改革开放以来中国中外关系史研究综论——以中国中外关系史学会为视角

中国中外关系史学科,是改革开放以后建立的新兴学科。1981年中国中外关系史学会成立,标志着中国中外关系史学科的创立。回顾学科的发展轨迹,中国中外关系史学会四十余年的发展历程与中国中外关系史研究的发展密不可分。学术共同体平台的搭建,极大地推动了中国中外关系史学科体系、学术体系、话语体系的建设与发展,对古代中国与世界关系研究做出了重要贡献,藉此也可展望学科未来发展的前景。     

功能与定位:关于世界史学科的两点想法

目前,争取世界史学科提升为一级学科的工作取得了新的进展(世界史已获批准提升为一级学科),今后我们将迎来世界历史学科迅猛发展的大好时机。在此之际,我们应该认真从历史学理论和研究方法等角度寻找世界历史研究中存在的问题,探讨学科的发展方向;同时需要进一步改进《世界历史》杂志的工作,以迎接世界历史学科大发展时机的到来。为此,《世界历史》于2010年12月18日召开编委会会议,讨论主题为世界历史研究中存在的问题与世界历史学科的发展方向——兼谈如何把《世界历史》建设成为国际学术名刊。现将会议发言选登如下。     

当代俄罗斯史学中动乱学研究的新趋向

苏联解体后,俄罗斯学界开始反思20世纪初的革命,在深化对17世纪初大动乱研究的基础上,形成一种以“动乱”取代“革命”的话语,采用多学科综合研究的方法,构建以“动乱—帝国”为模型的俄国国家系统性危机理论体系的动乱学研究范式。该范式强调,17世纪初、20世纪初和20世纪末发生的历史事件是俄国国家制度的三次系统性危机(即动乱),前两次危机都以建立帝国而结束,俄国历史在“动乱—帝国”的周期性节律中循环。动乱学的提出,是21世纪“俄罗斯学”和“帝国学”研究热潮下的产物,也是一部分俄国学者对当前俄罗斯向何处去的一种回答。但作为建构一门新学科的尝试,其学科体系尚待进一步深化。     

考古学与神话学的碰撞——从沂南汉墓画像中“羽人”与“大傩”的讨论谈起

《沂南古画像石墓发掘报告》出版后,孙作云先生与曾昭燏先生就沂南汉画像中的"羽人"、"大傩"等内容和汉画像基本思想进行了讨论。讨论不仅反映了考古学与神话学的碰撞,而且揭示了古代物质文化和精神文化的研究需采用不同的学科理论和研究方法。     

比较考古学的方法论思考

一对两件或多件事物进行比较,是人类获得对事物之间关系或事物本身性质认识的基本方法之一,这被广泛应用于社会科学研究,其中文学、法学和人类学等学科已经建立了一套相当成熟的比较研究理论和方法体系,并在此基础上展开各类专题研究,甚至形成相应的学科分支,如比较文学、比较法学、比较政治学和比较社会学等。     

整合高校档案资源实行“大档案”管理分析

近些年来,随着现代化进程的加快和信息时代的来临,我国社会的发展日益呈现出一种资源整合和信息高速化的现象。作为培养高素质人才的我国高校在过去几十年来在学科方面取得了长足的发展,为国家和社会培养了大批建设型人才,推动了经济的发展和全民素质的提高。然而高校在管理方面却停滞不前,这主要体现在档案管理不足上。本文就针对这一问题,通过对高校档案管理的现状进行分析,进而提出几点建议。     

新世纪方志学发展刍议

在20世纪与我们匆匆揖别之后,素有忧患意识传统的方志人是否已就自己在20世纪所留下的足迹作了深刻的反省,并做好了进入新一个世纪大发展的充分准备?我们方志人向以默默无闻的埋头苦干精神为荣,也以此称,但是值此世纪之初,每一位对方志学这一学科的发展前途具有责任感的同仁,都完全有必要把自己的视线从本中稍许移开片刻,对自己投身于其中的方志学事业作一宏观的思索。     

思想政治教育学的学科体系和学科特点浅析

思想政治教育学作为一门独立的学科,具有内在的学科体系,这一学科体系主要包括：思想政治教育学的理论性学科、思想政治教育学的实践性学科和思想政治教育学的交叉性学科。同时,思想政治教育学又具有明显的学科特点,这些特点分别是：阶级性、科学性、实践性、创新性、批判性、艺术性、借鉴性、全面性和实效性等等。     

教会大学的学科设置与分合——以沪江大学政治学科及历史学科为中心

在沪江大学的学科发展史上,政治学科与历史学科的发展经历了一个此消彼长的过程。最初,政治学类课程被划归到历史学科之下。其后,政治学科创立,与历史学科共同成为"社会科学科"之下的学程。再其后,政治学科与历史学科联合设系。最后,历史学科被融入到政治学科之中,附属于政治学科。沪江大学政治学科和历史学科的分合变化,实为校方不断调整办学定位的产物。从结果来看,此种调整使沪江大学的历史学科避免了同类学校名不副实、低质量发展的困境,又赋予了其政治学科经世致用的特色和深厚的历史学基础,走出了一条精简务实的教会大学办学之路。     

构建中华人民共和国史研究学科体系初探

中华人民共和国史的内涵、性质与特征,特别是国史发展的主题与主线、主流与本质,规定了国史研究的指导思想,也决定了构建国史研究学科体系、学术体系和话语体系的学理基础。国史研究学科体系是国史研究发展到一定阶段的产物,同时对国史研究起着引导和推动作用。根据国史研究的学科属性和特点,国史研究学科体系主要应由国史史源与史料学、理论研究类学科、国史本体研究类学科和国史研究交叉类学科所构成。这一学科体系是国史本体论、认识论和方法论的统一,也是需要在新的起点上坚持问题导向、推动创新发展的。确立起成熟、完善的学科体系,是国史研究成为相对独立学科并发展成熟的主要标志。     

The reinvention of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 1992–2012

This article examines the most recent history of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, with particular emphasis on how this laboratory shifted its research program from accelerator-based particle physics towards astroparticle physics, cosmology and multi-disciplinary photon science. Photon science became the central experimental research program through a series of changes in the organisational, scientific, and infrastructural set-up and in its science policy context. The article shows that SLAC’s reinvention unfolded in a science policy context in which funding priorities drifted towards the materials sciences and the life sciences at the expense of nuclear and particle physics, which had dominated science budgets during the Cold War. SLAC took a lead position in this global development by partly dismantling and also redeploying scientific and technical capabilities from its particle physics program for these new fields, thus, providing novel experimental facilities for user communities to expand across academia and industry.     

Cultures of Incomprehension?: The Legacy of the Two Cultures Debate at the End of the Twentieth Century

This paper considers the impact of Snow's Two Culture's thesis on debates about the place of science and scientists in society in the latter part of the twentieth century. Debates concerned with the public understanding of science and the ‘science wars’, both of which relied to some extent on the dividing of society into ‘two cultures’, are contextualised within longer efforts by scientists to popularise definitions of science and society and their relationship with other epistemic communities. This paper argues that we should think about all these episodes as part of ongoing rhetorical boundary work, reflective of strains and stressors on science as an institution. The two cultures debate has provided one powerful rhetorical device, amongst many, for ongoing boundary work to establish or question science as the dominant form of knowledge in society and delineate who is allowed to speak for it, and wield its power.     

当代中国科普观的历史演进

科普观是一个时期人们关于科普内涵、功能、对象、任务等方面形成的基本态度和主流意识,受特定时期政治、经济、教育、科技文化诸因素的影响,对科普实践具有重要作用。本文以科普史料为基础,以科普四要素——科普语境、科普主体、科普内容和科普受众的特征分析为线索,对建国后我国科普观进行历史梳理。     

西方“学者传统”的科学观述评

西方科学发展史上学者传统的科学观把对知识和真理的追求视为科学的目标和动力,认为科学是与经济利益无关的一种纯学术活动。这种科学观一方面激发了科学家投身科学、献身真理的勇气,倡导了一种纯洁的学术风气;另一方面,它又忽视了科学与社会生产之间的联系,对科学本身的发展和人类文化的丰富性、多样化是不利的。     

Civic Science and Salmon Recovery Planning in Puget Sound

Today, science and scientists as experts no longer hold sway as unquestioned authoritative sources of objective information in many policy debates. This has led to growing frustration on the part of government officials and scientists over their inability to have science exert as meaningful a role as they think appropriate in the consideration and selection of policy alternatives. Given this development, what can be done to restore or otherwise ensure that the appropriate science and scientists are integrated into the policy process so that they matter to policy outcomes? There is general agreement that traditional top‐down, one‐way (from scientists to others), linear models for conceptualizing the role of science and scientists in the policy process are not capable of capturing the changed political, social, and “scientific” realities of the contemporary policymaking context. Many have gravitated to the concept of civic science/scientists as a new and improved model. Yet, despite clear progress in reconceptualizing the role of science in the policy process, there are gaps in the literature when it comes to actual applications of civic science. As McNie correctly notes: “it is essential that we develop a more robust understanding of experience and practical experiments regarding how relationships [and institutions] are constructed and managed across the science‐society boundary” (p. 29). This research develops lessons for civic science in the policy process by exploring an innovative collaborative governance effort by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries and the Shared Strategy for Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound (Washington). The integration of science into the salmon recovery process in this case relied on a series of actions that the Technical Recovery Team (TRT) took to bridge the traditionally separate science and policy spheres in order to increase the certainty of science impact, specific steps taken to establish and maintain the TRTs role as an authoritative, credible source of science, and the embrace of a results‐oriented, adaptive learning approach.     

Taking Direction: New Dramaturgies of Science from the Splice Symposium and the Performing Science Conference

Abstract

This short article responds to two recent conferences on performance and science: the Splice Symposium (Chimera Network/University of Notre Dame) and Performing Science (University of Lincoln). Rather than a conventional conference report, the author reflects on a selection of presentations in the light of issue one of ISR’s ‘theatre and science’ series.     

Shadows on the landscape: an inquiry into the value of some Australian places

In 1922, Australian places connected with a solar eclipse were of world‐historical significance as they were associated with empirical confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity. They also formed a major part of Australian national consciousness, although they have since reverted to lost geographies. An exploration of Australian reception of eclipse science leads to questions of official heritage construction and stereotypical national identity. An argument is presented for the importance of intangible heritage at national, communal, and individual levels. At the complex intersection between memory and identity, place value is investigated within wider social‐political formations with emphasis on participation across perceived boundaries of social class, gender, and ethnicity, including the valuable role of Aboriginal peoples.     

科学技术地理学——人文地理学的分支学科之一

科学技术地理学将科学技术作为人类活动的一种特殊形式进行考察,将科学技术发展与地区特定的地理条件结合起来研究,它是人文地理学的分支学科。本文简述科学技术地理学的发展状况、学科特点及其对国家经济建设的重要作用,进而将其基本内容归纳为八个方面:1.科学技术布局的条件;2.科技人材的分布和流动;3.科学技术中心;4.科研与生产结合的地域表现;5.科学技术地域差异和类型;6.科学技术的生态效益和社会效益;7.科学技术的转移与技术市场;8.科学技术的地域体系。     

HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE: SOME LESSONS FOR PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Rheinberger's brief history brings into sharp profile the importance of history of science for a philosophical understanding of historical practice. Rheinberger presents thought about the nature of science by leading scientists and their interpreters over the course of the twentieth century as emphasizing increasingly the local and developmental character of their learning practices, thus making the conception of knowledge dependent upon historical experience, “historicizing epistemology.” Linking his account of thought about science to his own work on “experimental systems,” I draw extensive parallels with other work in the local history of science (the ideas of Latour, Pickering, Rouse, and others) and consider the epistemological implications both for the relation between history and philosophy of science and between history and theory more broadly. In doing so, I suggest that the long‐standing gap between the natural sciences and history as a “human science” has been significantly bridged by the insistence upon the local, mediated, indeed “historicized epistemology” of actual science.     

THE MISSING NARRATIVIST TURN IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SCIENCE

The narrativist turn of the 1970s and 1980s transformed the discussion of general history. With the rejection of Rankean historical realism, the focus shifted to the historian as a narrator and on narratives as literary products. Oddly, the historiography of science took a turn in the opposite direction at the same time. The social turn in the historiography of science emphasized studying science as a material and practical activity with traceable and documentable traits. This empirization of the field has led to an understanding that history of science could be directly describable from scientific practice alone without acknowledging the role of the historian as a constructor of narratives about these practices. Contemporary historians of science tend to be critical of science's ability to describe its object—nature, as it is—but they often are not similarly skeptical of their own abilities to describe their object: past science, as it is. I will argue that historiography of science can only gain from a belated narrativist turn.