Wissenschaftsstädte – Zur Bedeutung des Topos der ‘kreativen Stadt’ für die Wissensproduktion

Science Cities: What the Concept of the Creative City Means for Knowledge Production. – The article aims to show that the relationship of science and the city has changed since the 1970s in the context of the knowledgeable society. While cities have principally been regarded as the typical space of science, of new ideas and innovation for centuries, since the 1960s and 1970s universities, research institutes as well as industrial research institutes have relocated to the periphery of cities. There, however, these sites of knowledge have been organized in an ‘urban mode’. That means that the concept of the city as a place of science and innovation has determined the architectural, spatial, and social organization of these sites on the periphery of cities. Certain features of the city have been copied, such as social infrastructures, places of communication, restaurants, cafes etc., while others have been left out – housing, cinema, theatre etc. An ‘urban mode of knowledge production’ in the sense of a very stylized model of the city has become a tool to enhance the production of scientific and technological knowledge. – The article exemplifies this by focusing on a case study, namely of the so‐called ‘Science City’ of the Siemens Company in Munich‐Neuperlach.     

毛泽东与中国科学技术的自主研发

毛泽东将科学技术视为革命者完成自身历史使命的重要工具,他洞见先进技术在后发国家追赶发达国家中的作用,将大力发展科学技术视为国家的重要职能,在西方国家封锁禁运、苏联毁约的困境下,千方百计引进先进科技并努力促进自主研发,果断地发展高科技产业,提高中华民族的国际地位,为中国进一步发展打下了基础。回顾毛泽东与中国科学技术自主研发的历程,有助于我们深刻认识和实践新形势下中共中央、国务院做出的建设创新型国家的重大战略决策。     

改革以前的中国共产党与自然科学基础理论研究

毛泽东是中国共产党科技思想发展的奠基者和探索者。他认为,科学技术是认识自然、改造自然、争取自由的思想武装;是推动生产力发展的革命力量;是经济和社会发展的重要动力;是社会主义本质的内在要求;是实行社会主义现代化的关键因素;是发挥社会主义制度优越性、赶超世界先进水平的重要保证。发展科学技术,要坚持跨越式发展和重视基础理论研究的统一;坚持自力更生和争取外援的统一;坚持社会革命和技术革命的统一;坚持培养人文精神和科学精神的统一;坚持党的领导和百花齐放、百家争鸣的统一;坚持发挥科学技术专家和普通工人群众的作用。毛泽东科技思想为邓小平科技思想的形成和发展奠定了理论基础。     

元代医祀三皇考

“三皇”曾是古史辨派学者们研究的重点,尤其是顾颉刚先辈对此颇有考证,但对医祀三皇的研究并不多,只是在《三皇考》中提及过。医祀三皇是元朝独有的现象,是医学发展到一定程度和元朝维护统治的必然产物;但它悖逆民族融合的潮流,因而未被后世承袭。     

马家浜文化区的地理景观

马家浜文化区的环境研究,以往都以1000年左右为尺度,即把马家浜文化作为一个基本时间单元来分析,所得结论是粗线条或大趋势性的。在马家浜文化研究近半个世纪的今天,我们已经有条件提取更多信息,变趋势性考察为过程性研究,进而描绘这一时期更加细微的演化曲线,构建人地关系景观。     

The coming of age of the history of archaeology

Publications and organizational developments relating to the history of archaeology from 1989 until June 1993 are critically examined. Attention is paid to the changing motivations for producing such publications, their shifting intellectual orientation, controversies, especially as they relate to internal vs external approaches and the epistemological status of explanations, problems of verification, and the status of these studies as a subfield within archaeology.     

The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Toolkit to Ubiquitous Spatial Perspective

In the 1970s and 1980s, regional analysis was an influential part of archaeological research, providing a discrete set of geographical tools inspired by a processual epistemological and interpretive perspective. With the advent of new technologies, new methods, and new paradigms, archaeological research on regional space has undergone significant changes. This article reviews the state of regional archaeology, beginning with a consideration of its history and a discussion of the fundamental issues facing regional investigations before focusing on developments over the last several years. On one hand, the diversification of archaeological theory has created new paradigms for thinking about human relationships with one another and with the physical environment across regional space; in this regard, historical ecology, landscape archaeology, and evolutionary theory have been particularly influential in recent years. This has led to a corresponding diversification of the traditional methods of regional analysis. Most notably, the advent of powerful digital technologies has introduced new tools, especially those from the geographic information sciences, that build on the quantitative methods of past approaches. The investigation of regional data is no longer based on a discrete toolkit of simple mathematical and graphical procedures for representing spatial relationships. Instead, regional archaeology has matured into a diversity of multiscalar spatial and geostatistical techniques that inform many areas of archaeological inquiry.     

Currents and trends in the archaeological sciences

Here I use ISI Web of Knowledge to build on a recent paper by Butzer (2009) and track current trends in the archaeological sciences. I researched eight thematic keywords replete in the title, abstract, keywords and main body of archaeological science literature for the period 1970–2008. For all keywords investigated a steady rise in archaeological science research is evidenced after 1980, with pronounced growth occurring after 2000. I attribute this pattern to the standardisation of research production and academic evaluation, in addition to the democratisation of new information technologies, notably the Internet. The evolution of 10 leading archaeological science journals was also tracked. Since the 1970s, the bibliometric data show that nine of the ten journals have successfully expanded on an annual basis. I found that the biggest growers (the Journal of Archaeological Science [JAS], the Journal of Human Evolution and the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology) are all published by Elsevier. In 2008, the JAS was ranked first for five of the eight thematic keywords by ISI, underlining the popularity and interdisciplinary scope of the journal. According to the 2008 Journal Citation Reports, the JAS ranks second for total citations (4219) in archaeological science and third for its overall impact factor (1.779).     

关于旅游学几个基本理论问题的思考

从旅游学的理论构成和形成特点看,旅游学属交叉科学;从旅游学的作用和功能看,旅游学又是一门软科学。旅游学的研究对象是旅游系统,具有交叉性、综合性、系统性、群体性和实践性等特点。旅游学的学科体系可以有多种分类。若按学科划分的规范方法,旅游学可以划分为旅游基础理论和旅游应用理论两部分。     

WHAT IS HISTORY? WHAT IS LITERATURE?

Ivan Jablonka seeks something other than a mere combination of history, social science, and literature. He would like history, itself understood as a social science, to be a literature of the real world. He is also interested in literature informed not only by the results but, more important, by the forms of reasoning and inquiry of history and related social sciences (notably anthropology and sociology). Jablonka's own positioning within the Annales seems obvious, notably in his stress on cognition, problem‐oriented research, and the status of history as a social science. But the attention and research devoted in the work of scholars in and around the Annales to the relations among history, literature, and fiction have not been pronounced, and in this context Jablonka inflects the understanding of history in relatively underdeveloped directions. Despite possible disagreements one may have over specific issues, Jablonka's thought‐provoking book raises very important questions, opens many significant avenues of inquiry, and seeks a desirable interaction between historical and literary approaches.