引用
社會學與社會工作學術研究的現況與發展
The Status and Development of Research in Sociology and Social Work
作者：葉秀珍（Hsiu-Jen Yeh）、陳寬政（Kuan-Jeng Chen） | 首次發表於 2020-07-20 | 第 21 期 October 1998
DOI：https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.199810.0021
DOI：https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.199810.0021
論文資訊 | Article information
摘要 Abstract
本文使用國科會社會學門人力資料檔、輔以部份調查資料，就社會學與社會工作的學衛研究現況、累積與人力分展予以檢討，指出社會學者與社會工作學者在平均產量方面的差別對應著學科與學術社群的特性差異；一般而言社會學者的本務統是教學與研究，並無其他社會任務，而社會工作被界定為一種實務知識，所以實務經驗與實習在社會工作教學中具有支配性的位置，相對於社會學而言，其學術研究的旨趣則較為低落。除了社會學與社會工作的學科差別外，我們也發現相當程度的職級與學位差異，在社會學領域內大致符合年資與能力的原則。一般教授職級的學者已累積較多的著作，而取得博士學位的學者則應具備較佳的學衛研究與發表訓練，均可預期有較高的平均產量，雖然個別差異仍然是一項重要的考慮因素。我們發現學術生產似乎也有性別差異，女性學者的家庭角色可能影響其學術生產，其參與學術社群也多是晚近的發展，所累積的年資較男性學者為短，均有可能影響到女性學者的平均產量。
本文又針對109位社會學者所出版的736篇期刊專書論文，按論文王題所屬領域與自選專長間的關係合併為人口與區位研究、社會組織與社會階層、家庭與婦女研究、政治經濟與社會變遷、社會理論與社會思想、社會心理學、社會福利、文化與宗教、及其他等九項專長或領域，在合併類屬時著重論文領域與研究專長間的一致性，然而資料也顯示這些專長與領域間有相當明顯的重疊性。國內的社會學做為一個學術社群，其成員間本就有頻繁的互動與溝通，又因其規模較小，每位成員為了研究或教學需要都發展多方面的研究興趣，以致於資料呈現有大量的專長與領域交錯的現象，各專業群體所出版的期刊專書論文中有67%係跨越專長的論文。相對淤領域交流，本文資料也顯示社會學各專長學者專注本行研究的情況，其中社會心理似乎顯現出最高的專業性，其次為人口區位，其餘專長依序而下分別為社會思想、家庭婦女、組織階層、政治經濟、社會福利、其他與文化宗教。此一術業專精的現象似乎關連著各學科專長的學術生產力，我們取各研究領域論文由本行學者撰寫的比例與上述人年約期刊論文產量計算相關係數，得r=0.66顯示兩者間具有中等強度的正相關。
關鍵字：學術生產力、論文領域、研究專長、術業專精、領域交流
本文又針對109位社會學者所出版的736篇期刊專書論文，按論文王題所屬領域與自選專長間的關係合併為人口與區位研究、社會組織與社會階層、家庭與婦女研究、政治經濟與社會變遷、社會理論與社會思想、社會心理學、社會福利、文化與宗教、及其他等九項專長或領域，在合併類屬時著重論文領域與研究專長間的一致性，然而資料也顯示這些專長與領域間有相當明顯的重疊性。國內的社會學做為一個學術社群，其成員間本就有頻繁的互動與溝通，又因其規模較小，每位成員為了研究或教學需要都發展多方面的研究興趣，以致於資料呈現有大量的專長與領域交錯的現象，各專業群體所出版的期刊專書論文中有67%係跨越專長的論文。相對淤領域交流，本文資料也顯示社會學各專長學者專注本行研究的情況，其中社會心理似乎顯現出最高的專業性，其次為人口區位，其餘專長依序而下分別為社會思想、家庭婦女、組織階層、政治經濟、社會福利、其他與文化宗教。此一術業專精的現象似乎關連著各學科專長的學術生產力，我們取各研究領域論文由本行學者撰寫的比例與上述人年約期刊論文產量計算相關係數，得r=0.66顯示兩者間具有中等強度的正相關。
關鍵字：學術生產力、論文領域、研究專長、術業專精、領域交流
With the human resources data file on sociologists and social work academics furnished by the National Science Council, this paper provides a summary discussion on the academic development and research production in the fields of sociology and social work in Taiwan after the 2(superscript nd) World War up to the year 1994. It is found that since social work has been defined as a practice discipline, instead of an academic discipline, the research production of social work academics have been relatively poor compared to the sociologists. In addition to the disciplinary differences, substantial differentiation in productivity with respect to sex, academic degree and position are also documented here. In average, sociologists with Ph. D. degree appear to be more productive than those without, males are more productive than the female, and professors have accumulated more academic publications than the junior sociologists. The differentials in the field of social work reveal a totally different story, however. The male professors of social work appear to be substantially less productive than the female counterpart, and males with Ph. D. degree are also less productive than those without.
8ased upon a cross-classification of the 736 journal articles and monographs published by the 109 sociologists, 9 categories of publication areas and self-stated research specialties have been identified by stressing the consistency between the areas and specialties The 9 broad categories ranked by the person-year average productivity are social psychology, demography and ecology, social organization and stratification, political economy and social change, family and women studies, social welfare, social theories and social thoughts, others, culture and religion. A great degree of cross-boundary association are documented, albeit the emphasis on consistency in classification. It seems only natural that with a small community size, individual sociologists must develop diversified interests to fulfill the requirements of teaching and research. 67% of the articles and monographs published are in areas other than the self-stated specialties. Further analyses indicate that social psychologists are the most dedicated to specialty group among the sociologists, followed by the sociologists specialized in demography and ecology, social theories and social thoughts, family and women studies, social organization and stratification, political economy and social change, social welfare, others, culture and religion. It is determined that the academic productivity is positively related (r=0.66) to the focus on specialty.
Keywords: academic productivity, publication area, research specialty, focus on specialty, cross-boundary publication
8ased upon a cross-classification of the 736 journal articles and monographs published by the 109 sociologists, 9 categories of publication areas and self-stated research specialties have been identified by stressing the consistency between the areas and specialties The 9 broad categories ranked by the person-year average productivity are social psychology, demography and ecology, social organization and stratification, political economy and social change, family and women studies, social welfare, social theories and social thoughts, others, culture and religion. A great degree of cross-boundary association are documented, albeit the emphasis on consistency in classification. It seems only natural that with a small community size, individual sociologists must develop diversified interests to fulfill the requirements of teaching and research. 67% of the articles and monographs published are in areas other than the self-stated specialties. Further analyses indicate that social psychologists are the most dedicated to specialty group among the sociologists, followed by the sociologists specialized in demography and ecology, social theories and social thoughts, family and women studies, social organization and stratification, political economy and social change, social welfare, others, culture and religion. It is determined that the academic productivity is positively related (r=0.66) to the focus on specialty.
Keywords: academic productivity, publication area, research specialty, focus on specialty, cross-boundary publication
