实践是解读邓小平南巡谈话唯一的科学途径

实践是解读邓小平南巡谈话中"社会主义本质论"、"社会主义市场经济论"和"判断标准理论"的唯一科学路径.特定客观现实条件下的实践需要是贯穿理论发展与社会变革的基本线索.     

多元智力理论与人才培养

多元智力理论认为,每一个体的智力都是多元的,都具有自己的特点和独特的组合方式。同时,智力的本质是实践能力和创造能力,个体智力的发展方向和程度受到特定社会文化的影响和制约。这一理论对当前我国人才培养有以下几点启示:促进人的全面发展;尊重人的个性发展;注重培养人的实践能力和创造能力;重视社会文化与人的发展相结合。     

民办高校文化素质教育载体探寻

高校是培养人才的基地,当今世界经济全球化和科学技术的迅猛发展,使人才的竞争日趋激烈。"教育要全面适应现代化建设对各类人才培养的需要"就必须把文化素质教育的思想和理念摆在突出重要的位置,不断创新和发展文化素质教育的有效平台。文章从民办高校特定的办学条件出发,分析了民办高校推行文化素质教育的实际困难和特定环境,通过实践探索总结出民办高校实施文化素质教育的一条有效途径和基本模式。     

试论社会创新实践

社会创新实践是人类谋求对社会结构中各主要构成要素进行结构性和功能性升级的实践活动。它是人类社会实践的一种重要形式,本质是社会创新的对象化过程,是创新理念的现实展开,其核心是打破和更新社会要素的结构,创造和升级社会要素的功能,以实现社会的总体发展。它是人类实践活动的重要内容,但又不同于一般的社会实践,具有自己特定的内涵、特性和类型。     

共同富裕实践路径选择的境界与层次：共享还是分享

共同富裕是社会主义的本质要求,是党的奋斗目标。共享发展是新时期我国经济社会发展的政治、伦理取向,是实现共同富裕的实践理念与实践路径。共同富裕实践是共享还是分享,体现出政治与伦理取向下的不同发展取向与分配方式,呈现为共享的不同层次的境界;共享形式的无偿与有偿是特定所有权结构下的需要或制度安排,有其分配的合理性与正当性依据。不同所有权属性的共享形式有其不同的共享份额;劳动参与的分配体现为共建共享,而共建参与面很有限,在特定市场结构下存在一定的局限性。基于共享内涵、共享理念与共享实践之辨析,探讨所有权宽度、共享实践范围与分享的厚度之逻辑,明晰劳动参与面、市场化深度与共享权益之结构。进而,基于共享发展理念的逻辑推演,构建共同富裕的共享实现机制,化解影响共享的诸如所有权、市场、技术等各类结构性问题,在实践层面引导先富带动后富,促进共建共享参与,增强生产性福利,增进劳动者福利。     

高校社团文化建设初探

高校社团是由高校学生依据兴趣爱好自愿组成,按照章程自主开展活动的学生组织。高校应将社团打造成培养学生创新能力和实践能力,促进学生成长与成才的广阔舞台。社团成员应在特定规则的约束和指导下,围绕组织目标行动,实现社团组织的社会化功能;社团组织的成立、发展、合并和退出,应有规范化的管理制度和管理模式加以约束;社团组织成员应按照角色定位,协同完成特定的组织活动,并最终将社团文化内化为固定的行为模式。     

科学理解"全面建设小康社会"的完整内涵

全面建设小康社会的发展定位,应当是社会主义初级阶段的一个特定发展阶段;全面建设小康社会的发展特征,应当是社会全面性、整体性和持续性的发展;全面建设小康社会的发展要求,应当是由数量扩张向质量提升的发展转型;全面建设小康社会的发展目标,应当既是现代化发展的阶段目标,又是实现中国社会长期发展目标的现实实践.     

论马克思主义的实践性品格及其历史延续

马克思主义是具有实践意义的科学体系。马克思主义作为一种以实践性为本质特征的理论学说,从实践中产生,在实践中发展,以改变现实世界的实践为目的,并且不断被新的实践所补充、修正和完善。当年,马克思不但把解决哲学问题的任务交给了实践,还把它交给了一个特定的阶级——无产阶级,他用毕生精力关心并且为之奋斗的问题就是无产阶级和全人类的解放。这就决定了马克思主义理论的实践性和马克思主义的“改变世界”的宗旨,而这也正是马克思主义的科学性和生命力之所在。     

中国现代化模式的主要特征

中国的现代化模式既不是与生俱来的,也不是一成不变的,而是与特定的历史背景、实践基础、发展任务、客观条件等紧密相连的,它经历了一个不断丰富和完善的历史进程。自主性、实践性、开放性、兼容性、渐进性和稳定性是中国现代化模式的主要特征,也是中国现代化模式取得成功的关键所在。     

地方人大特定问题调查权研究

特定问题调查权是宪法、地方组织法、监督法等法律赋予县级以上各级人大及其常委会的一项重要的刚性职权.依法启动和运用这项权力,是转变人大监督工作弱化局面、强化人大监督职能所必要和急需的条件.从现实来看,特定问题调查权的行使还跟不上人大监督的实践需求.忽视这项权力的功能,已成为人大监督制度之软肋.如何在现有法律条文的框架内,在监督实践中有效启动、行使特定问题调查权,考验着地方各级人大及工作者的智慧和勇气.我们应从纠正对特定问题调查权的认识偏差、完善和细化法律法规增强其可操作性、准确界定特定问题的范围、明确调查权限和时限、增强特定问题调查的公开性和实效性、完善与其他监督方式的协调机制等方面,构建起完善的特定问题调查制度.     

The Pro-Life Movement in Japan

The birth rate in Japan is among the lowest in the world. But what about the abortion rate? This essay examines changes in abortion practice in Japan over time, and especially after WWII and the passage of the 1948 Eugenic Protection Law, comparing the influence of Buddhism, Protestantism, and Catholicism on the practice of abortion in Japan. This essay takes a particular look at the career of Dr. Kikuta Noboru, who helped revolutionize Japanese adoption laws after his conversion to Christianity.     

Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model

Policy Sciences - Over the last two decades, the design practice has been expanding to the public sphere to generate solutions for public challenges. In particular, the reflections on the design...     

UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: AN ACTOR‐NETWORK PERSPECTIVE

Development projects are central to international development, yet the actual practice of their implementation is under‐researched. In particular, we know little about how practice affects project performance and about how politics is enacted within such projects. This paper investigates these knowledge gaps through analysis, using actor‐network theory (ANT), of a donor‐funded reform project in the Sri Lankan public sector. By analysing, using mobilisation, interaction and disintegration of the local and global actor‐networks that typically surround such development projects, the paper explains the project's trajectory. These actions represent the practice of politics that must, in turn, be understood in relation to network actor power: not through a static conception of ‘capacitive power’ but through the dynamic enacted concept of ‘associative power’. The paper concludes by reflecting on the contribution and limitations of ANT's local/global networks component in analysing development projects, and in providing insights for development project practice. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

International Organizations in Transfer of Infectious Diseases: Iterative Loops of Adoption, Adaptation, and Marketing

Over the past few years increasing attention has been given to the role of international organizations in the diffusion of policy ideas and promotion of particular macro-level policies. Much of the attention has been on the ideological driving forces behind such policies, and on the extent to which the policies are externally imposed. There has been limited discussion on the bread-and-butter, technical policies of international organizations, and how they devise, adopt, adapt, and then promote what come to be seen as policies of global "best practice." This paper seeks to redress this gap by looking at the process of transfer of two infectious disease policies between international and national levels. It demonstrates that international organizations play different roles in policy transfer at particular stages in the process. The paper suggests that health policy transfer is a long adaptive process, made up of several iterative loops, as research and clinical practices developed in one or more countries are adopted, adapted, and taken up by international organizations which then mobilize support for particular policies, market, and promote them. Assumptions that new ideas about policies flow "rationally" into existing decision making are challenged by the processes analyzed here. Policy transfer, given the experience of these infectious diseases policies, goes through separate, "bottom-up," research-oriented, and "top-down" marketing-oriented loops. Individuals and different configurations of networks play key roles linking these loops. In the process, complex, context-specific policies are repackaged into simplified guidelines for global best practice, leading to considerable contestation within the policy networks.     

Word and Deed: A Deweyan Integration of Deliberative and Participatory Democracy

This article draws on the political philosophy of John Dewey as one way to re-think the relationship between deliberative and participatory democracy. Rather than focusing on differences, Dewey's ideal of democracy allows us to bridge these two theories while still being attentive to the tensions between them. In particular, Dewey helps us conceptualize deliberative and participatory practices as distinctive yet complementary phases within a larger circuit of cooperative inquiry. To illustrate the argument, a case study of one democratic experiment that effectively combined different forms of practice is presented. In doing so, it is contended that we might be able to recover and incorporate some of the more radical features of participatory democracy into deliberative practices. Participatory theory's focus on political action and structural inequality, in addition to deliberation, as essential to citizen-centered democratic practice is specifically emphasized.     

The deceptive illusion of multi-paradigm development practice

This article responds to commentaries by Blunt, Bell and Joy on Cooke's ‘From process consultation to a clinical model of development practice’ in the August 1997 issue of Public Administration and Development. Following the paradigmatic analyses those commentaries introduce, it begins by trying to clarify the range of meanings attributed to the term ‘paradigm’. It then argues, that Blunt's critique does actually derive from a particular single (i.e. mono-) paradigm, the application of which causes my initial arguments to be mis-represented, and exemplifies the limits of that paradigm in practice. It goes on to agree that generic process approaches do have some cultural limitations, and that they can be used for ideological manipulation, although not inevitably in the pursuit of so-called democratic values. The clinical-process model is, however, distinct from these generic approaches and actually provides some safeguard against these problems. The article moves on to demonstrate that a multi-paradigm approach to practice, as opposed to analysis, is illusory, because it is impossible, and deceptive, as claims for multi-paradigm practice conceal the practitioner's inescapable paradigmatic assumptions. In conclusion it argues that until we recognize that ‘development’ per se is a ruling paradigm we are all imprisoned within it. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dialogical approaches to struggles over recognition and distribution

This paper contrasts three non-skeptical ways of explaining and reconciling political struggles: monologue, instrumental dialogue, and a comparative dialogical approach promoted by Charles Taylor and James Tully. It surveys the work of Taylor and Tully to show three particular family resemblances: their emphasis on practice, irreducible diversity, and periodic reconciliation. These resemblances are evident in the way they employ dialogical approaches to explain struggles over recognition and distribution. They describe these as dialogical actions, and suggest that a form of dialogical comparison might reconcile their various contested demands.     

From process consultation to a clinical model of development practice

This article argues that two related concepts, process consultation and, in particular, the clinical perspective, developed by the organizational psychologist Edgar Schein, can improve the understanding, teaching and conduct of development practice. Process consultation, which is more than just the application of so-called process approaches, and the clinical perspective are described, and the case for them is put, in relation to contrasts with ethnography and action research and in the light of contemporary debates about the relationship between development studies and development practice. Five particular aspects of the clinical model—the primacy of the ‘helpful intervention’, the subservience of science to helping, its client centredness, its recognition of interventionists’ financial and political status, and its overt normativeness—are seen as particularly relevant to development practice. In conclusion, the clinical model is seen to pose four challenges for development studies: the creation of development's own theory of practice, the establishment of rigorous practitioner training programmes, the consequent institutional change, and an acknowledgement of the implications of development studies’ disciplinary biases. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. Vol. 17 , 325–340 (1997). No. of Figures: 0. No. of Tables: 0. No. of Refs: 48.     

试论中关村抽象行政行为听证制度

中关村抽象行政行为的听证制度是指所辖中关村科技园区的行政组织在制定适用于中关村科技园区的规范性文件时听取行政管理相对人意见的一种制度.中关村抽象行政行为听证有着一系列的功能,建立这样的制度有其必要性与可行性,在具体操作时要遵循一定的程序规则与适用范围.     

Pedagogy from and for Social Movements: A Conversation Between Theory and Practice

Much radical writing on academia is grounded in a mystified view of knowledge in which an ecosocialist pedagogy would be “theory from above.” This article argues for a different understanding of knowledge as materially situated in social and ecological relationships; oriented towards practice; developmental and contested from below, demystifying third-level education from the perspective of movement-generated knowledge. Concretely, this means starting from participants’ existing praxis and “learning from each other’s struggles”—using “frozen” movement theory and activist experience—to move towards a wider, more radical understanding. In Ireland such pedagogy is rooted in working-class community self-organising, rural environmental justice alliances, women’s and GLTBQ activism, and the anti-capitalist “movement of movements,” encapsulating Audre Lorde’s dictum, “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” The article focusses in particular on a “Masters for activists.” The course supports movement participants to deepen and develop their activist practice but also to situate it within these wider and more radical understandings and emancipatory alliances. Taking movement praxis—rather than “contemplative” knowledge—as a starting point raises very different questions about theory and practice, forms and distribution of knowledge and the purpose and shape of learning.