|
|
The Knowledge Field in S&T Cooperative Governance of Cross-Straits: Paradigm Design and Spatiotemporal Evolution |
Li Yingbo |
(School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University,Beijing 100062, China) |
|
|
Abstract Science and technology (S&T) cooperation is an indispensable part of the promotion of the S&T integration across the Straits and national reunification in the new era. Cross-straits cooperation in S&T has achieved remarkable progress. However, cross-straits relations are facing new challenges from the external environment. Especially in the recent interference of the United States and other international factors, the "Taiwan issue" has been increasingly internationalized. Cross-straits S&T cooperation, such as the integrated circuit industry and other key areas, faces significantly increased uncertainties and risks, and the "field" of cooperation is undergoing drastic changes.
As a theoretical perspective to understand the evolution of social structure driven by social movement, "knowledge field" is of theoretical value for deepening cross-straits S&T cooperation and governance. This paper formulates the theoretical paradigm of "knowledge field" in S&T cooperative governance of cross-straits in terms of structure, relationship and practice. The knowledge field in S&T cooperation governance of cross-straits is the S&T relations rooted in the two sides’ common S&T goals, common social structure formed by S&T exchanges towards national unification. The knowledge field has structural, relational and practical characteristics. Structuralcharacteristics reflect the diversity of types of governance actors of cross-straits, relationalcharacteristics reflect the closeness of cooperation network, and practicalcharacteristics emphasize that governance actors implement collective action and establish a common narrative in the governance scene.
The actors of cross-Straits S&T cooperation governance include the researchers, innovators and facilitators. Research institutions, universities and enterprises on both sides are the researchers and innovators. Government departments, industry associations and technological intermediaries are the facilitators. In particular, researchers and entrepreneurs on both sides are the micro-level producers of knowledge in S&T cooperation. The relevant departments promoting cross-straits S&T cooperation include central departments such as the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the Ministry of Science and Technology, state public institutions such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China Association for Science and Technology, as well as local governments. The extensive participation of the actors in knowledge field can help to shape the symmetrical flow of information and knowledge sharing among those actors, and mitigate the goal differences caused by the cognitive bias of the actors. The diversity of actor can also help to solve the problems of opaque decision-making and indirect democratic accountability in the governance groups.
Cross-straits S&T cooperation comes from the common belief of actors on both sides in scientific rationality, public value and national identity, reflecting the inherent initiative of scientists, researchers and academic institutions on both sides. The paper discusses the spatiotemporal evolutionary characteristics of knowledge field from four aspects: development process, spatial features, regional practice and common narrative. Furthermore, the paper analyzes the practical effects of knowledge field from three scenarios: fundamental research, patent cooperation and collective standardization of industry. However, the complexity of the knowledge field implies that challenges always exert influence. The interference factors in the knowledge field of bilateral cooperation governance mainly include the disturbance of Taiwan political factors and international factors.
The policy implications of this paper are as follows. (1) Knowledge producers should deepen their connection in S&T cooperation governance field. In the face of the ever-changing situation of cross-straits relations, technological enterprises, research institutions and universities on both sides should integrate themselves into the national strategic layout of high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and strengthen their technological adaptation and policy adaptability. (2) The departments should increase the supply of cross-straits S&T cooperation governance field system, promote their collective action, strengthen S&T, education, talent and innovation policy linkages, such as the state-led establishment of cross-straits key S&T leading talent cooperation, chip industry patent cooperation fund and industrial common standard data centers. (3) The actors of cross-straits should deepen their S&T cooperation governance scenario network. Fundamental research, patent activities and industry standard development are a long chain and interrelated scene network. However, the actors of the two sides are less involved in the frontier public technology, patent layout, intellectual property transaction, and the development of broader industrial standards. Therefore, it should be rooted in the innovation scenarios, research project processes and specific geographical spaces to promote cross-straits multi-agent S&T cooperation and governance experiments. The research helps to understand the internal principle and evolving direction of S&T cooperative governance, responding to new challenges and deepening cross-straits S&T integration.
|
Received: 30 September 2022
|
|
|
|
|
[1] JOHN H GIBBON, HOLLY L GWIN. Technology and governance[J].Technology in Society,1985,7(4):333-352.
[2] OECD. Governance of innovation systems[R]. Synthesis Report,2005.
[3] 曾婧婧, 钟书华.科技治理的模式:一种国际及国内视角[J].科学管理研究,2011,31(1):37-41.
[4] 薛桂波,赵一秀.“责任式创新”框架下科技治理范式重构[J].科技进步与对策,2017,34(11):1-5.
[5] JACQUELYNE LUCE. Mitochondrial replacement techniques: examining collective representation in emerging technologies governance[J].Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2018, 15(3): 381-392.
[6] 黄小茹,饶远.从边界组织视角看新兴科技的治理机制[J].自然辩证法通讯,2019,64(5):89-95.
[7] KOEN BEUMER.Nation-building and the governance of emerging technologies: the case of nanotechnology in India[J]. Nanoethics, 2019(13):5-19.
[8] 尹红,钟书华.基于科技治理的“省部科技共建”调控[J].广西社会科学,2010,26(2):135-139.
[9] 戴维,斯沃茨.文化与权力[M].陶东风,译.上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
[10] 姜勇,郑富兴.论教师的专业影响力:知识、场域与实践智慧[J].中国教育学刊,2006,27(10):72-74.
[11] 徐寅.从《尘埃落定》看“知识场域”中女性地位的缺失[J].阿坝师范高等专科学校学报,2013,30(4):75-78.
[12] 吴雪丽.试论“寻根文学”的发生与1980年代的知识场域[J].浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版),2014,39(3):43-50.
[13] 裴云龙.理学知识场域与北宋六家散文经典系统的建构[J].文学遗产,2018,39(2):67-80.
[14] 支宇.民国知识场域的“分化”与传统文艺理论的“失语”——以曹百川《文学概论》(1931)知识资源统计数据的量化分析为基础[J].中外文化与文论,2019,24(3):37-48.
[15] 王晶莹,单俊豪,郑永和.中美STEM课程案例的比较研究:知识场域、活动设计、类型与评价[J].现代远距离教育,2021,23(3):12-20.
[16] 王韵秋.论西方文艺知识场域与实践场域的分裂[J].温州大学学报(社会科学版),2022,35(3):97-105.
[17] 李来容.中央研究院首届院士选举与知识场域的建构[J].史学月刊,2013,63(1):80-87.
[18] 杨丹伟.两岸社会组织:跨两岸社会的生成机制探讨[J].台海研究,2013,1(1):56-63.
[19] VERDELL CLARK.Reviewed work:the challenge of existentialism by john wild[J].Books Abroad, 1956(2): 227.
[20] 卡尔·马克思,弗里德里希·恩格斯.《马克思恩格斯文集》第一卷[M].北京:人民出版社,2009.
[21] HILLIER J.Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and urban condition[J].Political Geography,2003(6): 707-710.
[22] KüBLER D, SCHWAB B. New regionalism in five Swiss metropolitan areas: an assessment of inclusiveness, deliberation and democratic accountability[J]. European Journal of Political Research, 2007, 46(4): 473-502.
[23] 尤尔根. 哈贝马斯.《交往行为理论》第1卷[M]. 曹卫东,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2018.
[24] BRENNER N.Berlin′s transformations:postmodern, postfordist or neoliberal[J].International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,2002(3): 635-642.
[25] PAPADOPOULOS Y. Cooperative forms of governance: problems of democratic accountability in complex[J]. European Journal of Political Reserch,2003(4): 472-501.
[26] ANDERSEN OJ, PIERRE J. Exploring the strategic region: rationality, context, and institutional collective action[J]. Urban Affairs Review, 2010(2): 218-240.
[27] LOCONTO, ALLISON,LAWRENCE BUSCH. Standards, techno-economic networks, and playing fields: performing the global market economy[J]. Review of International Political Economy, 2010(17):507-536.
[28] SANDLER T. Collective action: fifty years later[J]. Public Choice, 2015, 164(3): 195-216.
[29] RUTH VAN DYCK.Divided we stand[J]. Regionalism, Federalism and Minority rights in Belgium, Res Publica, 2011(2):429-446.
[30] 徐步刊,周兴社,梁韵基,等.一种场景驱动的情境感知计算框架[J].计算机科学,2012,39(3):216-221.
[31] TILLKASTENDIECK,HEIDIMAUERSBERGER,CHRISTOPHEBLAISON,et al.Laughing at funerals and frowning at weddings: top-down influences of context-driven social judgments on emotional mimicry[J].Acta Psychologica,2021, 212: 103195.
[32] 尹西明,苏雅欣,陈劲,等.场景驱动的创新:内涵特征、理论逻辑与实践进路[J].科技进步与对策,2022,39(15):1-10.
[33] 柳怀祖.心系两岸赤子情——李政道先生与海峡两岸[EB/OL].中国科学报,2016-11-25.
[34] 科技部海峡两岸科学技术交流中心.两岸科技交流20年[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社,2013.
[35] 李应博.ECFA背景下两岸科技合作:新区域主义视角下的研究[J].中国软科学,2013(6):184-192. |
|
|
|