位置:成果数据库 > 期刊 > 期刊详情页
“专家信任”及其重建策略:一项实证研究
  • ISSN号:1000-0763
  • 期刊名称:《自然辩证法通讯》
  • 时间:0
  • 分类:F204[经济管理—国民经济] C939[经济管理—管理学;社会学]
  • 作者机构:[1]浙江大学光华法学院,浙江杭州310008, [2]浙江大学科技与法律研究中心,浙江杭州310008, [3]东南大学哲学与科学系,江苏南京211189
  • 相关基金:本文系教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目“科学精神、科学道德、科研伦理和学术规范的重塑和构建研究”(12JZD045)、国家社科基金青年项目“道德判断的实验哲学研究”(15CZX017)、“浙江大学争创优秀博士学位论文资助”(201502).
中文摘要:

专家是“社会良心”,专家信任是社会信任的最后一道屏障。为考察我国专家信任的现状、影响因素并探索重建策略,本文进行了实证研究。调查发现:在“公众理解科学”方面,公众已经认识到科学的可错性、条件依赖性和局限性;在科技信息传播方面,新媒体取代传统媒体成为公众获取科技信息的首要渠道,而地区经济发达程度与公众对科技信息和专家的信任程度相关。公众并不信任专家,但陷入了不信任却又不得不信任的“豪猪困境”,专家则面临着“无论说什么、无论怎么说,公众都不信”的“专家塔西佗陷阱”。“人格信任”走向“系统信任”的时代背景规定了这一“豪猪困境”和“专家塔西佗陷阱”的基本特征;二者相互作用,其溢出效应将导致更大范围的社会危机。消除“利益关联”是专家获取信任的关键因素,强化专家与公众之间常规的直接互动、提高传媒准门槛、规范新媒体报道等,有助于建构一个开放、透明、风险共担的“命运共同体”,有助于“豪猪困境”、“专家塔西佗陷阱”的突破和专家信任的重建。

英文摘要:

Public Trust in Experts is the last barrier of the social trusts.In order to grasp the situation of Public Trust in Experts and find the right way to rebuild it, we conducted an empirical research. The study found out that in the aspect of public understanding of science, the public have known that science has the feature of radical fallibility, conditional dependence and limitation. And in dissemination of information about science and technology, new media has replaced traditional media as the primary channel for public access to information of science and technology. Meanwhile, regional economic development level is closely relative to the degree of public trust in science. The public are in the Porcupine Dilemma that they don't want but still have to trust experts. While experts get into Tacitus Trap that whatever they say or do, they couldn't win the public's trust. The historical background of personality trust ( Trust I } moving towards system trust ( Trust II } , has stipulated the basic features of the porcupine dilemma and Tacitus Trap. The interaction between them as well as the spillover effect will lead to a wider range of social crisis. Eliminating the related interest is the key factor to help experts get the public's trust. It's necessary to strengthen the conventional direct interaction between experts and the public, to improve access threshold of the media and to regulate the reports of new media, These measures will be conducive to build an open, transparent, risk-sharing Community of Common Destiny as well as break through the Porcupine Dilemma and Tacitus Trap. In that case, we could rebuild Public Trust in Experts.

同期刊论文项目
同项目期刊论文
期刊信息
  • 《自然辩证法通讯》
  • 北大核心期刊(2011版)
  • 主管单位:中国科学院
  • 主办单位:中国科学院大学
  • 主编:胡志强
  • 地址:北京玉泉路19号中国科学院大学(北京4588信箱)
  • 邮编:100049
  • 邮箱:wangdm@gucas.ac.cn
  • 电话:010-88256007
  • 国际标准刊号:ISSN:1000-0763
  • 国内统一刊号:ISSN:11-1518/N
  • 邮发代号:2-281
  • 获奖情况:
  • 国内外数据库收录:
  • 中国中国人文社科核心期刊,中国北大核心期刊(2004版),中国北大核心期刊(2008版),中国北大核心期刊(2011版),中国北大核心期刊(2014版),中国北大核心期刊(2000版)
  • 被引量:7939