1,721,095 research outputs found
Ren kou xue kan /
No full textPublisher: Guo li Taiwan da xue ren kou yu xing bie yan jiu zhong xin, Description based on: Di 4 qi
Theory and Practice of Jurisprudens
No full text本文是以韋伯所提的價值多元做為現代世界必須直接面對的現實條件，以及韋伯本人對學術之定位以及學者之專業倫理要求為出發點。試圖以Habermas以及Alexy所提出的溝通式的、程序性的理性概念定義來做為解決價值命題對錯與否的突破方式，一方面能使應然學術取得能被學術性討論的意義，另一方面，由於溝通行動所預設的，那種由illocutionary語言活動產生之言說者的規範性，在語言活動具有理性論證形式時，將進一步要求參與言說者必須遵從其所主張內容的規範性。
如果這樣的理性觀念使得以價值命題做為主要討論對象之一的應然學術成為可能，也就同時使得某種可視為以（以哈特的語言做一個比喻）純粹外在觀點式的，觀察者式的將應然命題僅僅做為對象來研究討論的應然學術失去其意義。因為即使從事這種性質之應然學術的學者在價值參照的意義下將自己的研究方法與範圍如此限定，但他無法限定自己成為一個「不溝通」或「不言說」者；反過來說，任何從事應然學術的學者一定需要在真實與具體的溝通情境中做出帶有「正確性宣稱」的主張，也就是說，基於溝通理性所內含的或者言說規則所設定的規範性，他必須依其主張內容來行事。值得附帶一提的是，學術界對理想溝通環境的實現程度或言說規則的遵守程度其實是相對更高的，學術甚至存在著對其盡力實現與遵守，藉以確保學術進步的內在要求。
這樣的結論其實是與韋伯對學術的定位有所扞挌的，建立在上述特定的理性觀之上的應然學術，不僅恐怕不會價值中立，甚至還要成為自己主張的施行者，才真正「符合」了這種學術立身基礎的理性要求。不過另外這也產生其他重要的問題，尤其是此時這類的學術，其與政治之間的關係，亦即具有目的的學術，以及做為實現特定目標的終極手段之權力，甚至是武力，之間的關係應如何澄清，更是需要進一步探討的問題。摘 要……………………………………………………………………Ⅰ
目 次.......................................................Ⅱ
第一章 序論
第一節 源起……………………………………………………………1
第二節 問題意識的具體化……………………………………………3
第一項 基於職業所為？……………………………………………………………4
第二項 學術的專業倫理……………………………………………………………6
第三項 當權力進入舞台……………...…………………………………………….9
第三節 價值多元的現實……………...………………………………12
第一項 做為探討專業倫理基礎的多元性………………………………………..12
第二項 價值多元之意義…………………………………………………………..14
第二章 對「學術」的界定
第一節 韋伯所使用的學術界定……………………………………...16
第一項 學術與理知化的進步……………………………………………………..16
第一款 社會科學作為一種科學學術………………………………………..16
第二款 理知化的進步做為科學學術的理念………………………………..20
第三款 真理的客觀符應論…………………………………………………..22
第二項 處理終極意義之學術性可能……………………………………………..22
第一款 危機的產生…………………………………………………………..22
第二款 以一個未完全成功的辯護開始……………………………………..25
第二節 處理終極意義之學術………………………………………...27
第一項 對以價值問題為論述對象的客觀性探討………………………………..27
第二項 容許探討價值問題的學術…………………………………………….….33
第一款 處理終極意義之學術的理念………………………………………..33
第二款 處理終極意義之學術的合理性條件…………………………...…...35
第三款 小結…………………………………………………………………..37
第三章 學術倫理
第一節 韋伯之學術倫理…………………………………………..…39
第一項 學者不能犧牲理知……………………………………………………….40
第一款 意義………………………………………………………………….40
第二款 對此義務之違反所具有的倫理性內涵…………………………….41
第三款 學術性還是學術倫理？…………………………………………….42
第四款 客觀價值為做為學術之倫理性基礎………………………….……44
第二項 政治不屬於課堂………………………………………………………….46
第一款 意義………………………………………………………………….47
第二款 對此義務之違反所具有的倫理性內涵…………………………….48
第三款 一點澄清以及小結………………………………………………….50
第三項 學術中立………………………………………………………………….51
第一款 意義………………………………………………………………….51
第二款 學術中立要求之基礎……………………………………………….52
第四項 上述學術倫理之比較與檢討…………………………………………….53
第一款 不同學術倫理適用之對象………………………………………….53
第二款 出發點不同所造成之差異………………………………………….53
第三款 清明………………………………………………………….………54
第一目 學者不能犧牲理知…………………………………………….55
第二目 政治不屬於課堂……………………………………………….55
第三目 學術中立……………………………………………………….56
第四款 小結………………………………………………………………….57
第四節 處理終極意義問題的學術倫理……………………………..59
第一項 不可犧牲理性…………………………………………………………….59
第一款 合理之判斷………………………………………………………….60
第二款 遵守規則的態度…………………………………………………….61
第三款 由遵守規則所衍生之面向………………………………………….61
第二項 小結：實踐的拘束性………………………………………….…………63
第一款 提出實踐命題的傾向………………………………………………63
第二款 應然命題做為實踐命題的重要提出形式…………………………64
第三款 進行以應然形式出現之實踐命題論證所衍生之倫理要求………65
參考文獻………………………………………………………………..………7
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
