传媒教育网

 找回密码
 实名注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

搜索
做个试验
查看: 54|回复: 1

国家社科申报技巧及建议

[复制链接]
发表于 2019-1-4 20:13:53 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

易美云学术 2019-01-0416:43:15
一、选题方面的问题
1. 部分课题选题不够新颖,问题导向不明,缺乏时代性
新颖的选题一般包括四类:一是尚无人涉足的研究领域或选题;二是学科前沿的理论探讨;三是老问题的新研究视角、新材料发掘或新技术、新方法的运用;四是海外新理论、新观点的引进与推广。其中第一类最具创新性,属于开辟新的研究领域或研究方向,甚至是创立新学科的研究项目,具有填补学术空白的价值,申报这样的课题立项可能性最大。因此,在确立选题前应有针对性地进行文献查阅和以往立项信息查询,从而最大限度地避免从事重复性研究。同时,通过文献查新和信息查询,还可以了解国内外相关研究领域的研究水平和现阶段的研究热点,这对于确定研究选题与研究方向也是非常有价值的。
国家社科申报技巧及建议
2. 概念不准或概念界定模糊;语言学术性不强
XXX意识形态XXX之路XX人员利益冲突问题研究政治利益?经济利益?其他利益?
3. 选题太大,涵盖内容太多,或时间跨度太大专家感觉研究者无法驾驭
明清XXX群体研究,时间跨度600
4. 选题太小,涵盖内容太少;
范围太小且缺乏特色和深度,被同类课题所包含例如:XXX设计应用研究中原经济区建设中XXX制度规范管理研究
5. 选题指向不明
XXX制度若干问题研究
6. 选题上缺少理论嵌入、地域嵌入、领域嵌入,不能体现申报者的比较优势。
7. 选题缺少前期成果支撑
8. 选题意义
1)对课题意义强调过分,没选中的项目中有1/5的都强调诸如填补空白、在国内独创等;
2)意义过于宏观,究竟有什么意义,看不出来;
3)意义过于庞杂,仅意义一项就写了1-2千字。因此,最重要的或者比较好的做法是对意义有具体说明,如在理论上或在实践上究竟有什么意义,或对国家经济发展有什么贡献等。
二、研究现状方面的问题
1. 对国内外研究现状几乎没有述评;
研究现状缺少综、梳、述、评;简单罗列文献,缺少观点梳理简单罗列,重要学术流派和观点把握不到位,不全面,对与本课题相关的国内外研究成果缺乏全面准确深入和简明扼要的清理与总结。
2. 研究现状述评不对题,不全面,
不是述评前人的研究状况,而是介绍有关名词概念;述评前人研究状况时过于笼统,没有实质性研究,或仅罗列了某些书,没有阐述其观点与申请者本人的观点有何不同,从而体现其研究的重要性;
3. 内容安排不合理
活页论证要求7000字,光概念介绍占4000字,
4. 文字不够准确、精炼,表述清楚、明白。
最重要的或者比较好的做法是对国内外同领域中的代表作都能提及,对其观点都有述评。学术研究主要包括学术积累与学术创新。要进行学术创新,做好学术积累工作是基础。所谓学术积累,就是要把握本课题在国内外学术界研究的最新进展和所达到的水平,要对相关的研究成果及其得失进行全面、准确、深入、具体和简明的清理与总结以及评价。只有这样,才能使你的课题论证达到高于国内外学术界所研究的水平,也说明你确实下了一番工夫。如果你的课题论证报告低于国内外学术界研究所达到的学术水平,你的课题被淘汰的可能性就很大。全面,体现为全面掌握国内外学术界研究的概况、进展和水平,对具有代表性的成果有所了解,即“谁在研究——研究什么——怎样研究——何种成果——研究得失”;准确,表现为评价符合事实,恰如其分;深入,体现为能抓住问题的症结和实质;具体,体现为提供的信息(如数字、论著等)比较具体;简明,体现为表述具有概括性、简洁性和明晰性。
三、研究内容方面的问题
1. 有的提出研究设想,但没有提出研究观点;
2. 有的写上了整本书的框架,关键在于通过主要内容体现申请者的主要观点;
3. 有的主要观点缺位,以研究思路与方法代替观点;
4. 有的主要观点不鲜明,只是一般的论述,没有吸引人眼球的地方;
5. 研究内容过于庞大,主要观点根本无法表达。
6. 定位不准;基础研究?还是应用研究?
搞不清。基础性研究,应主要在开拓性和原创性上下工夫;如果是应用研究,应在针对性、实证性和对策性上下工夫,应具有全局性、战略性和前瞻性;如果是综合研究,应在学科交叉研究上下工夫。否则,你的整个课题的论证就可能会出现思路不清晰、用力不到位。
7. 问题不明晰;
没有弄清课题身着重分析和解决的问题、尤其是重点、难点问题,缺少分析和解决问题的课题论证;研究任何一个课题,都要分析和解决问题,所以,申报人应具有鲜明的“问题意识”,整个课题论证的重点应放在所要分析和解决的几个问题上来。
8. 研究方法不具体,简单罗列,没有针对性,不能确定自己究竟要用哪种方法。
比如,综合研究法,交叉研究法;要明确提出适合于本课题本身的研究方法。研究方法取决于研究对象或研究课题的本性,不同的研究对象和研究课题,其研究方法是不一样的。因此,在进行课题论证时,不能仅仅提出要以马克思主义为指导,还应提出研究本课题所要运用的具体方法。否则,评审专家认为你不懂学术规范。比如,文献学方法、历史辩证法法、科学和价值统一方法,就很重要。
9. 研究角度缺乏创新,缺少自己独到的见解;
10. 课题缺少核心观点且创新性、当下性不足;
一个课题最最重要的,就是要在学术积累的基础上进行学术创新。学术创新首先体现在学术观点的创新。要达到学术观点的创新,同时必须研究新问题,使用新方法,运用新材料,进行新论证。由此,在进行课题论证时,要用一定的篇幅充分说明其研究成果的创新价值——新领域、新问题、新方法、新材料、新观点、新推进、新突破和新论证。
11. 论证不充分
三言两语或寥寥几百字,内容详略安排不合理,头重脚轻,难点重点归纳不准,创新点概念含糊。研究框架不合理,流程图编制缺少科学性,规范性不足、逻辑不清,重点不突出,层次安排不合理;
12. 口语化的表述习惯,学术规范性不强
缺少学术语言,学术含量,语句不通顺,文字不流畅,表述不精当。甚至有别字,白字;
13. 研究内容太多
5-6条甚至7-8条,一般2-4条比较好。研究内容表述不清晰,逻辑性不强;
14.研究内容写成结项报告,核心内容不突出;
15.研究内容与题目不相关或相关度不高;
16.参考文献不具备权威性,层次低,不全面,有疏漏,最新研究成果少,有些参考文献主题是时间较远研究专著,甚至教材。国外参考文献少,或权威性不足,个别老师将自己的论文作为参考文献。最好要有2015年第一期的相关研究论文;外文资料最好用外文列出。所以,要通过各种有效的办法来搜集和整理研究资料。如果遗漏一些代表性和权威性参考文献,评审专家就可能认为你的工作做的不细致、不认真。
四、课题组成员方面的问题
1.课题组成员结构层次不合理
人数太多或人数太少,合作单位超过三个,有些达到六个,地域分布太广,现实中不易集合共同研究问题。应用研究缺少管理部门,实践部门人员参与。
2. 有些成员的研究成果与课题不相关,不能支撑课题研究
3. 课题组成员的构成是衡量课题组综合研究实力、能否顺利完成课题研究任务和能否产出高质量研究成果的重要指标。
在以往项目申报过程中就曾发生过申报人员选题较好,课题论证也不错,但课题组只有申报者一个人,或者成员综合水平较低而未能通过的情况。最好老中青三结合。应注意满足以下条件:(1)学历高、职称高;(2)在某一问题上有研究、有影响;(3)结构合理(学科结构;知识结构;部门结构:理论工作者;决策工作者;实践工作者)。注意:青年项目课题组成员年龄也不得超过35周岁;
五、其他问题
1. 前期成果不能支撑课题研究,或与研究课题不相关。
2. 负责人没有写清自己具备课题研究的三个条件:
1)有能力(资质、经验),有条件(空泛的写有计算机,有图书馆,有资料),在研项目多很难保证有时间。
2)有比较优势(地域、行业)。
3)在课题涉及领域的研究实力和地位。
3. 经费预算不合理,例如调研费过高,年度支出不合理,或申报经费过少或过多。
4. 格式不规范,字体不统一,装订不规范,
5. 个别成员超项
6. 为与相关课题组成员沟通,超项,在读博士申报需要导师批准。
7. 学科归属不当或有偏差
所申报的选题不在资助学科范围内或选题的主体部分不在该学科范围内。
8. 对创新点和特色凝练不够,表述不准确
9. 申报书中存在错别字等低级错误
这是申报材料中的大忌,如描述非第三人称事物时用了“他们”(本该是“它们”)等等。从国基金通信评议专家评审反馈意见中,可以发现,许多专家特别在意这种低级错误,反映出申请者不认真、严谨,直接导致本子被否定。
易美云学术一站式在线学术教育服务平台,主要专注于科研培训服务,包括SSCI论文写作、社科基金申请、matlab编程培训等,协助广大的科研工作者顺利完成学业或者职业从容晋级;论文润色与选刊亦可联系我们合作伙伴:易美编校。
编辑:陈心茹

 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-4 20:19:14 | 显示全部楼层
【案例】
Prof, noone is reading you
Students at a University of Pennsylvania'sWharton School lecture in San Francisco. Even if scholars agree on theimportance of publishing in the popular media, the system plays against them.Publications in peer-reviewed journals continue to be the
Studentsat a University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School lecture in San Francisco. Evenif scholars agree on the importance of publishing in the popular media, thesystem plays against them. Publications in peer-reviewed journals continue tobe the key performance indicator within academia: whether anyone reads them isa secondary consideration.PHOTO: BLOOMBERG

Anaverage academic journal article is read in its entirety by about 10 people. Toshape policy, professors should start penning commentaries in popular media.
Asit K.Biswas And Julian Kirchherr
MANY ofthe world's most talented thinkers may be university professors, but sadly mostof them are not shaping today's public debates or influencing policies.
Indeed,scholars often frown upon publishing in the popular media. "Running anopinion editorial to share my views with the public? Sounds like activism tome," a professor recently noted at a conference, hosted by the Universityof Oxford.
Theabsence of professors from shaping public debates and policies seems to haveexacerbated in recent years, particularly in social sciences.
In the1930s and 1940s, 20 per cent of articles in the prestigious The American PoliticalScience Review focused on policy recommendations. At the last count, the sharewas down to a meagre 0.3 per cent.
Evendebates among scholars do not seem to function properly. Up to 1.5 millionpeer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored evenwithin scientific communities - 82 per cent of articles published in humanitiesare not even cited once. No one ever refers to 32 per cent of the peer-reviewedarticles in the social and 27 per cent in the natural sciences.
If a paperis cited, this does not imply it has actually been read. According to oneestimate, only 20 per cent of papers cited have actually been read. We estimatethat an average paper in a peer-reviewed journal is read completely by no morethan 10 people. Hence, impacts of most peer-reviewed publications even withinthe scientific community are minuscule.
Manyscholars aspire to contribute to their discipline's knowledge and to influencepractitioners' decision-making.
However,practitioners very rarely read articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Weknow of no senior policymaker or senior business leader who ever read regularlyany peer-reviewed papers in well-recognised journals like Nature, Science orLancet.
Nowonder.
Mostjournals are difficult to access and prohibitively expensive for anyone outsideof academia.
Even ifthe current open-access movement becomes more successful, the incomprehensiblejargon and the sheer volume and lengths of papers (often unnecessary!) wouldstill prevent practitioners (including journalists) from reading andunderstanding them.
Brevityis central. Many government leaders now maintain a standing instruction toprepare a two-page summary every morning of what the popular media writes aboutthem and their policies. In India, this was practised by former prime ministerIndira Gandhi. Many ministers in Canada insist on similar round-ups.Governments in the Middle East now even request summaries of discussions on newsocial media.
We arenot aware of a single minister anywhere in the world who has ever wantedregular summaries of scientific publications in areas of their interest.
Ifacademics want to have an impact on policymakers and practitioners, they mustconsider popular media, which has been ignored by them - although media firmshave developed many innovative business models to help scholars reach out.
Oneeffective model is Project Syndicate (PS), a non-profit organisation, whichdistributes commentary by the world's thought leaders to more than 500newspapers comprising 300 million readers in 154 countries. Any commentaryaccepted by PS may be translated into up to 12 other languages and thendistributed globally to the entire network.
Even ifscholars agree on the importance of publishing in the popular media, the systemplays against them.
In orderto obtain tenure, scholars must churn out as many peer-reviewed articles inhigh-impact journals as possible. Publications in (prestigious) peer-reviewedjournals continue to be the key performance indicator within academia: whetheranyone reads them becomes a secondary consideration.
If thehighest impact journal in the water field is considered, it has only foursubscribers in India with a population of some 1.3 billion. Three years ago,neither the water minister nor those three levels below him had even heard ofthis journal. While a publication in such a journal will bring kudos to aprofessor, its impact on policymaking in India, where water is a very criticalissue, is zero.
It maybe about time to re-assess scholars' performance. For tenure and promotionconsiderations, their impact on policy formulation and public debates shouldalso be assessed.
Thesepublications often showcase the practical relevance and potential applicationof the research results to solve real world problems, and ability tocommunicate in a simple, understandable manner.
Admittedly,impact is not guaranteed. Many policymakers already have a reasonably exactidea on the policy option they prefer.
The policymust, first and foremost, satisfy their plethora of stakeholders. Very fewdecision-makers look only for the most optimal economic, social, environmental,technical, or political solution.
Thosewho look for scientific evidence would vastly benefit from more publications byscholars in the popular media. Slowly, this is recognised within academia.
Forinstance, the National University of Singapore now encourages its faculty tolist op-eds in their profiles. However, significantly more emphasis is stillbeing given to publications in so-called high-impact journals.
Changeis happening but at snail's pace.
stopinion@sph.com.sg
AsitBiswas, a leading authority on environmental and water policy, is distinguishedvisiting professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in the NationalUniversity of Singapore.
JulianKirchherr is a doctoral researcher at the School of Geography and theEnvironment, University of Oxford. He was with McKinsey & Co before that,advising governments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
这篇文章道出大学教授们产出的困境。平均来说,一篇学术文章只有十个人阅读呀!32%的社科学科文章没人引用,82%的人文学科文章没人引用(主要指英文文章)professor, no one is reading youAn average academicjournal article is read in its entirety by about 10 people.
文章建议除了考核学者的学术发表,还要加上他们对政策决定的影响,例如在媒体上的爆光率和在媒体上发表的文章数量。
编辑:陈心茹



发表回复

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 实名注册

本版积分规则

掌上论坛|小黑屋|传媒教育网 ( 蜀ICP备13012090号

Copyright 2013 小马版权所有 All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2016-2022 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表