|
|
|
| Theoretical Foundations, Risk Factors, and Strategic Promotion of Organized Scientific Research in Universities: A Symbiotic Perspective |
| Liu Yangxi1,Ren Yuxin1,Yang Chen2 |
| (1.Faculty of Education,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China;2.School of Law,Central China Normal University,Wuhan 430079,China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Organized scientific research serves as an important form that facilitates technological institutionalization within universities and systematically caters to the national strategic needs for scientific and technological innovation. As such, it constitutes a multifaceted and significant systematic undertaking that involves various entities, including government, market, and academia. Multiple institutional logics, namely those of the state, market, and academia, shape its development. Currently, academic research on organized research can be categorized into three strands. The first comprises case studies, which center on remarkable instances of domestic universities transforming their research paradigms and reforming their systems and mechanisms for organized research. The second consists of theoretical research, which concentrates on knowledge production models, organizational models, response mechanisms, and problem-solving in the context of organized research. The third involves comparative research, which largely focuses on case studies of major developed countries, international research institutions, or world-class universities, with an emphasis on extracting best practices. While existing studies have provided profound analysis of key areas and exemplary cases of organized research through diverse lenses, an integrated perspective that holistically examines the heterogeneous actors, institutional mechanisms, research paradigms, and organizational models remains lacking. Therefore, this study introduces the theory of symbiosis into the practice of organized research, furnishing a theoretical framework to systematically conceptualize the diverse actors and their mechanisms of action, while unlocking the practical pathway for organized research. Through examining the value implications and practical trajectories of organized research across multiple dimensions including symbiotic units, modalities, interfaces, and environments, identifying prevailing risk factors, and proposing countermeasures and recommendations, this study aims to furnish novel perspectives on reinforcing organized scientific inquiry.#br#The concept of symbiosis was originally proposed in biology by German scientist Anton de Bary to describe mutually beneficial relationships between different organisms. Subsequently, this notion rapidly diffused into the humanities and social sciences, gradually being applied in disciplines such as economics, political science, sociology, and education thereby forming a new methodology and system of values. Through continuous development and refinement by scholars including Famintsim and Protoaxis, symbiotic theory now underscores the associations of co-survival, co-evolution, or mutual inhibition among different species and genera. In a symbiotic environment, symbiotic units can form ecological relationships through particular symbiotic modalities and interfaces. Within the symbiotic system, the symbiotic unit constitutes the primary entity; the symbiotic mode refers to the cooperative formulations between the units; the symbiotic interface serves as the regulatory mechanism; and the symbiotic environment represents the exogenous factors impacting the system. The interplay between these four components facilitates the formation and functioning of the symbiotic system.#br#Guided by symbiotic theory, this study identifies four categories of risks in organized research. First, government, enterprises, universities, and research institutions diverge in their goal orientation for knowledge production and transformation, as well as in the organizational characteristics of knowledge generation. Second, from an organizational standpoint, continuous and integrated symbiotic models of organized research have yet to become widespread. Likewise, from a behavioral angle, the mutually beneficial symbiotic patterns of organized research require further optimization. Third, regarding incentive mechanisms, several problems exist, including insufficient focus on incentive targets, limited diversity in incentive methods and subjects, and inadequate coordination of incentive measures. Concurrently, issues persist involving insufficient mission-oriented national incentives, a weak sense of gain among frontline scientific and technological personnel and teams, and insufficient guarantees for the growth environment of young researchers. With respect to the regulatory mechanisms, excessive concentration of power and prolonged regulatory chains prevail. Regarding evaluation mechanisms, deficiencies include a lack of long-term assessment, redundant and repetitive evaluation activities across multiple levels, limited evaluation tools and methodologies, and imperfections in peer review systems. Fourth, at the policy environment level, targeted supporting policies and implementation methods are lacking. In the market environment, obstructed cooperation among government, industry, academia, and research institutes exists alongside low conversion rates of scientific and technological achievements. At the cultural environment level, disciplinary insularity can engender information blocking, repetitive projects, and weakened creativity. In response, it is imperative to innovate diversified research organization models combining centralized and free exploratory efforts, promote the formation of continuous, integrated, and mutually beneficial symbiotic patterns, improve incentive, regulatory and evaluation mechanisms, and foster favorable policy, market, and cultural environments.#br#
|
|
Received: 23 May 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] BARY A D. Die erscheinung der symbiose [M]. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, 1879.
[2] 武翠,谭清美.产业相关多样性对区域经济韧性的影响——来自创新生态系统共生性的解释[J].科技进步与对策,2023,40(6):69-79.
[3] 吴泓,顾朝林.基于共生理论的区域旅游竞合研究——以淮海经济区为例[J].经济地理,2004,24(1):104-109.
[4] 胡海,庄天慧.共生理论视域下农村产业融合发展:共生机制、现实困境与推进策略[J].农业经济问题,2020,41(8):68-76.
[5] 杨力,尚超,杨建超.共生理论视角下区域创新生态系统演化特征研究[J].科技进步与对策,2023,40(11):71-81.
[6] 吴合文,石耀月.高校有组织科研:生成流变、理念指向与难点突破[J].陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2023,52(2):53-64.
[7] 赵艺璇,成琼文,李紫君.共生视角下技术主导型与市场主导型创新生态系统价值共创组态路径研究[J].科技进步与对策,2022,39(11):21-30.
[8] V·布什.科学——没有止境的前沿[M].范岱年,解道华,译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[9] 高慧.高校哲学社会科学研究成果评价政策变迁中的多重制度逻辑[J].高等教育评论,2021,9(2):134-145.
[10] 胡德鑫.我国世界一流大学建设的制度逻辑与路径选择[J].复旦教育论坛,2019,17(3):74-80.
[11] LEYDESDORFF L, ETZKOWITZ H. Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations[J]. Science and Public Policy, 1996,23(5): 279-286.
[12] 游达明,刘诗.深圳产学研专利合作网络演化分析及启示[J].科技管理研究,2022,42(17):166-172.
[13] CYRIL TOMKINS. Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2001,26(2): 161-191.
[14] LEWICKI R J, BUNKER B B. Trust in relation-ships: a model of trust development and decline[C]// BUNKER B B, RUBIN J Z.Conflict, cooperation and justice[M].San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995: 133-173.
[15] 黄波,孟卫东,李宇雨.基于双边激励的产学研合作最优利益分配方式[J].管理科学学报,2011,14(7):31-42.
[16] 林秀芹,陈俊凯.失衡与治理:政府主导协同创新中知识产权利益分配问题研究[J].南京社会科学,2022(6):96-109.
[17] 王志奇,王玉,付业林.基于演化博弈的“用产学研资介政”协同创新模型与机制研究[J].科技管理研究,2022,42(11):15-28.
[18] 王学谦,蔡仲.市场导向下的科研监管困境[J].科学与社会,2021,11(3):61-72,121.
[19] 李佳莹,魏鹏,张仪帆,等.关于推动科技评价改革落实的思考[J].科技中国,2023,305(2):32-36.
[20] 郝涛,林德明,丁堃,等.“双一流”高校科技成果转化激励政策评价研究[J].中国科技论坛,2023,327(7):21-32.
[21] 国务院关于全面加强基础科学研究的若干意见[EB/OL].(2018-01-31)[2023-07-18].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2018-01/31/content_5262539.htm.
[22] 潘玉腾.高校实施有组织科研的问题解构与路径建构[J].中国高等教育,2022,58(Z3):12-14.
[23] NG K YCHUA R Y J.Do I contribute more when I trust more? differential effects ofcognition-and affect based trust[J].Management & Organization Review,2006,2(1):43-66.
[24] 史蒂文·L·戈德曼.灵捷竞争者与虚拟企业[M].杨开峰, 等译.沈阳: 辽宁教育出版社, 1998.
[25] Intellectual Property Office: University and business collaboration agreements:Lambert Toolkit[EB/OL].(2022-01-05)[2023-07-18].https://www.gov.uk/guidance/university-and-business-collaboration-agreements-lambert-toolkit.
[26] 张成华,陈永清,张同建.我国科技成果转化的科技人员产权激励研究[J].科学管理研究,2022,40(3):130-135.
[27] 王学谦,蔡仲.市场导向下的科研监管困境[J].科学与社会,2021,11(3):61-72,121.
[28] National Science Board.The State of U.S.Science and engineering 2022[EB/OL].(2022-01-18)[2023-07-18].https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221/preface.
[29] Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute. Programs: communitity[EB/OL].(2021-10-06)[2023-07-18].https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/research/programs/neurosciences-institute-seminars.
|
|
|
|
