臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究問題的選擇，通常關乎學科知識發展的模式與方向，而科學家問題的選擇又與其所處的社群位置與知識體系的內在結構密切相關。然而，這兩個因素又如何表現在台灣社會學知識生產的過程中？為了回答此問題，本文以台灣社會學者的名單為基礎，收集1998年至2014年TSSCI與THCI的期刊論文資料，藉此測量各社會學家本土知識生產的策略趨向。研究結果顯示，相對於自然科學，由於社會學多元、獨立、競爭的知識結構，使得發散性思維的知識生產策略相當普遍。而其生產過程也未如自然科學般，會因社群位置的優勢而帶來更多元、發散的策略選擇。不過，「量化研究」卻會因其近似常態科學的研究邏輯，更傾向收斂式的知識累積與整合。最後，社會學有其不同於常態科學的「投資──報酬」邏輯。如果社會學者在知識上達成一定的整合與收斂，反而將有益於在鬆散的知識結構中形成「範例」，提高學者的學術影響力。本文的發現將有助於學術社群重新檢視台灣社會學知識生產的特性及其可能伴隨的優勢與劣勢。

How to choice the research questions is usually associated with the mode and the developmental direction of discipline knowledge. For scientists, these selections are also closely related to their social position in the scientific community. All of them are linked to the internal structure of knowledge system. We wonder how would these factors have an effect in the process of Sociological knowledge production in Taiwan. In order to answer this question, we collect Taiwanese sociologists’ journal articles which were published in the period from 1998 to 2014 in TSSCI and THCI to measure the strategic trend of sociological knowledge production. Contrary to natural science, the results shows that the knowledge structures of sociology are more diverse, independent and competitive. The divergent strategies of knowledge production are quite universal. Besides, sociological knowledge production in Taiwan would not count on the advantaged position in communities to bring more diverse and divergent strategy choices. However, "quantitative methodology" is familiar with normal scientific research logic, thus it tends to be more convergent on knowledge accumulation and integration. Finally, sociology is not the same as “return on investment” in normal science. If sociologists achieve a certain integration and convergence of knowledge, it would be the benefit of produce "example" in a loose knowledge structure, and that would improve the academic influence of scholars. The contribution of this article will be helpful to the academic community to review the characteristics in sociological knowledge production and pros and cons.

目錄

中文摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
目錄 III
表目錄 V
圖目錄 VI
壹、 前言 1
貳、 文獻回顧 4
一、 科學研究的策略選擇與科學資本 4
二、 科學研究中「必要的張力」 6
三、 台灣社會學與權力子群 8
（一） 量化方法論的權力子群 10
（二） 核心機構的權力子群 11
（三） 權力子群的科學資本 12
四、 科學典範的觀點 14
（一） 量化方法社群的高度典範發展 15
（二） 多重典範的社會科學 18
五、 文獻小結與研究假設 21
參、 資料與方法 23
一、 資料蒐集 23
二、 變項說明 26
（一） 主要依變項：「收斂性指標」（convergent index） 26
（二） 主要變項 27
（三） 其他共變項 29
三、 模型與方法 31
肆、 分析結果 35
一、 探索性資料分析 35
二、 重探台灣學術社群內知識影響力的差異 39
三、 社會學社群中知識生產的策略分歧 46
伍、 結論與討論 51
一、 台灣社會學社群中「必要的張力」 51
二、 台灣學術場域與社會學的反身性 53
參考文獻 56
一、 中文書目 56
二、 英文書目 57

參考文獻

一、中文書目
江明修，1992，〈社會科學多重典範的爭辯: 試論質與量研究方法的整合〉。《國立政治大學學報》64: 315-345。
吳泉源，2004，〈借來的生命撐不起在地學術！〉。《台灣社會學會通訊》51:9-11。
柯佩均、熊瑞梅、盧科位，2012，〈台灣社會學門專業期刊間引用網絡之結構分析〉。《教育資料與圖書館學》49(4): 533-561。
徐振國，2005，〈在美國政治學「改造運動」中檢討Isaak的方法論觀點：自然科學方法論中隱含的詮釋學需求〉。頁385-418，收錄於黃瑞琪、羅曉南編，《人文社會科學的邏輯》，台北：松慧文化。
章英華，2000，〈學術出版, 評審與學術發展: 一個社會學家的參與觀察〉。《台灣社會學刊》23: 2-23。
陳向明，2002，《社會科學質的研究》。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
黃厚銘，2004，〈省思台灣社會科學學術評鑑制度〉。《當代》203: 38-45。
黃厚銘，2005，〈SSCI, TSSCI 與台灣社會科學學術評鑑制度〉。《圖書館學與資訊科學》31(1): 34-44。
黃樹仁，2007，〈小國的學術困境: 臺灣社會科學研究, 教學與評量的反省〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》65: 117-180。
葉啟政，2001，〈均值人與離散人的觀念巴貝塔: 統計社會學的兩個概念基石〉。《台灣社會學》1: 1-63。
葉啟政，2003，〈台灣社會學的知識-權力遊戲〉。《政大社會學刊》35: 1-34。
葉啟政，2004，〈「個體化」社會的理論意涵〉。《北京大學社會理論學報 》7(1):89-140。
蘇國賢，2004，〈社會學知識的社會生產: 台灣社會學者的隱形學群〉。《台灣社會學》8: 133-192。

二、英文書目
Abbott, Andrew, 1999. Department and discipline: Chicago sociology at One Hundred. United States: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, Andrew, 2001. Chaos of disciplines. University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1975. “The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason.” Social Science Information 14(6):19–47.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 2004. Science of science and Reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
Browne, William J., and David Draper. 2006. "A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models." Bayesian Analysis 1:473–514.
Burt, Ronald S. 1978. "Stratification and prestige among elite experts in methodological and mathematical sociology circa 1975." Social Networks 1(2):105–158.
Burbidge, John B., Lonnie Magee, and A. Leslie Robb. 1988. "Alternative Transformations to handle extreme values of the dependent variable." Journal of the American Statistical Association 83(401):123–127.
Clark, Tom S., and Drew A. Linzer. 2014. "Should I use fixed or random effects?" Political Science Research and Methods 3(02):399–408.
Crane, Diana. 1965. "Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition." American Sociological Review 30(5):699.
Crane, Diana. 1969. "Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the ‘invisible college’ hypothesis." American Sociological Review 34(3):335.
Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. United States: University of Chicago Press.
Ding, Waverly W., Fiona Murray, and Toby E. Stuart. 2006. “Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences.” Science 313(5787):665–667.
Eisenberg, Rebecca S., and Richard R. Nelson. 2002. “Public vs. Proprietary science : A Fruitful Tension?” Academic Medicine 77(12):1392–1399.
Evans, James A., 2010. “Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 40(5):757– 791.
Evans, James A., and Jacob. G. Foster. 2011. “Metaknowledge.” Science 331(6018):721–725.
Figg, William D, Lara Dunn, David J Liewehr, Seth M Steinberg, Paul W Thurman, J. Carl Barrett, and Julian Birkinshaw. 2006. "Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles." Pharmacotherapy 26(6):759–767.
Foster, Jacob G., A., Rzhetsky, and James A. Evans, 2015. “Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies.”American Sociological Review 80(5):875–908.
Garfield, Eugene, 1972. "Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies." Science 178(4060):471–479.
Gelman, Andrew. 2006. "Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models(comment on article by Browne and draper)." Bayesian Analysis 1:515–534.
Gelman, Andrew, and Jennifer Hill. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel / hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hargens, Lowell L. 2000. "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship." American Sociological Review 65(6):846.
Hox, Joop J. 2010. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications, Second edition. United States: Routledge.
Holmwood, John, and Alexander Stewart. 1994. "Synthesis and fragmentation in social theory: A progressive solution." Sociological Theory 12(1):83.
Hudson, John. 1996. "Trends in multi-authored papers in economics." Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(3):153–158.
Maas, Cora J. M., and Joop J. Hox. 2005. "Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling." Methodology 1(3):85–91.
Osborne, Jason. 2002. "Notes on the use of data transformations." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 8(6).
Poole, Marshall S., and Andrew H. van de. 1989. "Using paradox to build management and organization theories." Academy of Management Review 14(4):562–578.
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1994. "Disintegrated disciplines and the future of sociology." Sociological Forum 9(2):279–291.
Sawyer, Keith R. 2012. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Knudsen, Christian, 2003. “The essential tension in the social sciences: between the'unification' and 'fragmentation' traps.” in The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge, edited by H. Jensen, M. Richter and M. Vendelø. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Kohn, Melvin L., 1987. “Cross-national research as an analytic strategy: American sociological association, 1987 presidential address.” American Sociological Review 52(6):713.
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press 1977.
Kuhn, Thomas S.著、程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥譯，1994，《科學革命的結構》。台北：遠流。
Laband, David N., and Robert D. Tollison. 2000. "Intellectual collaboration." Journal of Political Economy 108(3):632–662.
Lodahl, Janice Beyer, and Gerald Gordon. 1972. "The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments." American Sociological Review 37(1):57.
Long, J. Scott, Paul D. Allison, and Robert McGinnis. 1979. "Entrance into the academic career." American Sociological Review 44(5):816.
Long, J Scott, 1995. "Scientific careers: Universalism and Particularism." Annual Review of Sociology 21(1):45–71.
Malmgren, R. Dean, Julio M. Ottino, and Luís A. Nunes Amaral. 2010. “The role of mentorship in protégé performance.” Nature 465(7298):622–626.
March, James G. 1991. “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.” Organization science2(1):71–87.
Moody, James. 2004. “The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999.” American Sociological Review 69(2):213–238.
Ruget, Vanessa. 2002. "Scientific capital in American political science: Who possesses what, when and how?" New Political Science 24(3):469–478.
Sonnenwald, Diane H. 2007. “Scientific collaboration.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41(1):643–681.
Uzzi, Brian, and Jarrett Spiro. 2005. "Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem1." American Journal of Sociology 111(2):447–504.
Watts, Duncan J. 2014. “Common sense and sociological explanations 1.” American Journal of Sociology120(2):313–351.
Yang, Yang L, and Kenneth C. Land. 2013. Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical applications. United States: Taylor & Francis.