中国科研产出学科分布的演化与成因
|
摘要
本文利用Scopus数据库收录的1996-2015年科研论文数据分析中国科研产出的学科分布。通过回归分析和差异分析,着重研究中国科研产出学科分布的历史演化特征,并探讨其成因机制。研究发现,在科研产出的学科分布方面,中国与世界主要国家之间存在较大差异,学科间失衡严重。历史演化分析表明中国的科学分布逐渐与世界水平趋同,但尚未达到主流科技大国的均衡水平。本文从历史事件、国家发展战略需求、制度安排、文化因素等方面分析了上述特征的成因机制,特别强调路径依赖的主要作用,并探讨了相关的科技政策问题。
Although China as a transition country has evolved into the world's second largest in both size of economy and number of academic publications,the nation has yet to gain the world's leading position in scientific research. Whereas there is abundant literature assessing China's national research capacity,most studies have focused on quantity of research outputs,often measured by the total number of publications or citations,while relatively less attention has been paid to the disciplinary structure of research outputs,often measured by the distribution of publications or citations across scientific fields. Thus,it is imperative for China to have a holistic and in-depth understanding of its disciplinary profiles( such as areas of relative strength and weakness),as it is key to the nation's science policy-making,especially to the strategic planning for resource allocation in research.The present study follows the tradition in bibliometric studies to trace and analyze the evolutionary patterns of China's national research capacity in its disciplinary structure. Particularly,it sheds lights on the major characteristics of China's national disciplinary structure in research as compared to the world's major scientific producers,as well as to the global research profiles and investigates whether there is a continuous pattern of convergence or divergence in China's disciplinary structure towards the global research profiles. Furthermore,this paper aims to advance the understanding of such evolutionary patterns through a historically oriented approach by taking into consideration social,institutional,economic,and policy changes over the history.The dataset used by this study is extracted from the Scopus database covering 4 main areas( physical,life,health,and social sciences) and 27 major disciplines for the period from 1996 to 2015. Percentage distribution of publications across scientific fields is used for comparison of disciplinary structure between nations. The Finger-Kreinin Similarity Index( FKSI) is used as an indicator of the structural similarity between China's academic publications as compared to the global distribution of publications. The level of specialization for each discipline is measured by the Relative Specialization Index( RSI). Significance of the structural changes over time in China's disciplinary structures is tested through simple regression models.It is found that China differs significantly from the world's major nations in their research output distributions. The rankings of China's disciplinary specializations have been very stable,demonstrating consistency in its peculiarities and preferences. For example,China has constantly been comparatively strong in all major fields of physical sciences but weak in areas of life,health,and social sciences. Analysis of evolutionary patterns shows that there has been a continuous converging process of the disciplinary distribution between China and the world's research outputs. The regression results reveal that this converging process has led to significant structural changes in China's research profiles. However,the structural changes have been incremental overall.China has not reached the level of a balanced distribution compatible with other major research powers.The author argues that the persistency in China's disciplinary structure can be largely explained by path dependence processes jointly resulting from national strategies,S&T guiding principles,institutional settings,national culture,and historical events,among other contributing factors. First,following the nation's development strategies,much of China's R&D resources( best-trained personnel and ample funding) have historically been channeled into fields related to national security and defense,and a significant portion of research has been devoted to the national survey of natural resources. Second,guiding principles of China's science policy revealed in a series of national science and technology development plans since the 1950 s have had a consistent emphasis on prioritized fields,although recently with a gradual and steady shift towards an overall enhancement in the nation's sustainable innovative capacity. Third,the imbalance between physical sciences and life sciences has been reinforced by China's institutional arrangements,i. e. the composition of the members of the Academy of Sciences( CAS) and the disciplinary distribution of government research institutes. Fourth,historical events matter. Research in life sciences and social sciences was largely damaged through political events,such as the dominance of Lysenkoism on China's genetics and the discontinuation of sociology programs in universities. In the meantime,physical sciences were strengthened through the so called "Four Emergency Measures"( radio electronics,automation,semiconductors and computers) laid out in the 1956 Twelve-year Science and Technology Plan. Fifth,values and norms in China's national culture tend to favor incremental over radical changes.This paper suggests that the above path dependency be overcome by effective implementation of science policies that encourage a more balanced distribution of research resources and industrial policies that stimulate the development of economic sectors related to pharmaceuticals and public health,which will in turn push research in life and health sciences.
Although China as a transition country has evolved into the world's second largest in both size of economy and number of academic publications,the nation has yet to gain the world's leading position in scientific research. Whereas there is abundant literature assessing China's national research capacity,most studies have focused on quantity of research outputs,often measured by the total number of publications or citations,while relatively less attention has been paid to the disciplinary structure of research outputs,often measured by the distribution of publications or citations across scientific fields. Thus,it is imperative for China to have a holistic and in-depth understanding of its disciplinary profiles( such as areas of relative strength and weakness),as it is key to the nation's science policy-making,especially to the strategic planning for resource allocation in research.The present study follows the tradition in bibliometric studies to trace and analyze the evolutionary patterns of China's national research capacity in its disciplinary structure. Particularly,it sheds lights on the major characteristics of China's national disciplinary structure in research as compared to the world's major scientific producers,as well as to the global research profiles and investigates whether there is a continuous pattern of convergence or divergence in China's disciplinary structure towards the global research profiles. Furthermore,this paper aims to advance the understanding of such evolutionary patterns through a historically oriented approach by taking into consideration social,institutional,economic,and policy changes over the history.The dataset used by this study is extracted from the Scopus database covering 4 main areas( physical,life,health,and social sciences) and 27 major disciplines for the period from 1996 to 2015. Percentage distribution of publications across scientific fields is used for comparison of disciplinary structure between nations. The Finger-Kreinin Similarity Index( FKSI) is used as an indicator of the structural similarity between China's academic publications as compared to the global distribution of publications. The level of specialization for each discipline is measured by the Relative Specialization Index( RSI). Significance of the structural changes over time in China's disciplinary structures is tested through simple regression models.It is found that China differs significantly from the world's major nations in their research output distributions. The rankings of China's disciplinary specializations have been very stable,demonstrating consistency in its peculiarities and preferences. For example,China has constantly been comparatively strong in all major fields of physical sciences but weak in areas of life,health,and social sciences. Analysis of evolutionary patterns shows that there has been a continuous converging process of the disciplinary distribution between China and the world's research outputs. The regression results reveal that this converging process has led to significant structural changes in China's research profiles. However,the structural changes have been incremental overall.China has not reached the level of a balanced distribution compatible with other major research powers.The author argues that the persistency in China's disciplinary structure can be largely explained by path dependence processes jointly resulting from national strategies,S&T guiding principles,institutional settings,national culture,and historical events,among other contributing factors. First,following the nation's development strategies,much of China's R&D resources( best-trained personnel and ample funding) have historically been channeled into fields related to national security and defense,and a significant portion of research has been devoted to the national survey of natural resources. Second,guiding principles of China's science policy revealed in a series of national science and technology development plans since the 1950 s have had a consistent emphasis on prioritized fields,although recently with a gradual and steady shift towards an overall enhancement in the nation's sustainable innovative capacity. Third,the imbalance between physical sciences and life sciences has been reinforced by China's institutional arrangements,i. e. the composition of the members of the Academy of Sciences( CAS) and the disciplinary distribution of government research institutes. Fourth,historical events matter. Research in life sciences and social sciences was largely damaged through political events,such as the dominance of Lysenkoism on China's genetics and the discontinuation of sociology programs in universities. In the meantime,physical sciences were strengthened through the so called "Four Emergency Measures"( radio electronics,automation,semiconductors and computers) laid out in the 1956 Twelve-year Science and Technology Plan. Fifth,values and norms in China's national culture tend to favor incremental over radical changes.This paper suggests that the above path dependency be overcome by effective implementation of science policies that encourage a more balanced distribution of research resources and industrial policies that stimulate the development of economic sectors related to pharmaceuticals and public health,which will in turn push research in life and health sciences.
引文
[1]穆荣平,樊永刚,文皓.中国创新发展:迈向世界科技强国之路[J].中国科学院院刊,2017,32(5):512-520.Mu R,Fan Y,&Wen H.Innovation development:Way to build China a major S&T power[J].Bulletin of Chinese A-cademy of Sciences,2017,32(5):512-520.
[2]Zhou,P.&Leydesdorff,L.The emergence of China as a leading nation in science[J].Research Policy,2006,35(1):83-104.
[3]Hu M C.&Mathews J A.(2008).China’s national innovative capacity[J].Research Policy,2008,37(9):1465-1479.
[4]陈凯华,张艺,穆荣平.科技领域基础研究能力的国际比较研究---以储能领域为例[J].科学学研究,2017,36(1):34-44.Chen K,Zhang Y,&Mu R.The international comparison of the basic research capability in the science&technology field---Evidence from the field of energy storage[J].Studies in Science of Science,2017,35(6):824-833.
[5]Yang,L.Y.,Yue,T.,Ding,J.L.,&Han,T.A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods[J].Scientometrics,2012,93(2):497-516.
[6]Li,N.Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research:1996-2015[J].Scientometrics,2017,111(1):493-520.
[7]Nederhof A J.The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance[M]//A F J Van Raan,A F J.(Ed.)Handbook of quantitative Studies of Science and Technology.Elsevier Science Pub.Co,1988:193-228.
[8]Tijssen R.J.W.Cartography of science:Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods[M].Leiden:DSWO Press,1992.
[9]李宁.科学计量学与科技政策:问题与争论[M]//刘细文,李宁等.科学政策研究之科学计量学方法.第七章.北京:科学出版社,2017:232-269.Li,N.Scientometrics and public policy:Issues and controversies[M]//Liu X.&Li N.,et al.Scientometric Methods of Science and Technology Policies Research,Chapter 7,Beijing:Science Press,2017,232-264.
[10]Dalum,B.,Laursen,K.,Villumsen,G.Structural change in OECD export specialisation patterns:De-specialisation and‘stickiness’[J].International Review of Applied Economics,1998,12(3):423-443.
[11]Laursen,K.Revealed comparative advantage and the alternatives as measures of international specialization[J].EuroAsia Pacific Business Review,2015,5(1):99-115.
[12]Finger,J.M.and Kreinin,M.E.A measure of‘export similarity’and its possible uses[J].The Economic Journal,1979,89(356):905-912.
[13]Glnzel,W.Science in Scandinavia:A bibliometric approach[J].Scientometrics,2000,48(2):121-150.
[14]Hu,X.,&Rousseau,R.A comparative study of the difference in research performance in biomedical fields among selected Western and Asia Pacific countries[J].Scientometrics,2009,81(2):475-491.
[15]Glnzel,W.&Schlemmer,B.National research profiles in a changing Europe(1983-2003)An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix[J].Scientometrics,2007,70(2):267-275.
[16]Horlings,E.&van den Besselaar,P.Convergence in science growth and structure of worldwide scientific output,1993-2008[M].Rathenau Instituut,Working Paper 1301,2013.
[17]Radosevic,S.,&Yoruk,E.Are there global shifts in the world science base?Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions[J].Scientometrics,2014,101(3):1897-1924.
[18]North,D.C.Institutions,institutional change,and economic performance[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[19]白春礼.牢记历史责任实现“四个率先”[N/OL].人民日报,2013-08-16[2018-08-03].http://www.cas.cn/xw/zyxw/ttxw/201308/t20130816_3913053.shtml.Bai C.Bear in mind our historical responsibilities and strive to realize“the Four Firsts”[N].China Daily,2013-08-16.[2018-08-03].http://www.cas.cn/xw/zyxw/ttxw/201308/t20130816_3913053.shtml.
[2]Zhou,P.&Leydesdorff,L.The emergence of China as a leading nation in science[J].Research Policy,2006,35(1):83-104.
[3]Hu M C.&Mathews J A.(2008).China’s national innovative capacity[J].Research Policy,2008,37(9):1465-1479.
[4]陈凯华,张艺,穆荣平.科技领域基础研究能力的国际比较研究---以储能领域为例[J].科学学研究,2017,36(1):34-44.Chen K,Zhang Y,&Mu R.The international comparison of the basic research capability in the science&technology field---Evidence from the field of energy storage[J].Studies in Science of Science,2017,35(6):824-833.
[5]Yang,L.Y.,Yue,T.,Ding,J.L.,&Han,T.A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods[J].Scientometrics,2012,93(2):497-516.
[6]Li,N.Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research:1996-2015[J].Scientometrics,2017,111(1):493-520.
[7]Nederhof A J.The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance[M]//A F J Van Raan,A F J.(Ed.)Handbook of quantitative Studies of Science and Technology.Elsevier Science Pub.Co,1988:193-228.
[8]Tijssen R.J.W.Cartography of science:Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods[M].Leiden:DSWO Press,1992.
[9]李宁.科学计量学与科技政策:问题与争论[M]//刘细文,李宁等.科学政策研究之科学计量学方法.第七章.北京:科学出版社,2017:232-269.Li,N.Scientometrics and public policy:Issues and controversies[M]//Liu X.&Li N.,et al.Scientometric Methods of Science and Technology Policies Research,Chapter 7,Beijing:Science Press,2017,232-264.
[10]Dalum,B.,Laursen,K.,Villumsen,G.Structural change in OECD export specialisation patterns:De-specialisation and‘stickiness’[J].International Review of Applied Economics,1998,12(3):423-443.
[11]Laursen,K.Revealed comparative advantage and the alternatives as measures of international specialization[J].EuroAsia Pacific Business Review,2015,5(1):99-115.
[12]Finger,J.M.and Kreinin,M.E.A measure of‘export similarity’and its possible uses[J].The Economic Journal,1979,89(356):905-912.
[13]Glnzel,W.Science in Scandinavia:A bibliometric approach[J].Scientometrics,2000,48(2):121-150.
[14]Hu,X.,&Rousseau,R.A comparative study of the difference in research performance in biomedical fields among selected Western and Asia Pacific countries[J].Scientometrics,2009,81(2):475-491.
[15]Glnzel,W.&Schlemmer,B.National research profiles in a changing Europe(1983-2003)An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix[J].Scientometrics,2007,70(2):267-275.
[16]Horlings,E.&van den Besselaar,P.Convergence in science growth and structure of worldwide scientific output,1993-2008[M].Rathenau Instituut,Working Paper 1301,2013.
[17]Radosevic,S.,&Yoruk,E.Are there global shifts in the world science base?Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions[J].Scientometrics,2014,101(3):1897-1924.
[18]North,D.C.Institutions,institutional change,and economic performance[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[19]白春礼.牢记历史责任实现“四个率先”[N/OL].人民日报,2013-08-16[2018-08-03].http://www.cas.cn/xw/zyxw/ttxw/201308/t20130816_3913053.shtml.Bai C.Bear in mind our historical responsibilities and strive to realize“the Four Firsts”[N].China Daily,2013-08-16.[2018-08-03].http://www.cas.cn/xw/zyxw/ttxw/201308/t20130816_3913053.shtml.