However, in recent years, the discussion on academic research norms has always been higher than the concern about academic innovation, and has frequently become a hot topic in academic circles. So, why is there a heated discussion about academic research norms? Does academic research with innovation as its soul need to be standardized? Will norms affect innovation? This paper intends to make a preliminary discussion on these issues from the perspective of legal academic research.
First, the performance of anomie in legal research
The topic of academic norms has surfaced from the repeated prohibition of academic anomie. These "anomie" phenomena are outstanding in the field of law: First, citations are not marked. "At present, except for a few legal works and articles, there are few references. Looking at legal works and publications, including some good articles published in core legal journals, we can find that many articles are not annotated from beginning to end. " Second, behind closed doors, talking to oneself and testifying separately, it is difficult to form academic recognition. Professor Zhu Suli has met some scholars who are not satisfied with the present situation of legal research and are very serious about their own research. However, it is extremely difficult to read their works, and some completely self-created concepts, propositions and arguments arising therefrom are incomprehensible. Third, the quality of academic achievements is low. At present, many scholars lack a rigorous attitude towards learning, and the concept definition is inaccurate; Without extensive materials, we can't wait to draw conclusions; The argument is unfounded or there are arguments but lack of strict reasoning; The content structure is contradictory and there is no logical unity. The fourth is the repetition and bubble of academic content. Many people don't pay attention to what others have studied and achieved. Many studies are repeating what others have done, studying topics that others have studied, "discovering" some existing discoveries, and wasting a lot of personal and social resources. Fifth, plagiarism often occurs. `
The above-mentioned "anomie" phenomenon has both environmental and institutional reasons, but I am more concerned about the reasons of legal research itself: First, the anomie of legal research ideas. If you are engaged in academic research, you will have comments if you refer to it. You must explain that you can't do things that rob people of beauty. On the surface, the quotation without annotation is the nonstandard format of the paper (annotation is the technical level of academic research norms and belongs to the broad category of research methods-the author's language), but in fact it is a typical manifestation of disrespect for other people's labor and lack of research ethics. Plagiarism is a kind of moral corruption that everyone is angry about. Self-talk is the lack of a standardized research concept. Second, there is a lack of standardized legal research methods. Does academic research of law need theoretical preparation? How to prepare the theory? From what angle do you cut into the research object? What kind of research methods are needed? Without a clear understanding of these issues, there will be unfounded arguments, illogical content and academic bubbles. At present, the legal circles in China have a confused understanding of legal methods and legal methods, and have not consciously formed a basic research framework or paradigm in the sense of methodology. Scholars often explain and demonstrate their views from their own standpoint, lacking basic norms in methods, so that various viewpoints and theories appear, which is a false academic prosperity and leads to anomie and disorder in legal research. Standardization and diversification of research methods have yet to be formed.
From the above analysis, to correct and eliminate the anomie phenomenon in legal research, we must reshape the concept of legal research and standardize the methods of legal research.
Second, reshape the concept of legal research norms.
Thought is the forerunner of action. In order to have a standardized academic research of law, we must reshape the concept of standardized research in the field of law. These ideas mainly include good academic ethics for others' achievements and correct academic concepts for the purpose and value of legal research. The remolding of normative research ideas requires the self-discipline of scholars and the unremitting efforts of schools, research institutions, publishing institutions and other organizations in education, manuscript approval and public opinion. This paper only discusses the academic education in schools, because almost all scholars now start from being students.
The phenomenon of academic anomie frequently exposed at present is related to the absence of academic basic education in colleges and universities. A netizen left a message on the academic review online: "Do we know what plagiarism is? Do we know how to avoid copying others? Have we received this kind of training? These questions seem too naive. But in many cases we don't know. " This information truly reflects the fact that college students and even graduate students rarely receive academic education. In foreign countries, annotation is the most basic academic training and an introductory academic course for college students. The obvious consequence of the absence of academic education in colleges and universities is that law students know nothing about academic research, and they don't know the purpose and value of legal research. "Many students don't even know what is reasonable reference and what is plagiarism when they are in graduate school. How can such students ensure that they will not have academic misconduct when they engage in academic research in the future? " Therefore, colleges and universities must strengthen students' academic education, start with cultivating students' most basic citation annotation skills, and establish students' good academic ethics and correct academic concepts. `
Third, the standardization of legal research methods
Carl. Larenz once said that the essence of law is legal methodology. From the analysis of anomie in legal research, it is not difficult to see that the standardization of methodology is the premise of effective research, the formation of legal unity and the promotion of academic exchanges and development. When talking about the importance of method standardization to economic research, economist Lin Yifu said, "He advocates using standardized methods to study China's local economic problems, and asserts that if so, the study of local economic problems can not only contribute to China's reform and development, but also contribute to world economic science." This sentence can also illustrate the importance of standardization of legal methods for legal research. The starting point of a discipline (especially the discipline of law that calls itself normative science) must first obtain the basic knowledge of methodology, and then form differences of views on this basis, otherwise academic research may become a disorderly and chaotic state.
So what are the normative legal research methods? Judging from the phenomenon of law, the constituent elements of law are composed of value, fact and logic. The disciplines that study these three elements respectively include all legal schools and constitute a complete legal methodology. The essence of legal research first lies in the precise definition of basic legal concepts and the logical formal structure of legal norms. This is a value-neutral, logic-centered normative analysis path, which takes the logical analysis and semantic analysis of analytical positivism as the core and becomes the basic research method of jurisprudence. But facts and logic can't answer "what should people make and abide by legal norms, and what kind of legal norms should they make and abide by?" This fundamental problem with the nature of value judgment. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce some paths of value analysis into legal research. Thirdly, law is a social technology to solve and stop disputes, and the law with it as the research object must be placed in a macro social perspective, pay attention to the social significance of legal norms, and put legal phenomena into the social field in a related way to investigate. That is, legal research has left the method of social empirical analysis. Therefore, from the perspective of methodology, analytical empirical method, value analysis method and social empirical analysis method constitute a complete legal research method.
The above three legal methodologies are the foundations of analytical law, natural law (or other value-oriented law) and social law, and all of them have made unique knowledge contributions to law, but they can only answer some factors of law, so they all have their own limitations. In the current legal research, two or three methods are often used comprehensively. In a more mature legal research system, perhaps "diversified research is smooth?" Even "all-round?" Its existence is a sign of its maturity. After the fierce debate between legal positivism and natural law school in the history of law, modern jurisprudence has gradually appeared the tendency of "surpassing legal positivism and natural law", that is, it advocates that legal norms are the ontological research object of jurisprudence, and jurisprudence should deal with the facts contained or referred to by norms by legal positivism. On the issue of value, it not only recognizes the close relationship between law and morality, but also advocates that value is an organic part of legal norms and can be objective.
At present, China's jurisprudence "may lack profound academic accumulation" and "may be an urgent need for the rule of law construction in China's social reality". Among the numerous legal research achievements in China today, the research on the orientation of social positivism is particularly striking. ". For example, some research results of sociology of law and economics of law are regarded as masterpieces in legal research. However, the research methods of accurately explaining legal norms and legal concept ontology are easily despised as conceptual jurisprudence, which seriously affects the innovation and development of jurisprudence. The normative approach is: legal research should strengthen the comprehensive application of various methods, strengthen the perfect pursuit of legal concepts and legal logic, at the same time consider value, seek value objectification under the constraints of empirical norms, avoid extreme legal positivism, and avoid metaphysical or ontological or sociological exploration.
Fourth, adhere to academic norms in innovation.
Norm and innovation are a pair of contradictory unity. Innovation is the soul of academic research, and academic norms should serve innovation; Academic norms are the premise of effective academic research, and innovation without norms cannot be called academic innovation. The high realm of academic character is the organic unity of academic norms and ideological innovation. Therefore, legal research should adhere to academic norms in innovation.
First of all, we should make full theoretical preparations. Academic research should have its own originality, but originality must be based on the work of predecessors. The achievements of predecessors are the foundation of academic development. It is neither possible nor wise to completely abandon this foundation and study everything from scratch. Using the achievements of our predecessors, we can often avoid many detours. In other words, academic research must be well prepared theoretically. This is the basis of standardization research and academic innovation? Theoretical preparation is to fully understand all the contents of existing achievements, including the creators of various achievements and their related information, the process of formation or acquisition, relevant information, data and evidence, as well as the publication, citation or application. In other words, before studying, we should know the academic history of law. Only in this way can we have a conscious sense of innovation and know where to innovate. Not knowing the academic history is bound to cause great waste. Sometimes, the achievements made with great efforts are just the repetition of the existing achievements, or even worse.
Second, we should critically learn from other people's research results. Innovation requires scholars to properly analyze, evaluate and critically apply the existing achievements in a certain research. In other words, we must seek truth from facts, exclude any factors other than academics, and draw an appropriate conclusion without exaggerating or belittling. When evaluating, we only look at the correctness, level and significance of the results, regardless of the creator's political attitude, religious belief, social status, economic situation, class affiliation, ethnic composition, personal morality, relationship with the evaluator and other factors, and do not use languages other than academics or languages with obvious emotional colors. Qualitative evaluation should provide reference and quantitative evaluation should have specific data.
Third, we must make a detailed explanation of theoretical inheritance. A paper or a monograph cannot be all one's own achievements. For the convenience of discussion or demonstration, and for the sake of completeness, it is necessary to involve existing achievements, so it is necessary to clearly explain or distinguish which belong to others and which belong to oneself. What innovations are there in my own part and how significant these innovations are. Today, with the increasing amount of knowledge and information explosion, such explanations are particularly necessary, which can not only save users' time and energy, but also let users directly understand the latest academic progress and the possibility and necessity of further development. This relationship includes direct relationship and indirect relationship. For example, the achievements of predecessors have provided themselves with some inspiration, some enlightenment and some clues. Although the later research was completed independently, it should also explain this process so that future generations can fully understand this academic history. For example, the predecessors made mistakes in this respect, took detours, or mistakenly believed the wrong information, data and conclusions, thus finding another way to avoid repeating the same mistakes, then this process should also be explained. If you find that your achievements have not substantially increased or improved compared with the previous achievements, don't publish them as new achievements.
Fourth, strict logical reasoning and effective argumentation must be carried out. Legal theory is a logical system, and its construction must first strictly abide by the inherent consistency requirements of formal logic. When writing a thesis, researchers should not only talk about personal views, thoughts and subjective wishes on a certain issue, nor can they replace logical reasoning with personal judgments or other jurists' views and theories, let alone use metaphors instead of reasoning, otherwise it will be difficult to form a logical system. We must explain in detail how our conclusion was reached, and the whole theoretical system should have strict reasoning and effective argumentation, so that the results can be convincing.
Fifth, the source or source of all relevant information and data must be published. These materials and data include those that have not been published publicly or obtained through private channels. The source and source should be first-hand, and the cited second-hand information should be explained, at least check it yourself. In legal research, data mining itself is a part of research work. If we get clues and inspiration from the existing achievements, we should also publish this process. For example, when quoting important materials, we should not only indicate the first source, but also explain the process of quoting, and indicate the second or third source. For unpublished results, the consent or authorization of the owner should be obtained.
To sum up, legal research must adhere to the high unity of normative research and ideological innovation. However, from the current situation, the importance of legal research norms and the relationship between norms and innovation have not been unified and clear in academic circles. This paper aims to attract more attention and promote the innovation and development of law through the discussion on the standardization and innovation of law research.
refer to
1. Ge on the standardization and innovation of academic research, China Higher Education,No. 19, 2004.
2. Deng Zhenglai wrote "Reflection and Criticism on the Knowledge Production Machine-Towards the Second Stage of Academic Standardization in China",/homepagebook/2238/a03.htm.
3. Zhao, Lin: "Self-esteem, Self-discipline, Openness and Innovation-Discussion on Academic Norms", Hebei Daily Theory Edition, 2002.3. 15.
4. Zhu Suli wrote "Standardization, Tradition and Localization of Legal Research", which was published in Zhongping.com Scholars Community and Zhu Suli's personal homepage.
5. Yu Jun wrote "Methodological Thinking in the Study of Administrative Legal Responsibility", Legal Daily, 2003, 1 1.
6. Academic Research in Cao Jianwen: From Anomie to Normalization, Guangming Daily, September 2004 14.
7. Yang Yusheng's Several Issues on the Construction of Academic Morality in Colleges and Universities, Academic Review Network, 2002-03- 18.
8. Lin Yifu wrote "Research Methods of Economics and the Development of Economic Discipline in China", which was published in Economic Research 200 1 No.4..
9. The Journal of Hunan University of Political Science and Law Management published Wan Lianzi's book The Deviation of Academic Character is the Organic Unity of Norm and Innovation.
The second issue in 2002.
-
Note: The footnotes in this article are as follows:
Ge's Theory on Standardization and Innovation of Academic Research, Higher Education in China,No. 19, 2004.
Deng Zhenglai's reflection and criticism on the knowledge production machine —— Towards the second stage of academic standardization discussion in China, entitled "Preface to Academic Standardization, Law Press, August 2004, /homepagebook/2238/a03.htm". ... this movement named "academic standardization in China" has structural strength. Do theorists from different disciplines stand up from different dimensions? He made a positive response to this topic in a direct or indirect way, which constituted the real promoter of this movement. According to general statistics, firstly, besides the China Book Review (1994) which published more than 20 papers devoted to academic norms, by 2003, Scholars, the East, Modernity and Tradition, Historical Research, American Studies, Social Science Forum, Social Ethnology in China, Exploration and Contention in Jiangsu Social Sciences. Secondly, academic circles have successfully held many national academic standardization seminars so far, namely, the symposium on "Standardization and Localization of Social Sciences" sponsored by China Social Sciences Quarterly and China Book Review in June1994165438; 65438+1September, 1998, World History magazine of China Academy of Social Sciences and Nanjing University jointly held a special seminar on "Following academic norms and strengthening the construction of study style"; 65438+1April, 1999, the academic seminar "Follow academic norms and promote academic dialogue" jointly organized by the editorial department of social ethnology and historical research in China; 1999 12 symposium with the theme of "rebuilding academic norms and hurting academic ethics" jointly sponsored by Dialectics of Nature Newsletter and Shanxi University; In March, 2002, China Seminar on Academic Norms of Economics was sponsored by China Center for Economic Research of Peking University and Economics Quarterly.
Standardization, Tradition and Localization of Legal Studies in Zhu Suli, China Review Network, Zhu Suli Personal Homepage.
Zhao and Lin: Self-esteem, Self-discipline, Openness and Innovation —— Discussion on Academic Norms, Hebei Daily Theory Edition, March 2002 15.
Yu Jun, Methodological Thinking in the Study of Administrative Legal Responsibility, Legal Daily, 2003, 1 1.
Zeng's academic research: from anomie to standardization, Guangming Daily, September 2004 14.
Yang Yusheng, Some Issues on the Construction of Academic Morality in Colleges and Universities, Academic Review Network, March 2002-18.
Zeng's academic research: from anomie to standardization Guangming Daily, September 2004 14.
Quoted from Jun's Methodological Reflections on the Research of Administrative Legal Responsibility, Legal Daily, 2003, 1 1.
Lin Yifu's Economic Research Methods and the Development of Economics Discipline in China, Economic Research No.4, 200 1.
Yu Jun, Methodological Thinking in the Study of Administrative Legal Responsibility, Legal Daily, 2003, 1 1.
Yu Jun, Methodological Thinking in the Study of Administrative Legal Responsibility, Legal Daily, 2003, 1 1.
Yu Jun, Methodological Thinking in the Study of Administrative Legal Responsibility, Legal Daily, 2003, 1 1.
"Only innovative research in theory can contribute to the development of academic thought." See Lin Yifu's Research Methods of Economics and the Development of Economic Discipline in China, Economic Research No.4, 200 1.
Wan Lianzi's book "The highest state of academic character is the unity of standardization and innovation" was published in the second issue of Management Journal of Hunan University of Political Science and Law in 2002.
Zhao and Lin: Self-esteem, Self-discipline, Openness and Innovation —— Discussion on Academic Norms, Hebei Daily Theory Edition, March 2002 15.
Ge's Theory on Standardization and Innovation of Academic Research, Higher Education in China,No. 19, 2004.