙事记叙性通讯为体裁,男性且功成名就的科学家为主体,科学家形象塑造以展现宏观科学精神为主,日常生活与个性挖掘为辅;Wiely以谈话实录性通讯为核心叙事方式,聚焦当代青年科技精英,侧重对科学家职业和个性特征、科学与人文精神的共同勾画。两大科学媒体在科技人物报道对象及其形象塑造中均存在一定的性别刻板。据此,对科学媒体中科学家形象的塑造路径与策略提出了反思。     

中美基因合作研究引发争议的思考

以案例分析的方式,对“安徽基因事件”中引发争议的关于科学家的责任、国际合作中本国基因资源流失以及媒体是否应对科学进行调查等问题,进行了剖析与思考。指出:在大科学时代,科学家应肩负起对科学和社会的双重责任;严格审查、加强监管是防止基因资源大量流失的重要手段;对科学进行调查,不仅是媒体更应是科学组织内部的责任。     

Behavioural aspects of research management - a review

This paper attempts to summarize the recent behavioural science literature dealing with the management of research personnel and of the organizational research function.Sociologists are divided over the salience of the institutional norms of science for organizational scientists. Do scientists in corporate environments find themselves torn between values and norms of behaviour absorbed during professional training, and the possibly very different values and norms of the organization in which they subsequently work? If indeed scientists are principally oriented to the wider scientific community, what incentives can management offer in order to secure or maintain their commitment? A number of rather different studies have sought correlations between the effectiveness or productivity of scientists and various characteristics of the organizations in which they work. Positive relationships have been demonstrated with, inter alia, extent and pattern of communication, the nature of managerial control, incentives provided, sizes and ages of research groups, and functional compared to project organization. Of course, technically successful research is no guarantee of substantial utility for a commercial organization.Whilst most of the literature relates to the industrial situation, this review attempts from time to time to point its relevance for management in the public sector.     

我国科学家在计算机科学与工程领域的影响及存在的缺陷与对策

通过对Engineering Village 2的Compendex数据库的调研发现,尽管我国在计算机科学与工程领域总体上可以追随国际发展趋势,但存在严重缺陷。其一是我国科学家在各子领域内严重缺少影响力。其二是我国科学家在各子领域中未形成良好的权威结构。众多科学家研究焦点转换过于频繁,难以形成持续成果与持续的科学影响。弥补缺陷的有效措施是：加强科研投资及其有效使用率,健全科研项目评估体系与科研资金审计制度;推动科学共同体建设,鼓励科学家自由流动。     

实践逻辑视域下科学秩序的信任架构

 囿于“理论逻辑”的“学究式谬误”,实证主义科学话语体系固守“证伪主义”的科学教条,认为如果科学家信任他人,则“既置入了认识论错误,又具有道德危险”。然而,科学场域的实践逻辑表明,富有道德色彩的“情感型信任”内嵌于科学实践之中,它是科学场域内生的一种结构性资源,甚至科学知识体系本身就是一张由环环相扣的信任链条精心编织的“信任之网”。即使是科学认知层面的带有权宜性的怀疑,也依赖于道德层面的人际信任,科学信任既是怀疑的逻辑起点——即使彻底的科学怀疑主义者也基于一定的信任架构,也是怀疑的价值归宿点——科学怀疑的目的不是主张从道德尺度对科学家进行价值评判,而是提倡通过富有建设性的科学对话,增进科学家之间的信任和合作。有鉴于此,理应批判科学实证主义的话语霸权,从而在科学场域构筑一条从怀疑走向信任的科学通道。     

Academic scientists’ affiliation with university research centers: Selection dynamics

University research centers have been institutionalized as a part of the science policy repertoire committed to strategic use of science and technology. Based on a representative sample of academic scientists and engineers in American research universities, this study investigates the selection dynamics, attempting to unfold the determinants of department-affiliated faculty members to be center affiliates. The findings suggest that university research centers select their affiliates on the basis of individual scientific and technical human capital. Scientists from prestigious departments are more likely to be center affiliates, so are prolific scientists, former postdoctoral scholars and the elder cohorts. In the meantime, university research centers are able to overcome the incentive incongruity with academic departments, as is evidenced by a higher likelihood among junior scientists to secure center connections. Dedicated to diversity and equity, university research centers provide a level playing field for women, minority and foreign-born scientists. The study concludes with a discussion of the scientific and technical human capital theory and policy implications in the science enterprise.     

大力培养使用战略科学家，夯实国家战略科技力量

培养使用战略科学家是优化战略科技领域布局和改善战略科技资源配置的关键,夯实国家战略科技力量迫切需要大力培养使用战略科学家。文章阐释了战略科学家的基本特征,认为战略科学家应具有卓越的科研能力和突出的跨学科理解能力,卓越的科技前瞻能力和敏锐的辨识能力,卓越的组织攻关能力和杰出的领导力,以及浓厚的爱国情怀和强烈的使命担当。文章研究认为大的科研平台、大的发展趋势和大的科研任务是成就战略科学家的关键;崇尚创新、倡导包容和多元文化、重视教育和自主科研、强化基础研究是引导、培养和支持战略科学家成长的基础。战略科学家是在长期的科研实践中不断锤炼成长起来的,未来要推进战略科学家培养使用制度建设,构建体系化的战略科学家培养使用制度,健全全生命周期的战略科学家成长支撑体系。     

科学家参与科学传播:价值、关系与能力提升

科学家是科学信息的重要来源,是科学知识、科学方法和科学精神的发现者和创建者,在传播准确信息、避免科学谬误方面起到了至关重要的作用,因此,其参与科学传播的情况具有重要的研究价值。然而无论是从行动还是从效果而言,科学家参与科学传播一直存在着多方面的障碍和问题。本文以科学传播领域近年国际研究进展为参照,对比我国科学家的现实状况,从科学家参与科学传播的驱动因素、与公众和社交媒体的互动关系以及科学传播能力培训情况这三个方面出发,对科学家参与科学传播的研究图景展开分析与评述。结果显示,在驱动价值层面,社会责任感、乐趣驱动等内在因素以及社会认可度、群体归属意义等外部激励因素共同作用于科学家参与科学传播活动的结果,但总体看来,时间和经费有限、缺乏同事支持以及科学传播评估体系的不健全等因素都是不可忽视的阻碍,科学家参与科学传播还需要强有力的科技管理体制予以支持;在互动关系层面,科学家通过与公众和社交媒体的互动来传播科学,科学家的知名度、可信任度、权威性、传播风格、公众感知关系等是影响公众对科学认知的重要因素,然而,尽管科学家主动尝试改善与公众的互动关系并取得一定成效,但与媒体的分歧和缺乏默契配合也让他们的科学传播努力显得势单力薄;在能力提升层面,相关科学培训项目特别是源自于美洲的培训推动着科学家来提升自身进行科学传播技能,但是一方面,这些项目的效果评估缺乏统一有效的标准,因而争议不断;另一方面,学者多是将项目培训师的观点、背景及培训方法联系起来进行定性分析讨论,未来有待于在参与动机、影响因素以及培训效果方面进行更多的实证研究。在此背景下,我国的科学传播工作更显艰难、相关的研究进展也更为滞后。因此,建立详细可行的支持政策、划分科学传播实践对科研事业的贡献比重、打造系统化的科学能力培训项目都是助力我国科学家提升科学传播能力和效率的重要途径。总之,立足国际视野下科学家参与科学传播的整体面貌,找寻其面临的阻碍和存在的短板,将为改善我国的科学传播现状提供现实启发和借鉴。     

青年学者投身行星科学与深空探测的机遇和挑战

百年未有之大变局背景下的行星科学与深空探测领域发展,为新时代青年学者提供了千载难逢的机遇。行星科学的前沿科学问题,深空探测的关键技术难题,急需青年学者投身其中。但是,仍然存在一些因素制约了青年学者的发展。文章从青年学者的视角梳理了其投身行星科学与深空探测的机遇和挑战,并提出相应的政策建议,希望能促进青年学者参与实现我国行星科学与深空探测领域的强国梦。     

科研与科普结合历史视角下我国科研人员科普能力建设思考

随着对科研人员参与科普的呼声日益增加，在科学研究与科学普及结合的背景下开展科学普及工作成为评价科研人员和科研成果的一项要求，近年来有关部门出台了一系列相关的政策、法规、指南，鼓励科研人员开展科学普及工作。文章通过梳理科学研究与科学普及结合的历史以及有关政策中的相关要求，分析了科学研究与科学普及结合的必要性及存在的问题，给出提高科研人员科学普及能力的建议。     

科学博客的传播模式解读

科学博客作为科学工作者的知识管理系统,为加强科学家同行之间的交流,拉近科学家与公众的距离,促进公众科学的建构,提高公民的科学素养搭建了平台。解读科学博客的传播模式,探讨科学博客传播中的问题,对于科学博客的健康发展将起到积极的推动作用。     

基于扎根理论的我国科研人员科普工作路径研究

以26名来自全国不同区域的、供职于不同类型科技创新主体的科研人员为访谈对象,了解我国科研人员开展科普工作的最新进展,运用基于扎根理论的研究方法分析访谈材料后,绘制科研人员科普工作路径,即科研人员在内部驱动和外部支撑的共同促进下从事科普工作,科普工作是在科研人员有一定准备和积累的基础上,通过一定的渠道,生产应用于不同平台的、不同形式的科普成果。基于对现有路径的分析讨论,进一步绘制科研人员科普工作体系。     

让科学回归科学史

只有与科学知识本身和科学家所用的方法相结合,科学史研究的目标才能实现。这种结合应该是批判性的,带有历史学家独特的认识判断,而独立于当前科学家的认识判断。这些结论同样应该来自于对历史的一般功能,以及当科学成为我们研究对象时,历史如何发挥这些功能的思考。科学史应该将科学严肃地看成一种社会文化现象以及一种认识实践。     

Science in the everyday world: Why perspectives from the history of science matter

The history of science is more than the history of scientists. This essay argues that various modem "publics" should be counted as belonging within an enlarged vision of who constitutes the "scientific community"--and describes how the history of science could be important for understanding their experiences. It gives three examples of how natural knowledge-making happens in vernacular contexts: Victorian Britain's publishing experiments in "popular science" as effective literary strategies for communicating to lay and specialist readers; twentieth-century American science museums as important and contested sites for conveying both scientific ideas and ideas about scientific practice; and contemporary mass-mediated images of the "ideal" scientist as providing counternarratives to received professional scientific norms. Finally, it suggests how humanistic knowledge might help both scientists and historians grapple more effectively with contemporary challenges presented by science in public spheres. By studying the making and elaboration of scientific knowledge within popular culture, historians of science can provide substantively grounded insights into the relations between the public and professionals.     

Management,politics, and science: a nonseparable system

Philosophy of science, as understood by most social scientists, has given us an image of the scientific enterprise as a large hypothesis testing machine. One key unit within this enterprise is the individual scientist. He has learned or intuitively understands a set of logical rules which he brings to bear in ordering his thinking about a problem. Since he was pictured as operating within an unconstrained environment in an organizationally and morally simplistic world, his goal (scientific ‘truth’) was unambiguous, the organization and conduct of his work frictionless, and his only concerns were logic and measurements. Management and politics had no relationship to his pursuit of truth or the possibility of uncovering it. The other key unit, the scientific community, was equally autonomous from the world of management and politics. It was a social system in which problem definitions and decisions on truth are the joint result of open interaction among autonomous, rational, driven men and the impersonal automatic, application of the rules of evidence and logic.What guaranteed that this marvellous hypothesis testing machine actually operated in this fashion? The character and socialization of the individual scientist and the fact that interference in or imperfections of the process will result in erroneous truths which will eventually catch up with the perpetrators and punish them through individual, system, or societal failure, as in the inexorable workings of the market place of classical economics.If this was ever a very accurate picture of the scientific enterprise, the emergence of ‘Big Science’ has placed its adequacy seriously in doubt. ‘Big Science’ involves a research system in which (a) a consciously articulated goal exists; (b) there has been a commitment of resources and the organization and coordination of skills and institutions on a scale which only national governments can undertake; (c) the decentralized structures of the scientific community are replaced by planned administrative structures; and (d) it is rare that research problems or goals correspond to the neat disciplinary boundaries within science.Recognition of these developments in the scientific community is uneven and the reaction to them ambivalent and the philosophy and sociology of science have yet to come fully to terms with them.     

The matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s

Science is stratified, with an unequal distribution of research facilities and rewards among scientists. Awards and prizes, which are critical for shaping scientific career trajectories, play a role in this stratification when they differentially enhance the status of scientists who already have large reputations: the 'Matthew Effect'. Contrary to the Mertonian norm of universalism--the expectation that the personal attributes of scientists do not affect evaluations of their scientific claims and contributions--in practice, a great deal of evidence suggests that the scientific efforts and achievements of women do not receive the same recognition as do those of men: the 'Matilda Effect'. Awards in science, technology, engineering and medical (STEM) fields are not immune to these biases. We outline the research on gender bias in evaluations of research and analyze data from 13 STEM disciplinary societies. While women's receipt of professional awards and prizes has increased in the past two decades, men continue to win a higher proportion of awards for scholarly research than expected based on their representation in the nomination pool. The results support the powerful twin influences of implicit bias and committee chairs as contributing factors. The analysis sheds light on the relationship of external social factors to women's science careers and helps to explain why women are severely underrepresented as winners of science awards. The ghettoization of women's accomplishments into a category of 'women-only' awards also is discussed.