全国政策科学研究会学科建设研讨会观点综述

全国政策科学研究会学科建设研讨会于 2 0 0 0年 8月 1— 3日在井冈山召开。与会的专家学者主要围绕着政策科学基础理论、政策实践和政策科学如何为政策实践服务等问题进行了深入的探讨 ,提出了许多有价值的见解。多数学者认为 ,当前 ,政策科学基础理论研究的重点应是如何构建有中国特色的政策科学理论体系 ;政策实践研究的重点应是中国社会转型期的公共政策问题 ;政策科学如何为政策实践服务应重点探讨政策科学理论进入政策实践的途径。这是政策科学学科建设的三个着力点。　　一、关于构建有中国特色政策科学理论体系问题有的学者提出 ,要…     

跨学科研究视野下的领导科学创新

现代科学发展表明，科学上的重大突破、新学科的产生发展，常常是在不同学科彼此交叉、相互渗透的过程中实现的，因此，跨学科研究已成为现代科学创新发展的新路径和新动力。跨学科的基本内涵和主要类型的研究对推进领导科学创新的启示是多方面的，包括概念的生成、范畴的确立、数据的积累、方法的移植、理论的借用、体系的构建、内容的完善等，但最主要的是为人们在领导科学研究领域开展跨学科研究工作提供了方法论的指导和路径借鉴。运用跨学科研究的视野和范式，推进领导科学创新与发展，当前，重点可从以下五个方面入手：一是大力开展以领导科学问题为主题的跨学科研究；二是努力形成以研究领导科学问题为主的多元方法论体系；三是切实推进领导科学学科的分化与整合；四是建立完善推进领导科学跨学科研究的体制、机制和制度；五是重视领导科学跨学科研究人才的培养和队伍建设。     

中国政策科学的理论困境及其本土化出路

十多年来,我国政策科学在现实政策问题的推动下显得异常的活跃,但由于理论和方法主要是照搬其他学科和西方的体系,缺乏学科自身理论的建树和创新,这种理论上的困境导致学科整体发展缓慢,使政策科学学科长期停留在较低的水平。从讨论中国政策科学发展的基本情况和特点入手,分析政策科学在中国发展所面临的问题和困境的根源,试图从社会科学本土化的角度探讨中国公共政策科学追求自身完善,摆脱学科发展困境的某些理论和方法的问题。     

中国公共政策研究的现状分析

本文通过对中国公共政策研究现状的深入分析 ,指出了行政型、学术型、产业型政策研究组织的内在特点 ,并从功能角度分析了这些政策研究的优势与局限 ;此外 ,还对各类政策研究成果的特点和问题进行了针对性分析 ,并在此基础上提出了完善中国公共政策研究体制的目标与途径。     

研究政策执行问题必须遵循科学的方法论

对政策执行问题的研究是公共政策研究的重要组成部分，如同任何领域的科学研究一样，对政策执行问题的研究也应当遵循科学的方法论，否则就很难得出令人信服的科学结论。本分别从理论前提假设、基本研究方法和具体分析方法等三个不同层次对研究政策执行问题的方法论进行了探讨。     

论政策问题构建的逻辑与程序

政策问题的构建是政策分析的第一步,政策问题的构建应当以社会问题为其逻辑起点。作为一个科学研究过程,政策问题的构建是一个由多阶段、多环节组成的连续动态过程,这一过程是由潜在政策问题的搜索、政策问题的描述、解释、预测以及对策研究等五个阶段组成的。只有严格遵循科学化、规范化的程序和步骤,才能减少政策问题构建过程中的失误,才能使真正的政策问题尽快进入政府议程,政策分析的科学地位也才能因此得以提升。     

哲学在政策科学研究中的功能分析

政策科学在学科发展过程中 ,存在三个问题 :1 政策科学是在多学科基础上发展起来的 ,政策研究领域需要解释的问题更为错综复杂 ;2 政策科学常借用普通理论学科的研究分析方法 ,其学科方法相对比较杂乱 ;3 政策科学是新兴学科 ,学科理论与知识工具的改进需要求助认识方法的创新与发展。政策科学的发展离不开哲学的指导 ,与上述三个问题相对应 ,哲学在公共政策科学中的功能 ,可表述为三个方面 :第一 ,有助于复杂政策问题的综合认识与解决 ;第二 ,规范各普通学科理论在政策研究中的方法应用 ;第三 ,推动政策学科知识工具的改进     

现代政策科学的知识渊源

本文主要考察现代政策科学产生的知识渊源.西方文明、美国的实用主义和工具主义、应用性社会科学对政策科学发展都有着巨大的影响.拉斯维尔搭起政策科学的基本框架.政策科学是知识应用于社会的产物.     

政策扩散理论与中国“政策试验”研究:启示与调适

要全方位提升中国政策科学的研究品质,必须在研究中有意识地将政策科学理论体系与中国政策过程实践有效衔接起来.作为政策过程理论发展中的新兴范式,政策扩散理论可以为对中国独具特色的“政策试验”实践进行学理性阐释提供一个适宜的研究视角和分析框架,而中国基于“政策试验”的政策扩散过程因其自身特点,亦需要对这一理论的本土化应用做出相应的调适.通过对中国以试验为内核的政策扩散现象进行长期且扎实的研究,不但有助于扩展政策扩散研究的理论版图,甚至还有望重新定义整个政策扩散理论体系.     

论中国领导科学学派的创建与发展

时代的发展和领导科学研究的深化,呼唤着中国领导科学学派的创建与发展;领导科学学派意识的增强、学科发展的逐渐成熟、研究者素质的提高等,也为中国领导科学学派的创建与发展提供了可能。在新世纪中国领导科学必将创建与发展起自己的领导科学学派。     

试析我国软科学视域中的公共政策研究

我国公共政策研究的基本视域是两个,即政治学(包括行政学)视域和软科学视域.本文分析了我国软科学在公共政策研究中所处的位置、所取得的成绩及存在的问题,得出了这两个学科领域需要进行科际协作的结论并提出了几点具体建议.     

Ph.D. programs in policy sciences: Who,when, where,what, and why?

Policy sciences is compared to other new disciplines. Its independent methodological base, research structure, and education objectives are discussed with respect to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and disciplinary stages of development. The interrelationship of teaching and research and of application and theory as well as the continual development required from a changing domain of application suggest that policy sciences will always be a new developing, interdisciplinary field. Such features present policy sciences with both the key to its potential long-term viability and the major impediments to its introduction into the university system. The present desirability of a few highly experimental doctorate programs, with the highest level faculty, students, and financial support, is considered. Exploratory and operational research modes are described with respect to type of project, individual goals and attitudes, and organizational requirements. The suitability of formal education and exploratory research to the university and of research in the operational mode to research institutes suggests an informally structured para-academic entity which spans the university boundary. Organizational, financial, and education strategies are discussed. Suggestions for implementing the personal and organizational renewal required of an incompletely defined and continuously changing field are offered.The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Rockefeller University or any sponsoring organizations.     

A doctoral program in the policy sciences

The complex nature of policy problems requires innovative approaches to problem analysis and a new social science interdiscipline focused on policy processes. The Policy Science Program at SUNY Buffalo is designed to advance this field and to train hybrid Ph.D.'s as research-scientists/practitioners. These new policy science professionals will augment policymaking organizations as policy analysts, evaluation researchers, knowledge brokers, research feedback disseminators, process monitors, and consultants. Their training must include research methodology, analytic approaches, orienting conceptual schemes from systems theory, social sciences, and specific problem domains, and operating skills. The curriculum includes both academic and field-training aspects.Though the program is oriented toward the applied sciences, it is an attempt to mold a version of the new combination of revised social science paradigms and analytic approaches identified by Dror as the Policy Sciences.     

民间组织发展与现代社会民主政治

目前有关民间组织和公民社会的研究成果可以说是汗牛充栋,但是系统阐述民间组织与民主关系的论文较少。本文通过对民间组织的含义、特征的扼要分析,试图重点揭示民间组织以及以民间组织为核心构成的公民社会与现代社会民主政治之间的内在联系,希望能对我国民间组织的发展以及培育公民社会推动我国的民主政治建设起到一定的促进作用。     

国外关于经济增长的政治学研究综述

本文运用文献分析法,从政策选择与政治条件两个维度来梳理国外关于经济增长的政治学理论,并在各维度内对已有文献的观点进行分类归纳。结合文献梳理的成果,笔者提出关于经济增长的政治学研究范式的一些思考。     

A New Era for Think Tanks in Public Policy? International Trends,Australian Realities

Although the powerful have always sought advice from the knowledgeable, it took the appeal of the policy sciences movement of the late 1940s and onward to build and consolidate a veritable industry of policy analysis and advice. ¹ One of the hallmarks of this development was the advent of institutes that were exclusively devoted to produce research‐based policy arguments and to inject these into the policy‐making process. These organisations were referred to as ‘think tanks’. Half a century later, the project of the policy sciences movement has been amply criticised, and has mutated into various philosophies of policy analysis, each harbouring distinct and often conflicting perspectives on the nature and role of (scientific) knowledge in the battle of arguments that is public policy‐making. The first wave of the policy sciences movement's privileging of science‐based policy has not disappeared. In fact it is currently experiencing a revival under the banner of ‘evidence‐based policy’. But it has to compete with other views of public policy‐making which deconstruct the authority claim of scientific knowledge, emphasising instead its contestability. Yet there are now more organisations that refer to themselves, or can be labelled, as ‘think tanks’ than ever before. Why? And what does it mean to be a ‘think tank’ in the post‐positivist era and in the increasingly boundary‐less, highly networked societies of today? This article first surveys recent developments in the world of think tanks as reported by the international literature on the subject, and then examines the implications for understanding the nature and role of Australian think tanks.     

The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance

Since 2012, a new movement of government departments, think tanks and high-profile individuals within the UK has sought to promote the increased usage of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in public policy. They promote RCTs as an evidence-based corrective for the inappropriate certainties of experts. Recent government reports and public debate around this initiative are reviewed and analysed within a framework for epistemic governance: normative insights into how knowledge for policymaking should be understood and governed drawn from science and technology studies and the policy sciences. The legitimacy of RCT evidence within policymaking is found to rest on the recognition of three key features: (1) how multiple meanings of evidence limit generalisability, (2) ensuring a plurality of evidence inputs, including those from other forms of research and expertise, and (3) building institutions for governing the use of RCTs in the public interest. Producing evidence for policymaking is a hybrid activity that necessarily spans both science and politics. Presenting RCTs as naively neutral evidence of what policy interventions work is misleading. The paper concludes by calling for more work on how the new RCT movement might engage with its own history in social and policy research on the value of experiments for policymaking.     

Scaling up Utopias: E.O. Wright and the Search for Economic Alternatives

For over fifty years, successive waves of critique have underscored that the apolitical character of much of political science research betrays the founding mission of the discipline to have science serve democracy. The Caucus for a New Political Science was originally based on such a critique, and the perestroika movement in the discipline included a call for more problem-driven as opposed to theory- or method-driven work that would better connect political science research to ongoing political struggles. In recent years, movements for a public sociology and public anthropology as well as dissonant movements in economics and related fields have added to the insistence that social science research was too often disconnected from the real world. Phronetic social science has emerged out of the ferment for change in the social sciences, starting with the much-debated book by Bent Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter (Cambridge, 2001). Flyvbjerg critiqued the social sciences for mimicking the natural sciences, while proposing an alternative approach that focuses research on helping people address the problems they are facing. Today, phronetic social science goes beyond the call for an alternative approach to social inquiry and its growing adherents are providing evidence that this alternative approach to doing research can enrich the social sciences by more effectively connecting research to efforts to address real world problems as people experience them. This article provides a genealogy of efforts to connect political science to politics, a review of the major critiques of mainstream research, an explication of the rationale for more problem-driven, mixed-methods research, a specification of the key principles of the phronetic approach, and examples of its application in the public realm. The article concludes with implications for realizing a more political political science by way of taking a phronetic approach.     

政治科学预测方法研究——以选举预测为例

预测是人类的基本认知活动。作为社会科学预测性研究的重要领域,选举预测是促进政治学理论和方法创新的动力。选举预测不仅限于民调,科学的选举预测可以划分为四类范式:意见聚合范式;模型范式;混合范式;大数据范式。每类范式包含若干种预测方法,不同预测方法在准确性、超前性、解释力、可重复性、中立性和预测成本等评判标准上各具优势,预测方法的选择是基于预测目标和应用场景的综合权衡。目前,选举预测领域呈现多元化、交叉互补、跨学科的发展趋势;其未来发展方向是“理论驱动”与“数据驱动”相结合、微观预测变量与宏观预测变量相结合、预测与解释相结合,以政治科学为基础,通过跨学科合作和前沿技术手段推进预测范式的创新,并在预测实践中不断更新升级。预测性研究与解释性研究可以构成“双螺旋”的共生互补关系,共同致力于增进人类对复杂政治活动的理解和研判,提升政治学研究的科学水平和政策应用价值。     

Logics of interdisciplinarity

Abstract

This paper interrogates influential contemporary accounts of interdisciplinarity, in which it is portrayed as offering new ways of rendering science accountable to society and/or of forging closer relations between scientific research and innovation. The basis of the paper is an eighteen-month empirical study of three interdisciplinary fields that cross the boundaries between the natural sciences or engineering, on the one hand, and the social sciences or arts, on the other. The fields are: 1) environmental and climate change research, 2) ethnography in the IT industry and 3) art-science. In the first part of the paper, in contrast to existing accounts, we question the idea that interdisciplinarity should be understood in terms of the synthesis of two or more disciplines. We stress the forms of agonism and antagonism that often characterize relations between disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, and distinguish between three modes of interdisciplinarity. In the second part we outline three distinctive logics or rationales that guide interdisciplinary research. In addition to the logics of accountability and innovation, we identify the logic of ontology, that is, an orientation apparent in diverse interdisciplinary practices in each of our three fields towards effecting ontological transformation in the objects and relations of research. While the three logics are interdependent, they are not reducible to each other and are differently entangled in each of the fields. We point to the potential for invention in such interdisciplinary practices and, against the equation of disciplinary research with autonomy, to the possibility of forms of interdisciplinary autonomy.