研究型大学跨学科科研生产力研究
|
摘要
作为一个知识中枢,研究型大学在人类知识生产和知识应用过程中发挥着十分重要的作用。随着科学技术的发展、综合,跨学科研究已成为当代科技发展的时代特征,在研究型大学中日益占据重要地位,发挥着愈益重要的作用。如何提高跨学科科研生产力,使得跨学科研究在研究型大学中更为有效地开展,成为人类知识生产和知识应用过程中亟待解决的一项紧迫课题。然而,学术界关于研究型大学跨学科科研生产力的研究尚不多见。正因为如此,如何提升研究型大学跨学科科研生产力,理应成为本论文研究的应有之义,其理论与现实的重要性更是不言而喻。
本论文通过理论演绎、内容分析、案例研究、问卷调查和数据分析等研究方法,对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力这一议题进行了较为深入的研究。具体而言,本论文主要围绕三大问题开展研究：(1)研究型大学跨学科科研生产力的影响因素及其相对重要性研究；(2)研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升机制模型构建；(3)促进研究型大学跨学科科研生产力发展的对策建议。
通过研究,本论文得出以下几个较有新意的结论：
(1)跨学科科研生产力是指由不同学科领域的科研工作者为解决超出单一学科界限的共同问题而形成的正式或非正式科研组织从事科学研究活动的产出能力,包括知识生产与应用的能力。本论文通过对多所研究型大学跨学科研究组织的管理者、项目负责人或参与者共45位人员分别进行一个小时左右的深度访谈,运用内容分析法对所获得的45则访谈资料进行分析发现：跨学科研究评价机制是影响研究型大学跨学科科研生产力最为关键的因素,跨学科研究管理体制、跨学科研究运行机制、跨学科研究组织与产业界的联系、合理的跨学科研究组织对其的影响次之,国家层面对跨学科研究的支持这一因素对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力的影响作用很小。
(2)结合国外三所研究型大学提升跨学科科研生产力的成功实践,本论文以203份问卷为样本对构建的研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升机制理论模型进行验证发现：合理的职称结构、学历层次结构、学科结构、年龄结构等对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力有显著的正向影响。建立跨学科学术委员会、实行委员会领导下的主任负责制、在学校层面设立跨学科研究专项基金、围绕现实问题开展跨学科研究、研究成员之间进行有效沟通、大力培养跨学科人才、合理分配跨学科研究经费、满足产业界的需求、吸引产业界加入、与产业界合作研究、接受产业界的研究建议等对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力有非常显著的正向影响。尤为重要的是,建立健全的跨学科学术评价制度、评价时鼓励团队协作、承认在其它学科出版物上发表的成果对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力有极显著的正向影响。然而,以国家重大专项形式资助、设立跨学科项目专项基金、由专门机构来负责管理、建立国家层面的跨学科研究平台对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力没有显著正向影响。
(3)通过扫描研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升的核心资源地图,深入分析研究型大学提升跨学科科研生产力的整体环境表明,制定跨学科研究战略,加强跨学科研究顶层设计；建立共享服务体系,激发跨学科知识网络效应；促进学科边界开放,构建高效组织间学习模式；培育科研共同体,营造跨学科科研生产力发展生态环境等将可能成为研究型大学提升跨学科科研生产力的重要对策建议。
本论文的主要贡献包括以下几点：识别了研究型大学跨学科科研生产力影响因素及其相对重要性,为跨学科研究实践提供了一定的参考借鉴；构建了研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升机制模型,为跨学科科研生产力的提升提供了可能的思路；提出了促进研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升的对策,丰富了跨学科科研生产力提升的理论探索。
As a central pivot of knowledge, research universities are playing an important role in the process of human knowledge production and application. With the development and integration of science and technology, interdisciplinary research has become an era sign of the contemporary scientific and technological development, occupying an increasingly essential position in research universities and displaying more and more important function. That how to improve the productivity of interdisciplinary research, so that interdisciplinary research is to be more effectively carried out in research universities has become an urgent subject in human knowledge production and application process. However, researches regarding the productivity of interdisciplinary research of research universities are rarely seen in academic circles. Because of this, it is logically understandable that how to improve the productivity of interdisciplinary research in research universities will play an important part in the paper, with its evident significance in both theory and reality.
In this paper, with the adoption of such methods as theoretical interpretation, content analysis, case studies, questionnaire surveys and data analysis, a relatively profound research has been conducted on the productivity of interdisciplinary research in research universities. Specifically, the paper is centered around three major issues:(1) The research on the impact factors and their relative importance for interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities; (2) The construction of enhancement mechanism of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities; (3) Suggestions and countermeasures to promote the development of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities.
Based on the research, the following innovative conclusions have been produced in the paper:
(1) The output capacity produced from scientific research activities by formal or informal research organizations consisting of scientists in different disciplines to solve common issues that are beyond single disciplinary boundaries, is what is referred to as interdisciplinary research productivity, including the capacity in knowledge production and application. In this paper, in-depth interviews that last for about one hour have been conducted respectively toward such 45 people as managers, project leaders or participants of interdisciplinary research organizations in research universities, and the research method content analysis has been applied in the conversational materials of the 45 interviewees, from which it is found that interdisciplinary research evaluation mechanism is the most crucial factor that impacts interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, that interdisciplinary research management system, interdisciplinary research operational mechanism, the contacts between interdisciplinary research organization and industrial circles and reasonable interdisciplinary research organizations count as the second important factors, and that the national support of interdisciplinary research is of the least significance to influence interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities.
(2) Through a combination of the successful practices of the interdisciplinary research productivity enhancement in three research universities overseas and with 203 sampling questionnaires, an empirical study about the theoretical model construction of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities conducted in the paper has verified that reasonable title structure, academic hierarchy, discipline structure and age structure, etc. have had a significantly positive impact on interdisciplinary research productivity, and that the foundation of interdisciplinary academic committee, the implementation of director responsibility system under the leadership of committee, the establishment of special fund in interdisciplinary research on school level, the development of interdisciplinary research around practical problems, the effective communication among research members, the vigorous cultivation of interdisciplinary talents, the rational allocation of interdisciplinary research funding, the satisfaction of the requirements in industrial circles, the attraction of industrial circles cooperation, the collaborative research with industrial circles, and the acceptance of research suggestions from industrial circles, etc. are also of evident positive influences on the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity. What is of particular importance is the establishment of a sound interdisciplinary academic evaluation system, the encouragement of teamwork in evaluation and the recognition of the achievements published in other academic publications, all of which are positively related with the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity in an obvious kind of way. However, the support from the state as major projects, the establishment of special funds in interdisciplinary programs, the management from specialized institutions and the foundation of interdisciplinary research platform on national level are not positively related with interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities in a positive sense.
(3) By scanning the core resource maps of interdisciplinary research productivity enhancement in research universities and the in-depth analysis of the overall background of the improvement of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, it has been indicated that the formulation of interdisciplinary research strategy, the enhancement of top-level design in interdisciplinary research, the establishment of shared service system, the stimulation of network effect of interdisciplinary knowledge, the promotion of discipline open borders, the construction of effective organizational learning mode, the cultivation of science and technology integration, the building of eco-environment for the development of interdisciplinary research productivity are likely to be important suggestions and countermeasures for the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities.
The major contribution of the paper includes the following parts:The paper identifies the impact factors and their relative significances when influencing interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, providing references and examples for the practices of interdisciplinary research; the paper constructs a mechanism model to enhance the interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, offering possible concepts to the improvement of interdisciplinary research productivity; the paper raises the countermeasures to promote the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, enriching the theoretical explorations of interdisciplinary research productivity enhancement.
本论文通过理论演绎、内容分析、案例研究、问卷调查和数据分析等研究方法,对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力这一议题进行了较为深入的研究。具体而言,本论文主要围绕三大问题开展研究：(1)研究型大学跨学科科研生产力的影响因素及其相对重要性研究；(2)研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升机制模型构建；(3)促进研究型大学跨学科科研生产力发展的对策建议。
通过研究,本论文得出以下几个较有新意的结论：
(1)跨学科科研生产力是指由不同学科领域的科研工作者为解决超出单一学科界限的共同问题而形成的正式或非正式科研组织从事科学研究活动的产出能力,包括知识生产与应用的能力。本论文通过对多所研究型大学跨学科研究组织的管理者、项目负责人或参与者共45位人员分别进行一个小时左右的深度访谈,运用内容分析法对所获得的45则访谈资料进行分析发现：跨学科研究评价机制是影响研究型大学跨学科科研生产力最为关键的因素,跨学科研究管理体制、跨学科研究运行机制、跨学科研究组织与产业界的联系、合理的跨学科研究组织对其的影响次之,国家层面对跨学科研究的支持这一因素对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力的影响作用很小。
(2)结合国外三所研究型大学提升跨学科科研生产力的成功实践,本论文以203份问卷为样本对构建的研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升机制理论模型进行验证发现：合理的职称结构、学历层次结构、学科结构、年龄结构等对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力有显著的正向影响。建立跨学科学术委员会、实行委员会领导下的主任负责制、在学校层面设立跨学科研究专项基金、围绕现实问题开展跨学科研究、研究成员之间进行有效沟通、大力培养跨学科人才、合理分配跨学科研究经费、满足产业界的需求、吸引产业界加入、与产业界合作研究、接受产业界的研究建议等对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力有非常显著的正向影响。尤为重要的是,建立健全的跨学科学术评价制度、评价时鼓励团队协作、承认在其它学科出版物上发表的成果对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力有极显著的正向影响。然而,以国家重大专项形式资助、设立跨学科项目专项基金、由专门机构来负责管理、建立国家层面的跨学科研究平台对研究型大学跨学科科研生产力没有显著正向影响。
(3)通过扫描研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升的核心资源地图,深入分析研究型大学提升跨学科科研生产力的整体环境表明,制定跨学科研究战略,加强跨学科研究顶层设计；建立共享服务体系,激发跨学科知识网络效应；促进学科边界开放,构建高效组织间学习模式；培育科研共同体,营造跨学科科研生产力发展生态环境等将可能成为研究型大学提升跨学科科研生产力的重要对策建议。
本论文的主要贡献包括以下几点：识别了研究型大学跨学科科研生产力影响因素及其相对重要性,为跨学科研究实践提供了一定的参考借鉴；构建了研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升机制模型,为跨学科科研生产力的提升提供了可能的思路；提出了促进研究型大学跨学科科研生产力提升的对策,丰富了跨学科科研生产力提升的理论探索。
As a central pivot of knowledge, research universities are playing an important role in the process of human knowledge production and application. With the development and integration of science and technology, interdisciplinary research has become an era sign of the contemporary scientific and technological development, occupying an increasingly essential position in research universities and displaying more and more important function. That how to improve the productivity of interdisciplinary research, so that interdisciplinary research is to be more effectively carried out in research universities has become an urgent subject in human knowledge production and application process. However, researches regarding the productivity of interdisciplinary research of research universities are rarely seen in academic circles. Because of this, it is logically understandable that how to improve the productivity of interdisciplinary research in research universities will play an important part in the paper, with its evident significance in both theory and reality.
In this paper, with the adoption of such methods as theoretical interpretation, content analysis, case studies, questionnaire surveys and data analysis, a relatively profound research has been conducted on the productivity of interdisciplinary research in research universities. Specifically, the paper is centered around three major issues:(1) The research on the impact factors and their relative importance for interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities; (2) The construction of enhancement mechanism of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities; (3) Suggestions and countermeasures to promote the development of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities.
Based on the research, the following innovative conclusions have been produced in the paper:
(1) The output capacity produced from scientific research activities by formal or informal research organizations consisting of scientists in different disciplines to solve common issues that are beyond single disciplinary boundaries, is what is referred to as interdisciplinary research productivity, including the capacity in knowledge production and application. In this paper, in-depth interviews that last for about one hour have been conducted respectively toward such 45 people as managers, project leaders or participants of interdisciplinary research organizations in research universities, and the research method content analysis has been applied in the conversational materials of the 45 interviewees, from which it is found that interdisciplinary research evaluation mechanism is the most crucial factor that impacts interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, that interdisciplinary research management system, interdisciplinary research operational mechanism, the contacts between interdisciplinary research organization and industrial circles and reasonable interdisciplinary research organizations count as the second important factors, and that the national support of interdisciplinary research is of the least significance to influence interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities.
(2) Through a combination of the successful practices of the interdisciplinary research productivity enhancement in three research universities overseas and with 203 sampling questionnaires, an empirical study about the theoretical model construction of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities conducted in the paper has verified that reasonable title structure, academic hierarchy, discipline structure and age structure, etc. have had a significantly positive impact on interdisciplinary research productivity, and that the foundation of interdisciplinary academic committee, the implementation of director responsibility system under the leadership of committee, the establishment of special fund in interdisciplinary research on school level, the development of interdisciplinary research around practical problems, the effective communication among research members, the vigorous cultivation of interdisciplinary talents, the rational allocation of interdisciplinary research funding, the satisfaction of the requirements in industrial circles, the attraction of industrial circles cooperation, the collaborative research with industrial circles, and the acceptance of research suggestions from industrial circles, etc. are also of evident positive influences on the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity. What is of particular importance is the establishment of a sound interdisciplinary academic evaluation system, the encouragement of teamwork in evaluation and the recognition of the achievements published in other academic publications, all of which are positively related with the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity in an obvious kind of way. However, the support from the state as major projects, the establishment of special funds in interdisciplinary programs, the management from specialized institutions and the foundation of interdisciplinary research platform on national level are not positively related with interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities in a positive sense.
(3) By scanning the core resource maps of interdisciplinary research productivity enhancement in research universities and the in-depth analysis of the overall background of the improvement of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, it has been indicated that the formulation of interdisciplinary research strategy, the enhancement of top-level design in interdisciplinary research, the establishment of shared service system, the stimulation of network effect of interdisciplinary knowledge, the promotion of discipline open borders, the construction of effective organizational learning mode, the cultivation of science and technology integration, the building of eco-environment for the development of interdisciplinary research productivity are likely to be important suggestions and countermeasures for the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities.
The major contribution of the paper includes the following parts:The paper identifies the impact factors and their relative significances when influencing interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, providing references and examples for the practices of interdisciplinary research; the paper constructs a mechanism model to enhance the interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, offering possible concepts to the improvement of interdisciplinary research productivity; the paper raises the countermeasures to promote the enhancement of interdisciplinary research productivity in research universities, enriching the theoretical explorations of interdisciplinary research productivity enhancement.
引文
1[德]黑克豪森.转引自刘仲林《现代交叉科学》[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：19-21.
2[法]布瓦索.转引自刘仲林《现代交叉科学》[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：23-24.
[比利时]阿玻斯特尔.转引自刘仲林《现代交叉科学》[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：24-25.
4转引自Struppa, D. C. The Nature of Interdisciplinarity[J]. The Journal of the Association of General and Liberal Studies,2002,30(1):97-105.
5同4.
6转引自Aram, J. D. Concepts of Interdisciplinarity:Configurations of Knowledge and Action[J]. Human Relations,2004,57(4):57-61.
7转引自李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下)[J].当代传播,2000(1)：47-49.
8类目是指文本直接表达出来的或通过分析而得到的模式或主题(Hsieh & Shannon,2005).
[1]A Hundred Years and More of Cambridge Physics[EB/OL]. http://www.phy.cam. ac.uk/history/years/,2010-08-03.
[2]Aboelela S. W., Larson E., Bakken S. et al. Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature[J]. Health Services Research, 2007,42(1):329-346.
[3]About GSFS[EB/OL]. http://www.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/pros-e/index-e.htm,2010-08-03.
[4]Abramo G, D'Angelo, C. A.,& Caprasecca, A. Gender differences in research productivity:A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system[J]. Scientometrics,2009,79(3):517-539.
[5]Alves, J., Amorim, C., Saur, I. et al. How to Promote interdisciplinary R & D in the academia:the case of the "House of the Future"[C]. R & D Management Conference, Sesimbra, Portugal,2004b:1-8.
[6]Amey, M. J.,& Brown, D. F. Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Academic Work: A Case Study of a University-Community Partnership [J]. New Directions Teaching and Learning,2005:23-35.
[7]Argyris, C.,& Schon, D. A. Organizational learning[M]. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,1978.
[8]Association of American Universities. Report of the Interdisciplinarity Task Force [R][EB/OL]. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=462,2010-10-11.
[9]Australian Bureau of Statistics[EB/OL]. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ 0/0AE8BF69A3BC432FCA25697E0018FB93?opendocument,2010-10-27.
[10]Australian Standard Research Classification(ASRC),1998[EB/OL]. http://www. abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/0AE8BF69A3BC432FCA25697E0018FB93?ope ndocument,2010-10-26.
[11]Baird, L. L. Publication Productivity in Doctoral Research Departments:Interdis-ciplinary and Intradisciplinary Factors[J]. Research in Higher Education,1991, 32(3):303-318.
[12]Ballas, A.,& Theoharakis, V. Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perception[J]. Contempory Accounting Research,2003,20(4):619-644.
[13]Bartlett, K. T. Feminist Legal Methods[J]. Harvard Law Review,1990(103): 829-888.
[14]Bayer, A. E.,& Dutton, J. C. Career age and research-professional activities of academic scientists [J]. The Journal of Higher Education,1977(48):259-282.
[15]Becher, T. Academic tribes and territories[M]. Bristol, PA:SRHE and Open University Press,1989:96.
[16]Becke, G. S.,& Murphy, K. M. The division of labor, coordination costs and knowledge[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(4):1137-1160.
[17]Benner, M.,& Sandstrom, U. Institutionalizing the Triple Helix:Research Funding and Norms in the Academic System [J]. Research Policy,2000(29): 291-301.
[18]Berg, B. L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science(Fourth Edi tion) [M]. Copyright by Allyn & Bacon. A Pearson Education Company,2001.
[19]Bessant, J.,& Francis, D. Using learning networks to help improve manu-facturing competitiveness [J]. Technovation,1999(19):373-381.
[20]Blackburn, R. T.,& Lawrence, J. H. Faculty at work:Motivation, expectation, satisfaction[M]. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1995.
[21]Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E.,& Hall, E. E. Research note:Correlates of faculty publication[J]. Sociology of Education,1988,51(3):132-141.
[22]Bolton, R. A broader view of university-industry relationships [J]. SRA Journal, 1995,26(3-4):45-47.
[23]Bordage, G., Foley, R.,& Goldyn, S. Skills and attributes of directors of educational programmes. Med Educ 2000(34):206-210.
[24]Borgman, C. L.,& Rice, R. E. The convergence of information science and communication:a bibliometric analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1992(43):397-411.
[25]Bos, W.,& Tarnai, C. Content analysis in empirical social research[J]. Internatioanl Journal of Educational Research,1999(31):659-671.
[26]Bouty, I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between r&d researchers across organizational boundaries [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(1):50-65.
[27]Brannock, J. C.,& Denny, A. M. Basic guidelines for university-industry research relationships[J]. SRA Journal,1998,30(1-2):57-62.
[28]Brown University[EB/OL]. http://www.brown.edu/,2010-09-13.
[29]Campus Leader Roles in the Cluster Hiring Process[EB/OL]. http://www. clusters.wisc.edu/pages/show/2#avc,2009-03-16.
[30]Child, J.,& Fanlkner, D. Strategies of Cooperation:Managing Alliances, Networks, and Joint Ventures[M]. Oxford, U. K.:Oxford University Press, 1998:28.
[31]Clark, R. E. Reconsidering research on learning from mdia[J]. Review of Educational Research,1983,53(4):445-459.
[32]Cluster Hiring Initiative [EB/OL]. http://www.clusters.wisc.edu,2009-03-15.
[33]Cobo, S. H. Collaboration, Innovation and the Building Blocks of Social Capital in the Technology Sector[D]. A Dissertation for the Degree:Doctor of Philosophy in Stanford University,2005:133.
[34]Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research(CFIR). Facilitating Interdi-sciplinary Research[R][EB/OL]. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html,2009-03-15.
[35]Cooper, R. G. New Products, The Factors that Drive Success[J]. International Market-ing Review,1994(11):60-76.
[36]Crane, D. Scientists at major and mior universities:A study of productivity and recognition[J]. American Sociological Review,1965(30):699-714.
[37]Creamer, E. G. Assessing faculty publication productivity:Issues of equity[J]. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC:The George Washington University,1998,26(2):3-4; 21-22.
[38]Creamer, E. G. Knowledge production, publication productivity, and intimate academic partnerships [J]. The Journal of higher education,1999,70(3):261-277.
[39]Creswell, J. W. Changing practices in faculty evaluation[J]. The Review of Education,1985(11):21-24.
[40]Cronin, B. Invisible Colleges and Information Transfer:A Review and Commen-tary with Particular Reference to the Social Science[J]. Journal of Documen-tation,2000(14):113.
[41]Crossman, M. M., Lane, H. W.,& White, R. E. An Organizational Learning Framework:from Intuition to Institution[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3):22-53.
[42]Crowther, J. G. The Cavendish Laboratory:1874-1974[M]. New York:Science History Publication,1974:9, ⅶ.
[43]Cukor, P. How GTE laboratories evaluates its university collaboration[J]. Research-Technology Management,1992,35(2):31-37.
[44]Department for Education and Employment. Further and Higher Education Act 1992[EB/OL]. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930924_en_1.htm,200-9-10-28.
[45]Dixon, N. M. The Organizational Learning Cycle:How We Can Learn Collectively[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill,1994.
[46]Doan, S. R. The collaborative Model:The Effective Model for the Increasing Interdependence of Organizations.1995. (ED 392,154).
[47]Dodgson, M. Organizational Learning, A Review of Some Literatures [J]. Organiza-tion Studies,1993(14):375-394.
[48]Doreian, P.,& Fararo, T. J. Structural Equivalence in a Journal Network[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1985(36):28-37.
[49]Drew, D. E.,& Karpf, R. Ranking academic departments:Empirical findings and a theoretical perspective [J]. Research in Higher Education,1981,14(4):305-320.
[50]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research[J]. Academy of Management Review,1989(32):543-576.
[51]Eve, A. S. Rutherford. Being the Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Lord Rutherford. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1939:297.
[52]Fairweather, J. S. Reputational quality of academic programs:The institutional halo[J]. Research in Higher Education,1988,28(4):345-356.
[53]Fombrum, C. J. Structural dynamics with and between organizations[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986(31):403-421.
[54]Fornell, C.,& Larcker, D. F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error:Algebra and Statistics [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,1981(ⅩⅤⅢ):382-388.
[55]Foucault, M. The Archeology of Knowledge& the Discourse on Language [M]. New York:Pan-theon,1972:216-224.
[56]Fox, K. J.,& Milbourne, R. What Determines Research Output of Academic Econonists?[J]. Economic Record,1999(75):256-267.
[57]Fox, M. F. Men, women, and publication productivity:patterns among social work academics[J]. The Sociological Quarterly,1985(26):537-549.
[58]Freeman, C. The Economics of Technical Change[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1994(18):463-514.
[59]Friedman, R. S.,& Friedman, R. C. Organized Research Units in Academe Revisited. In Managing High Technology:An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds., Mar, B. W., Newell, W. T.,& Saxberg, B. O. Amsterdam:North Holland-Elsevier, 1985:75-91.
[60]Gibbons, M. Science's new social contract with society[J]. Nature,1999,402(2): 81-84.
[61]Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H. et al. The New Production of Knowledge:The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society[M]. London:Sage Publications,1994.
[62]Golde, C. M.,& Gallagher, H. A. The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs[J]. Ecosystems,1999(2):281-285.
[63]Gordon, M. D. A Critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication[J]. Scientometrics,1980,2(3):193-201.
[64]Gordon, M. E.,& Purvis, J. E. Journal Publication Records as a Measure of Research Performance in Industrial-relations[J]. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,1991,45(1):194-201.
[65]Gulbrandsen, M.,& Smeby, J.-C. Industry funding and university professors' research performance[J]. Research Policy,2005(34):932-950.
[66]Haeckel, S. H.,& Nolan, R. L. Managing by wire[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1993,71(5):122-132.
[67]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within internati-onal strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991(12):83-103.
[68]Hamel, J. The case method in sociology[J]. Current Sociology,1992(40):99-120.
[69]Hamovitch, W.,& Morgenstern, R. D. Children and the Productivity of Academic Women[J]. The Journal of Higher Education,1977,48(6):633-645.
[70]Harande, Y. I. Author productivity and collaboration:An investigation of the relationship using the literature of technology [J]. Libri,2001(51):124-127.
[71]Hargens, L. L. A new approach to referees'assessment of manuscripts [J]. Social Science Research,1990,19(3):1-16.
[72]Hargens, L. L. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates[J]. American Sociological Review,1988,53(2):139-151.
[73]Hassan, A., Tymms, P.,& Ismail, H. Academic productivity as perceived by Malaysian academics[J]. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2008,30(3):283-296.
[74]Heeringen, A. van,& Dijkwel, P. A. Mobility and Productivity of Academic Research Scientists[J]. Czechoslovak Journal of Physics,1986, B36:58-61.
[75]Heffner, A. G. Multiple Authorship and Sub-authorship Collaboration in Four Disciplines[J]. Scientometrics,1981(3):23.
[76]Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy[M]. London:Allen & Unwin.1963:23.
[77]Helleloid, D.,& Simonin, B. L. Organizational Learning and a Firm's Core Competence[A]. Hamel G.& Heene A. Competence Based Competition[C]. New York:Wiley,1994:213-239.
[78]Holsti, O. R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,1969.
[79]Hopp, W. J., Iravani, S. M. R.,& Liu, F. The role of internal collaboration and communication on research productivity and impact of an engineering school. Working Paper Northwestern University,2008.
[80]Houben, G., Lenie, K.,& Vanhoof, K. A Knowledge Based SWOT-analysis as an Instrument for Strategic Planning in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises[J]. Decision Support Systems,1999(2):125-135.
[81]Hsieh, H. F.,& Shannon, S. E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis[J]. Qualitative Health Research,2005,15(9):1277-1288.
[82]Huber, G. P. Organizational learning:the contributing process and the literatures [J]. Organization Science,1991(1):88-115.
[83]Hussey, J & Hussey, R. Business Research:A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students[M]. Basingstoke, Macmillan,1997:10-54.
[84]Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E.,& Murphy, L. D. Content analysis in leadership research:examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use[J]. Leadership Quarterly,1997,8(1):1-25.
[85]Jackson, M. O.,& Wolinsky, A. A strategic model of social and economic networks [J]. Journal of Economic Theory,1996(71):44-74.
[86]JACS[EB/OL]. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_studrec&task=sh-ow_file&Itemid=233&mnl=07051&href=jacs2.html,2010-10-28.
[87]JACS[EB/OL]. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1776/296/,2010-10-28.
[88]Johnston, W. J., Leach. M. P.,& Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business reseach[J]. Industrial Marketing Management,1999(28): 201-213.
[89]Jones, P. C.,& Merritt, J. Q. Critical Thinking and Interdisciplinarity in Environmental Higher Education:The Case for Epistemoligical and Values Awareness[J]. Joural of Geography in Higher Education,1999,23(3):349-358.
[90]Katz, J. S.,& Martin, B. R. What is Research Collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997(26):1-18.
[91]Kaid, L. L. Content analysis. In Emmert, P.,& Barker, L. L. (Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior(pp.197-217). New York:Longman.
[92]Kassarjian, H. H. Content Analysis in Consumer Research[J]. Journal of Consumer Research,1977(4):8-18.
[93]Klein, J. T. Crossing boundaries:Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplina-rities[M]. Charlottesville and London:University Press of Virginia,1996: 37-48.
[94]Klein, J. T. Interdisciplinarity-history, theory and practice[M]. Detroit:Wayne State University Press,1990:56.
[95]Klein, J. T. Thinking about Interdisciplinarity:A Primer for Practice[J]. Colorado School of Mines Quarterly,2003,103(1):101-114.
[96]Kockelmans, J. J. Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education[M]. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press,1975:307.
[97]Kogut, B.,& Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology [J]. Organization Science,1992,3(3):383-397.
[98]Kolbe, R. H.,& Burnett, M. S. Content-analysis research:an examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity[J]. Journal of Consumer Research,1991,18(9):243-250.
[99]Krippendoff, K. Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. The Sage Commtext Series, Sage Publications Ltd, London,1980.
[100]Laband, D. N. An evaluation of 50 "ranked" economics departments-by quantity and quality of faculty publication and graduate student productivity [J]. Southern Economic Journal,1985,52(1):216-240.
[101]Landry, R., Traore, N.,& Godin, B. An econometric analyisis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity [J]. Higher Education, 1996(32):283-301.
[102]Lanjouw, J.,& Schankerman, M. Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators [J]. Economic Journal,2004, 114(495):441-465.
[103]Larsen E. The Cavendish Laboratory:Nursery of Genius[M]. New York: Franklin Watts Inc,1962:93.
[104]Leipzig, R. M., Hyer, K., Ek, K. et al. Attitudes toward working on interdisciplinary health care teams:A comparison by disciplines[J]. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,2002,50(6):1141-1148.
[105]Levin, G. S.,& Stephan, E. P. Age and Research Productivity of Academic Scientists[J]. Research in Higher Education,1989,30(5):531-549.
[106]Levine, D. M, Becker, D. M., Bone, L. R. et al. Community-academic health center partnerships for underserved minority populations[J]. JAMA,1994, 272(4):309-311.
[107]Leydesdorff, L.,& Etzkowitz, H. Emergence of a Triple Helix of University Industry Government Relations[J]. Science and Public Policy,1996(23): 279-286.
[108]Leydesdorff, L.,& Etzkowitz, H. The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies[J]. Science and Public Policy,1998,25(3):195-203.
[109]Lindeke L. L.,& Block, D. E. Maintaining professional integrity in the midst of interdisciplinary collaboration[J]. Nursing Outlook,1998(46):213-218.
[110]Lipset, S. M., Trow, M.,& Coleman, J. Union democracy:The Inside Politics of the International Typographical Union[M]. New York:Free Press,1956: 419-420.
[111]Lisa, R. L. Creating Interdisciplinary:Interdiciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty[M]. Nashville:Vanderbilt University Press,2001:2.
[112]Liu, F. The Impact of Collaboration Networks on Organizational Perform-ance[D]. A Dissertation for the Degree:Doctor of Philosophy in Northwestern University,2008:167-168,172.
[113]Liu, Z., Yan, H., Wang, K. et al. Crystal structure of spinach major light-harvesting complex at 2.72 A resolution[J]. Nature,2004(428):287-292.
[114]Long, J. S. Productivity and Academic position in the Scientific Career[J]. American Sociological Review,1978,43(12):889-908.
[115]Long, J. S.,& Fox, M. F. Scientific careers:universalism and particularism[J], Annual Review of Sociology,1995(21):45-71.
[116]Long, R., Crawford A., White, M. et al. Determinants of faculty research productivity in information systems:An empirical analysis of the impact of academic origin and academic affiliation[J]. Scientometrics,2009,78(2): 231-260.
[117]May, K. A.,& Ferguson-Pare, M. Preparing nurse leaders for the future:views from Canada[J]. Semin Nurse Manage 1997(5):97-105.
[118]Mayring, P. Qualitative content analysis[J/OL]. Forum:Qualitative Social Research,2000,1(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00 mayring-e.htm.
[119]McCain, K. W. Cotited Author Mapping as a Valid Representation of Intellectual Structure[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1986(37):111-122.
[120]McCain, K. W. Neural network research in context:a longitudinal journal cotitation analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field [J]. Scientometrics, 1998(41):389-410.
[121]McGee, G. W.,& Ford, R. C. Faculty research productivity and intention to change positions[J]. The Review of Higher Education,1987,11(1):1-16.
[122]Menard, H. W. Science:Growth and Change[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1971:32.
[123]Meredith, J. Buiding operations management theory through case and field research[J]. Journal of Operation Management,1998(16):441-454.
[124]Meyer, M. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature [J]. Research Policy,2000(29):409-434.
[125]Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology[EB/OL]. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/,2010-09-20.
[126]Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A.,& Singer, P.'Mind the gap':science and ethics in nanotechnology[J]. Nanotechnology,2003(14):9-12.
[127]Morris, R. Computerized content analysis in managenment research:a demon-stration of advantages & limitation[J]. Journal of Management,1994,20(4): 903-931.
[128]Mott, N. F. The Life in Science[M]. London:Taylor & Francis,1986:38-39.
[129]Narin, F., Albert M., Kroll P. et al. Inventing our future-the link between Australian patenting and basic science[R]. CHI Research Inc,2000.
[130]NCES. Classification of Instructional Programs:2000 edition[EB/OL]. http:// nces.ed.gov,2010-10-28.
[131]NCES. Classification of Instructional Programs:2010 edition[EB/OL]. http:// nces.ed.gov/ipeds/news_room/ThisWeekInIPEDS.asp?TWID=12,2010-10-28.
[132]Newman, J. M.,& Cooper, E. Determinants of academic recognition:the case of the journal of applied psychology[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,1993, 78(3):518-526.
[133]Newman, M. E. J. The structure of scientific collaboration networks[C]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2001,98(2):404-409.
[134]Nissani, M. Fruits, Salads, and Smoothies:A Working Definition of Interdisciplinarity[J]. Journal of Educational Thought,1995,29(2):121-128.
[135]Nobel Laureates[EB/OL]. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/history/nobel.php,2010-10-02.
[136]Nowotny, H., Scott, P.,& Gibbons, M. Re-thinking Science:Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty [M]. London:Policy Press,2001.
[137]Nunnally, J. C.,& Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory, New Jersey, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[138]OECD. Interdisciplinarity:Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities [M]. Paris:OECD Publications,1972:25.
[139]O'Looney, J. Modeling Collaboration and Social Services Integration:A Single State's Experience with Development and Non-Development Models [J]. Administration in Social Work,1994,18(1):61-86.
[140]Orchard, C., Curran, V.,& Kabene, S. Creating a culture for interdisciplinary collaborative professional practice[J]. Medical Education Online,2005,10(11): 1-13.
[141]Ormerod, R. J. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation?[J]. The International Journal of Management Science,2000(28): 241-245.
[142]Orpen, C. Tenure and Academinc Productivity:Another Look[J]. Improving College and University Teaching,1982,30(2):60-62.
[143]Ostermeier, C.,& Michel, H. Crystallization of membrance proteins[J]. Current Opinion in Structural Biology,1997,7(5):69.
[144]Palmer, C. L. Work at the Boundaries of Science[M]. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2001:23.
[145]Park, S. H.,& Gordon, M. E. Publication Records and Tenure Decisions in the Field of Strategic Management[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(2): 109-128.
[146]Pelz, D. C.,& Andrews, F. M. Scientists in organizations:productive climates for research and development. New York:Wiley,1966.
[147]Perreault, W. D.,& Leigh, L. E. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments[J]. Journal of Marketing Research,1989,26(5):135-148.
[148]Perry, J. L.,& Kraemer, K. L. Research Methodology in the Public Administration Review,1975-1984[J]. Public Administration Review, 1986(46):215-226.
[149]Perry-Smith, J. E. Social yet creative:The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006, 49(1):85-101.
[150]Pinch T. Culture of Scinentists and Disciplinary Rhetoric[J]. European Journal of Education,1990,25(3):295-304.
[151]Platt, J.'Cases study' in American methodological thoughts[J]. Current Sociology,1992(40):17-44.
[152]Porter, A. L.,& Chubin D. E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research[J]. Scientometrics,1985(8):161-176.
[153]Porter, A. L.,& Rossini, F. A. Multiskill Research[J]. Knowledge:Creation, Diffusion, Utilization,1986,7(3):219.
[154]Pravdic, N.,& Oluic-Vukovic, V. Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship [J]. Scientometrics,1986, 10(5-6):259-280.
[155]Price, D. J. Networks of scientific papers[J]. Science,1965(149):510-515.
[156]Price, D. J. The science-technology relationship[J], Research Policy,1984(13): 3-20.
[157]Purdue University[EB/OL]. http://www.purdue.edu/,2010-09-12.
[158]Ranga, L. M. Structure and Determinants of the Innovative Capacity of Academic Research Groups Involved in University-Industry Collaboration [D]. Unpublished Dphil Thesis. SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton,2003.
[159]Report of the Cluster/Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee to Evaluate the Cluster Hiring Initiative. [EB/OL]._http://www.provost.wisc.edu/2008clusterrep-ort.pdf,2009-04-02.
[160]Rhoten, D. Interdisciplinary Research:Trend or Transition[J]. Items and Issues: Social Science Research Council,2004(5):6-11.
[161]Rice, R. E.,& Sorcinelli, M. D. Can the tenure process be improved? In R. Chait(Ed.), The Questions of tenure[M]. Cambrige, MA:Harvard University Press,2002:101-124.
[162]Richard, B. D. University-Industry Collaboration, Technology Demands for New Innovation Systems. FED,2003.10.8.
[163]Robertson, D. W., Martin, D. K.& Singer P. A. Interdisciplinary Research: Putting the Methods under the Microscope[J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology,2003(3):1-5.
[164]Rothwell, R. Successful industrial innovation:Critical factors for the 1990s[J]. R & D Management,1992,22(3):221-239.
[165]Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. S. et al. Not so different after all:A cross-discipline view of trust[J]. Acad Management Rev,1998(23):393-404.
[166]Rowe, H. Multidisciplinary teamwork-myth or reality?[J]. Journal of Nursing Management,1996(4):93-101.
[167]Riiegg, W. Interdisciplinarity in the History of the European University [J]. Globa Environmental Change,1997(8):177-182.
[168]Salter, L.,& Hearn, A. Outside the Lines:Issues in Interdisciplinary Research[M]. Montreal and Kingston, Canada:McGill-Queen's University Press,1996.
[169]Saunier, M. E. Objective measures as predictors of reputational ratings[J]. Research in Higher Education,1985,23(3):227-244.
[170]Sa, C. M.'Interdisciplinary strategies'in U.S. research universities[J]. Higher Education,2008(55):537-552.
[171]Scapens, R. W. Researching management accounting practice:The role of case study methods[J]. The British Accounting Review,1990,22(3):259-281.
[172]Schummer, J. Interdisciplinary Issues in Nanoscale Research[M]. in Baird D., Nordmann A.,& Schummer J. (eds.) Discovering the Nanoscale,2004b:9-20. Amsterdam:IOS Press.
[173]Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization[M]. New York:Doubleday,1990.
[174]Sinkula, J. M. Market information processing and organizational learning[J]. Journal of Marketing,1994(58):35-45.
[175]Slater, S. F.,& Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization[J]. Journal of Marketing,1995(59):63-74.
[176]Spender, J. C.,& Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm, Overview[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996(17):1-9.
[177]Stake, R. E. Case studies[A]. Denzin, N. K.,& Lincoln, Y. S. Handbook of qualitative research[C]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications,2000:435-454.
[178]Steensma, H. K. Acquiring technological competencies through inter-organizational collaboration, An organizational learning perspective [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1996,12(4):267-286.
[179]Straub, D. W. Validating Instruments in MIS research[J]. MIS Quarterly,1989, 13(2):147-176.
[180]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G.,& Shuen, A. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997(18):509-533.
[181]The Chronicle of Higher Education. Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index [EB/OL]. http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2006&primary= Choose+Area+of+Study%3A&bycat=Go,2010-08-17.
[182]The History of the Cavendish[EB/OL]. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/history/, 2010-09-03.
[183]The University of Tokyo[EB/OL]. http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index/b00_e.html, 2010-08-04.
[184]Tijssen, R. J. W. A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology:Co-classification analysis of energy research[J]. Research Policy,1992(21):27-44.
[185]University Leadership Council. Competing in the Era of Big Bets:Achieving Scale in Multidisciplinary Research[R]. National Best Practice Report, Washington, D.C.:xii,67.
[186]Van den Besselaar, P.,& Heimeriks, G. Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary-Concepts and Indicators. In M. Davis and C S Wilson(Eds.)[A]. Proceedings of the 8th International conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Sydney:University of New South Wales,2001: 705-716.
[187]Vest, C. M. Pursuing the Endless Frontier:Essay on MIT and the Role of Research Universities[M]. Massachusetts:MIT Press,2005.
[188]Waever, O. Still a Discipline After All These Debates? in T. Dunne, M. Milja and S. Smith(eds) Inernational Relations Theories, ch.15. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[189]Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S.,& Gregorio, D. I. Research productivity in academia:a comparative study of the science, social sciences and huamanities[J]. Sociology of Education,1981(54):238-253.
[190]Weingart, P. From'Finalization'to'Mode 2':Old Wine in New Bottles?[J]. Social Science Information,1997,36(4):591-614.
[191]Wimmer, R. D.,& Dominick, J. R. Mass Media Research:An Introduction,6th edn. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth,2000.
[192]Wu, J.,& Hobbs, R. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology:An idiosyncratic synthesis[J]. Landscape Ecology,2002(17):355-365.
[193]Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F.& Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge[J]. Science,2007,316(5827):1036-1039.
[194]Yan, M.,& Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:A comparative case study[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6):1478-1517.
[195]Yin, R. K. Case Study Research, Design and Methods[M]. California:Sage Publications, Newbury Park,1994.
[196]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods(3rd edition)[M]. Thousands Oaks:Sage Publications,2003.
[197]Yu, X. Chinese Faculty in the Employment Transition:A Case Study of Zhejiang University[D]. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education,2008:38.
[198]Zerhouni, E. The NIH Roadmap[J]. Science,2003(302):63-64,72.
[199]Ziman, J. Prometheus bound:Science in a dynamic steady state[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
[200]Ziman, J. Real Science:What it is and What it means[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
[201]Zucherman, H. Scientific elite:Nobel Laureates in the United States[M]. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers,1996:118,166.
[202]C·斯米尔诺夫,亦舟.现代科学中跨学科过程的某些发展趋势[J].国外社会科学,1985(7)：1-6.
[203]Merton, R. K著.鲁旭东,林聚任译.科学社会学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003：56-63.
[204]NNSFC学科代码[S].国家自然科学基金委员会[EB/OL]. http://www.nsfc. gov.cn/Porta10/default141.htm,2010-09-07.
[205]Tonnies, F著.林荣远译.共同体与社会[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999：52.
[206]彼得·圣吉.经受考验.载罗文·吉布森编.重思未来[M].海口：海南出版社,1999：154.
[207]别敦荣.我国研究型大学的发展定位与战略[J].北京大学教育评论,2009,7(1)：63-69.
[208]伯顿·克拉克著.王承绪等译.高等教育新论—多学科的研究[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1988：2.
[209]柴立和,彭晓峰.东京大学的交叉学科及其启示[J].国际学术动态,2003(6)：17-19.
[210]陈艾华,邹晓东,陈勇等.美国研究型大学跨学科研究的实践创新—以UWMCHI为例[J].高等工程教育研究,2010(1)：117-120,163.
[211]陈艾华,邹晓东.资助改革研究,推进教育创新—美国NSF工程教育研究项目研讨会述评[J].高等工程教育研究,2010(4)：93-99.
[212]陈婵.高等学校跨学科组织的系统管理研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2005：14.
[213]陈春花,杨映珊.科研团队运作管理[M].北京：科学出版社,2004：52.
[214]陈国权,马萌.组织学习的过程模型研究[J].管理科学学报,2000,3(3)：15-23.
[215]陈国权,李赞斌.学习型组织中的“学习主体”类型和案例研究[J].管理科学学报,2002,5(4)：51-67.
[216]陈勇,邹晓东,陈艾华等.促进跨学科研究的有效组织模式研究[J].科学学研究,2010,28(3)：346-350.
[217]成思危.复杂性科学探索[M].北京：民主与建设出版社,2000：23.
[218]程妍.跨学科研究与研究型大学建设[D].博士学位论文,中国科学技术大学,2009：1-2.
[219]大川一毅.关于日本大学“学际的学部”的课程教育.大学史研究第13号,1998：3.
[220]邓小平.邓小平文选(第3卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1993：275.
[221]董金华,刘凡丰.研究型大学跨学科研究的组织模式初探[J].中国软科学,2008(3)：81-87.
[222]窦军生.家庭企业代际传承中企业家默会知识和关系网络的传承机理研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008：63.
[223]冯钢.跨学科研究何以可能?[J].浙江社会科学,2007(4)：18-19.
[224]冯向东.张力下的动态平衡：大学中的学科发展机制[J].现代大学教育,2002(2)：67-71.
[225]付瑶瑶.从斯坦福大学看美国研究型大学中独立科研机构的发展[J].清华大学教育研究,2005,26(3)：16-22.
[226]龚兴英,陈时见.日本“21世纪COE计划”：背景、内容及意义[J].比较教育研究,2007(7)：52-57.
[227]顾海良.人文社会科学跨学科研究的路径及其实现条件[J].高校理论战线,2011(1)：20-23.
[228]顾虹,赵敏.科研经费管理模式的改革及其合理性分析[J].科技管理研究,2003(3)：75-77,101.
[229]国家技术监督局.国家标准《学科分类与代码》(GB/T 13745-1992)[S].1992.
[230]国家教育部.高等学校本科专业目录(1998年颁布)[EB/OL]. http://202.205.177.9/edoas/website18/84/info1212562471366584.htm,2010-06-30.
[231]国家质量监督检验检疫总局,国家标准化管理委员会.国家标准《学科分类与代码》(GB/T 13745-2009)[S].2009.
[232]国务院学位办.授予博士硕士学位和培养研究生的学科专业简介[M].国务院学位委员会办公室、教育部研究生工作办公室编.北京：高等教育出版社,1999：8.
[233]郭中华,黄召,邹晓东.高校跨学科组织实施中存在的问题及对策[J].科技进步与对策,2008,25(1)：183-186.
[234]河野通方.东京大学--现状与课题3[M].东京：东京大学出版会,2001：156-159,138-144.
[235]胡卫锋.一流大学交叉学科建设研究[D].硕士学位论文,中南大学,2004：32.
[236]黄德良,杜俊民.跨学科与科学精神[J].学术研究,2001(6)：73-77.
[237]黄锦奎.先进生产力与价值转化过程[J].生产力研究,2003(4)：6-11.
[238]姜春林.漫漫求索之路,景致这边独好—介评《在科学交叉处探索科学—从科学学到科学计量学》[J].情报杂志,2004(2)：118-120.
[239]姜中一,姜平.跨学科研究视野下的领导科学创新[J].领导科学,2010(23)：4-7.
[240]金薇吟.学科交叉理论与高校交叉学科建设研究[D].硕士学位论文,苏州大学,2005：5-6.
[241]金吾伦.跨学科研究引论[M].北京：中央编译出版社,1997：116.
[242]康旭东,王前,郭东明.科研团队建设的若干理论问题[J].科学学研究,2005,23(2)：232-236.
[243]科学技术部发展计划司.2009年我国R&D经费投入特征分析[R].科技统计报告,2010(25).
[244]克拉克(1981)著,王承绪等译.高等教育系统—学术组织的跨国研究[M].杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994：34.
[245]克莱恩著,姜智芹译.跨越边界—知识、学科、学科互涉[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2005：177.
[246]孔寒冰.基于本体的工程学科框架研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008：28.
[247]国廷云.学科交叉在生命科学研究中的作用[J].杭州师范大学学报(自然科学版),2010,9(3)：161-164.
[248]蓝劲松.致知穷理：大学发展的多维探索[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008：1,102-103.
[249]蓝劲松.致知穷理：大学发展的多维探索[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008：1.
[250]李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下)[J].当代传播,2000(1)：47-49.
[251]理查德·L·达夫特.组织理论与设计精要[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2003：23-25.
[252]李丽刚.中国高校跨学科研究的发展研究[D].硕士学位论文,国防科学技术大学,2005：50.
[253]廖湘阳.面向三个维度,创新高校科研组织模式[J].中国高等教育,2010(5)：52-54.
[254]刘凡丰,沈兰芳.美国州立大学科研组织模式变革[J].高等教育研究,2007,28(5)：99-103.
[255]刘凡丰,项伟央,李文静.美国研究型大学促进跨学科研究的组织策略[J].中国高等教育,2010(2)：61-62.
[256]刘念才,程莹,刘少雪.美国高等院校学科专业的设置与借鉴[J].世界教育信息,2003：27-44.
[257]刘延勃,张弓长,马乾乐.哲学辞典[M].吉林：吉林人民出版社,1985：173-174.
[258]刘仲林,程妍. “交叉学科”学科门类设置研究[J].学位与研究生教育,2008(6)：44-48.
[259]刘仲林.交叉学科分类模式与管理沉思[J].科学学研究,2003,21(6)：561-566.
[260]刘仲林.跨学科学导论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1990：6-7.
[261]刘仲林.迈向跨学科研究的新阶段[J].天津师大学报(社科版),1994(1)：44-46.
[262]刘仲林.现代交叉科学[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：30-31.
[263]柳洲,陈士俊.从学科会聚机制看跨学科科技创新团队建设[J].科技进步与对策,2007,24(3)：165-168.
[264]柳洲,陈士俊.我国科技创新团队建设的问题与对策[J].科学管理研究,2006(2)：92-95.
[265]柳洲,陈士俊,王洁.论跨学科创新团队的异质性知识耦合[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008(6)：188-191.
[266]柳洲.高校跨学科科研组织成长机制研究[D].博士学位论文,天津大学,2008：3-4.
[267]龙献忠,王静.研究型大学跨学科组织运行的保障体系[J].高等教育研究,2010,31(2)：32-36.
[268]鲁兴启.跨学科研究成果评价中的问题及其分析[J].科技导报,2002(4)：26-28.
[269]罗伯特·K·殷著,周海涛译.案例研究：设计与方法[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004：译序6.
[270]马克思,恩格斯著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译. 马克思恩格斯全集(第19卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,2006：375.
[271]马克思,恩格斯著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.马克思恩格斯全集(第23卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1972：59.
[272]马克思,恩格斯著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.马克思恩格斯选集(第26卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：56.
[273]马克思著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.资本论(第一卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1975：202.
[274]马庆国.管理统计-数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[275]孟卫青.教育研究的跨学科取向[J].教育评论,2003(2)：33-35.
[276]潘向东,杨建梅,欧瑞秋等.团队合作绩效在知识生产领域中的涌现[J].科学学研究,2010,28(2)：288-294.
[277]钱佩忠.高校跨学科研究的组织和障碍分析[J].高等农业教育,2007(1)：55-57.
[278]钱学森.交叉科学：理论和研究的展望[J].交叉科学,1986(1).
[279]邱均平,邹菲.国外内容分析法的研究概况及进展[J].图书情报知识,2003(6)：6-8.
[280]邱均平,赵蓉英,马瑞敏等.世界大学科研竞争力评价的意义、理念与实践[J].科技进步与对策,2006(3)：21-24.
[281]邱均平.中国高校科研竞争力的意义和做法[J].评价与管理,2004(3)：31-34.
[282]饶燕婷.美国研究型大学的教育改革与创新—以杜克大学为例[J].比较教育研究,2008(9)：35-39.
[283]萨默斯.什么是世界一流的大学[J].新闻周刊,2002(13)：60-61.
[284]似田贝香门.第三时代的大学：东京大学新领域创成的挑战[M].东京：东京大学出版会,2001：35.
[285]首尔大学校长与东京大学校长的对话[EB/OL]. http://www.tiantianedu.net/ show.asp?id=607,2010-08-05.
[286]孙绵涛.学科论[J].教育研究,2004(6)：49-55.
[287]孙萍,朱桂龙,赵荣举.跨学科研究发展状况评估体系初探[J].中国科技论坛,2001(1)：35-38.
[288]孙向军.知识生产力研究[D].博士学位论文,中共中央党校,2002：7-8.
[289]孙燕,孙利华.中、美、日三国政府医药研发投入管理比较研究[J].中国医药工业杂志,2010,41(6)：472-476.
[290]孙中才.学科建设：学科和科学[J].学位与研究生教育,1999(2)：37-41.
[291]田华.基于知识溢出的区域性大学发展研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：150.
[292]王金红.案例研究法及其相关学术规范[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2007,12(3)：87-96.
[293]王磊.大学创新学术团队研究[D].博士学位论文,华东师范大学,2008：72-73.
[294]王沛民,孔寒冰.面向高新科技的大学学科改造[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2005：227,229-232.
[295]王沛民.研究和开发“专业学位”刍议[J].高等教育研究,1999(2)：43-46.
[296]王伟.科学创新与科学创新管理—卡文迪什实验室对我国科学创新的启示[J].安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,30(2)：154-156.
[297]王续琨.交叉学科、交叉科学及其在科学体系中的地位[J].自然辩证法研究,2000,16(1)：43-47.
[298]王艳玉.学科建设与优势积累[J].河北大学学报,2002,27(1)：76-79.
[299]王怡然,陈士俊,张海燕等.高校创新团队建设的若干理论问题研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007,24(8)：194-197.
[300]王英.学科建设以合作为基础[J].高等工程教育研究,1999(3)：24-31.
[301]王媛媛.封闭与开放：走向学科研究与跨学科研究的统一[J].高等教育研究,2010,31(5)：47-49.
[302]王媛媛.我国大学跨学科研究与马太效应[J].中国高教研究,2008(8)：44-46.
[303]王志刚.论发展地方高校科学研究[D].博士学位论文,华中科技大学,2004：88-89.
[304]王重鸣.心理学研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1990：22.
[305]文部科学省.卓越研究基地计划[R].2007：3
[306]邬伟娥.知识转移视角的大学学术生产力研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006：99-100.
[307]吴凤.研究型大学跨学科组织的运行管理研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：30,41.
[308]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务[M].北京：科学出版社,2003.
[309]吴琦来,魏薇.日本高等教育交叉学科建设的范例及其启示[J].比较教育研究,2008(3)：26-30.
[310]吴世忠.内容分析方法论纲[J].情报资料工作,1991(2)：37-47.
[311]吴维民,林永寿.关于交叉科学的历史考察[J].社会科学研究,1986(3)：4-9.
[312]夏代云,何沁章,李炳昌.高校创新性基础科学研究团队特征研究[J].自然辩证法研究,2010,26(8)：56-62.
[313]夏先良.知识论[D].博士学位论文,中国社会科学院研究生院,2000：19-23,30-31.
[314]肖向晨,马卫华.论高校人文社会科学研究平台的建设[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2007,29(1)：62-64.
[315]校长办公室总括委员会[EB/OL]. http://cirp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/organi-zation/#anker23,2010-09-28.
[316]谢彩霞,刘则渊.科研合作及其科研生产力功能[J].科学技术与辩证法,2006,23(1)：99-102.
[317]谢彩霞.关于科学合作本质属性的探讨[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,34(4)：19-21.
[318]胥青山.跨学科人才培养与高校学科组织创新[J].辽宁教育研究,2004(1)：21-23.
[319]炎冰,宋子良. “交叉学科”概念新解[J].科学技术与辩证法,1996(4)：51-54.
[320]阎康年.卡文迪什实验室—物理实验室的典范[J].国外科技动态,2000(8)：41-44.
[321]阎康年.卡文迪什实验室选择和培养人才的经验研究[J].自然科学史研究,1996,15(3)：197-206.
[322]颜士梅,王重鸣.并购式内创业中的人力资源整合水平和模式研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,37(1)：178-189.
[323]姚东瑞.密切校企合作,提高地方高校科研生产力[J].中国高等教育,2009(18)：45-46.
[324]姚威.产学研合作创新的知识创造过程研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009：237.
[325]叶康涛.案例研究：从个案分析到理论创建—中国第一届管理案例学术研讨会综述[J].管理世界,2006(2)：139-143.
[326]叶澜.深化中国高等学校内部管理体制与运行机制改革的研究报告[J].教育发展研究,2005(5)：11-15.
[327]叶伟巍.产学合作创新机理与政策研究—以浙江省为例[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009：14.
[328]余菁.案例研究与案例研究方法.经济管理[J].经济管理,2004(20)：24-29.
[329]张辉.高校跨学科组织研究生培养机制的创新研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：6.
[330]张炜,邹晓东,陈劲.基于跨学科的新型大学学术组织模式构造[J].科学学研究,2002,20(4)：362-366.
[331]张文军,张健,许为民.个体主义文化传统对英国高等教育专业设置的影响[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,37(2)：143-150.
[332]张学文.基于知识的产学合作创新：边界与路径研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：42-44.
[333]张志强.英美国家的出版学学科归属及对我国的启示[J].中国出版,2009,17(9)：21-24,52.
[334]赵红州,蒋国华.在科学交叉处探索科学--从科学学到科学计量学[M].北京：红旗出版社,2003：424.
[335]赵红州.科学能力学引论[M].北京：科学出版社,1984：1.
[336]赵红州.论科研生产关系[J].中国社会科学,1996(1)：17-30.
[337]赵红州.论科研生产关系与我国科研体制改革问题[J].科研管理,1996(2)：41-45.
[338]赵黎明,高杨和韩宇.专利引文分析在知识转移机制研究中的应用[J].科学学研究,2002,20(3)：297-300.
[339]赵树智,张薇.现代跨学科研究的兴起和特点[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1993：14.
[340]赵晓春.跨学科研究与科研创新能力建设[D].博士学位论文,中国科学技术大学,2007：157-160.
[341]中国工程院.中国工程院院士增选学部专业划分标准(试行)[S],中国工程院学科分类标准研究课题组,2004.
[342]中国科技统计[EB/OL]. http://www.sts.org.cn/tjbg/tjgb/tindex.asp,2011-01-27.
[343]中国社会科学院语言研究所.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1985：1308.
[344]周彬,周军,徐桂红.论科研团队的冲突管理与有效沟通[J].中国科技论坛,2004(3)：119-122.
[345]周朝成.当代大学中的跨学科研究-学科文化与组织的视阈[D].博士学位论文,2008：147.
[346]周光召.青年科学家与科学前沿[J].科学学研究,1996,14(2)：1-2.
[347]周寄中.科学技术创新管理[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002：98.
[348]周兆透.论大学中的跨学科研究组织及其管理创新[J].高等农业教育,2006(9)：21-24.
[349]朱道本.加强交叉学科,提升创新能力[J].中国科学基金,2001,15(6)：321-323.
[350]朱平芳.现代计量经济学[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.
[351]朱学彦.基于嵌入性关系和组织间学习的产学知识联盟研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009：39.
[352]朱蔚彤.国家自然科学基金委员会资助学科交叉研究模式分析[J].中国科学基金,2006(3)：184-189.
[353]综合科学技术会议“科学技术基本计划”,1996年3月,2001年3月,2006年3月.
[354]邹晓东,黄争舸,陈劲.基于学科核心能力的学科组织创新[J].科学学研究,2004,22(4)：438-441.
[355]邹晓东,舟杭.研究型大学学科组织创新研究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2004：64,119.
2[法]布瓦索.转引自刘仲林《现代交叉科学》[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：23-24.
[比利时]阿玻斯特尔.转引自刘仲林《现代交叉科学》[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：24-25.
4转引自Struppa, D. C. The Nature of Interdisciplinarity[J]. The Journal of the Association of General and Liberal Studies,2002,30(1):97-105.
5同4.
6转引自Aram, J. D. Concepts of Interdisciplinarity:Configurations of Knowledge and Action[J]. Human Relations,2004,57(4):57-61.
7转引自李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下)[J].当代传播,2000(1)：47-49.
8类目是指文本直接表达出来的或通过分析而得到的模式或主题(Hsieh & Shannon,2005).
[1]A Hundred Years and More of Cambridge Physics[EB/OL]. http://www.phy.cam. ac.uk/history/years/,2010-08-03.
[2]Aboelela S. W., Larson E., Bakken S. et al. Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature[J]. Health Services Research, 2007,42(1):329-346.
[3]About GSFS[EB/OL]. http://www.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/pros-e/index-e.htm,2010-08-03.
[4]Abramo G, D'Angelo, C. A.,& Caprasecca, A. Gender differences in research productivity:A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system[J]. Scientometrics,2009,79(3):517-539.
[5]Alves, J., Amorim, C., Saur, I. et al. How to Promote interdisciplinary R & D in the academia:the case of the "House of the Future"[C]. R & D Management Conference, Sesimbra, Portugal,2004b:1-8.
[6]Amey, M. J.,& Brown, D. F. Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Academic Work: A Case Study of a University-Community Partnership [J]. New Directions Teaching and Learning,2005:23-35.
[7]Argyris, C.,& Schon, D. A. Organizational learning[M]. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,1978.
[8]Association of American Universities. Report of the Interdisciplinarity Task Force [R][EB/OL]. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=462,2010-10-11.
[9]Australian Bureau of Statistics[EB/OL]. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ 0/0AE8BF69A3BC432FCA25697E0018FB93?opendocument,2010-10-27.
[10]Australian Standard Research Classification(ASRC),1998[EB/OL]. http://www. abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/0AE8BF69A3BC432FCA25697E0018FB93?ope ndocument,2010-10-26.
[11]Baird, L. L. Publication Productivity in Doctoral Research Departments:Interdis-ciplinary and Intradisciplinary Factors[J]. Research in Higher Education,1991, 32(3):303-318.
[12]Ballas, A.,& Theoharakis, V. Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perception[J]. Contempory Accounting Research,2003,20(4):619-644.
[13]Bartlett, K. T. Feminist Legal Methods[J]. Harvard Law Review,1990(103): 829-888.
[14]Bayer, A. E.,& Dutton, J. C. Career age and research-professional activities of academic scientists [J]. The Journal of Higher Education,1977(48):259-282.
[15]Becher, T. Academic tribes and territories[M]. Bristol, PA:SRHE and Open University Press,1989:96.
[16]Becke, G. S.,& Murphy, K. M. The division of labor, coordination costs and knowledge[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(4):1137-1160.
[17]Benner, M.,& Sandstrom, U. Institutionalizing the Triple Helix:Research Funding and Norms in the Academic System [J]. Research Policy,2000(29): 291-301.
[18]Berg, B. L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science(Fourth Edi tion) [M]. Copyright by Allyn & Bacon. A Pearson Education Company,2001.
[19]Bessant, J.,& Francis, D. Using learning networks to help improve manu-facturing competitiveness [J]. Technovation,1999(19):373-381.
[20]Blackburn, R. T.,& Lawrence, J. H. Faculty at work:Motivation, expectation, satisfaction[M]. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1995.
[21]Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E.,& Hall, E. E. Research note:Correlates of faculty publication[J]. Sociology of Education,1988,51(3):132-141.
[22]Bolton, R. A broader view of university-industry relationships [J]. SRA Journal, 1995,26(3-4):45-47.
[23]Bordage, G., Foley, R.,& Goldyn, S. Skills and attributes of directors of educational programmes. Med Educ 2000(34):206-210.
[24]Borgman, C. L.,& Rice, R. E. The convergence of information science and communication:a bibliometric analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1992(43):397-411.
[25]Bos, W.,& Tarnai, C. Content analysis in empirical social research[J]. Internatioanl Journal of Educational Research,1999(31):659-671.
[26]Bouty, I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between r&d researchers across organizational boundaries [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(1):50-65.
[27]Brannock, J. C.,& Denny, A. M. Basic guidelines for university-industry research relationships[J]. SRA Journal,1998,30(1-2):57-62.
[28]Brown University[EB/OL]. http://www.brown.edu/,2010-09-13.
[29]Campus Leader Roles in the Cluster Hiring Process[EB/OL]. http://www. clusters.wisc.edu/pages/show/2#avc,2009-03-16.
[30]Child, J.,& Fanlkner, D. Strategies of Cooperation:Managing Alliances, Networks, and Joint Ventures[M]. Oxford, U. K.:Oxford University Press, 1998:28.
[31]Clark, R. E. Reconsidering research on learning from mdia[J]. Review of Educational Research,1983,53(4):445-459.
[32]Cluster Hiring Initiative [EB/OL]. http://www.clusters.wisc.edu,2009-03-15.
[33]Cobo, S. H. Collaboration, Innovation and the Building Blocks of Social Capital in the Technology Sector[D]. A Dissertation for the Degree:Doctor of Philosophy in Stanford University,2005:133.
[34]Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research(CFIR). Facilitating Interdi-sciplinary Research[R][EB/OL]. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html,2009-03-15.
[35]Cooper, R. G. New Products, The Factors that Drive Success[J]. International Market-ing Review,1994(11):60-76.
[36]Crane, D. Scientists at major and mior universities:A study of productivity and recognition[J]. American Sociological Review,1965(30):699-714.
[37]Creamer, E. G. Assessing faculty publication productivity:Issues of equity[J]. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC:The George Washington University,1998,26(2):3-4; 21-22.
[38]Creamer, E. G. Knowledge production, publication productivity, and intimate academic partnerships [J]. The Journal of higher education,1999,70(3):261-277.
[39]Creswell, J. W. Changing practices in faculty evaluation[J]. The Review of Education,1985(11):21-24.
[40]Cronin, B. Invisible Colleges and Information Transfer:A Review and Commen-tary with Particular Reference to the Social Science[J]. Journal of Documen-tation,2000(14):113.
[41]Crossman, M. M., Lane, H. W.,& White, R. E. An Organizational Learning Framework:from Intuition to Institution[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3):22-53.
[42]Crowther, J. G. The Cavendish Laboratory:1874-1974[M]. New York:Science History Publication,1974:9, ⅶ.
[43]Cukor, P. How GTE laboratories evaluates its university collaboration[J]. Research-Technology Management,1992,35(2):31-37.
[44]Department for Education and Employment. Further and Higher Education Act 1992[EB/OL]. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930924_en_1.htm,200-9-10-28.
[45]Dixon, N. M. The Organizational Learning Cycle:How We Can Learn Collectively[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill,1994.
[46]Doan, S. R. The collaborative Model:The Effective Model for the Increasing Interdependence of Organizations.1995. (ED 392,154).
[47]Dodgson, M. Organizational Learning, A Review of Some Literatures [J]. Organiza-tion Studies,1993(14):375-394.
[48]Doreian, P.,& Fararo, T. J. Structural Equivalence in a Journal Network[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1985(36):28-37.
[49]Drew, D. E.,& Karpf, R. Ranking academic departments:Empirical findings and a theoretical perspective [J]. Research in Higher Education,1981,14(4):305-320.
[50]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research[J]. Academy of Management Review,1989(32):543-576.
[51]Eve, A. S. Rutherford. Being the Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Lord Rutherford. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1939:297.
[52]Fairweather, J. S. Reputational quality of academic programs:The institutional halo[J]. Research in Higher Education,1988,28(4):345-356.
[53]Fombrum, C. J. Structural dynamics with and between organizations[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986(31):403-421.
[54]Fornell, C.,& Larcker, D. F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error:Algebra and Statistics [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,1981(ⅩⅤⅢ):382-388.
[55]Foucault, M. The Archeology of Knowledge& the Discourse on Language [M]. New York:Pan-theon,1972:216-224.
[56]Fox, K. J.,& Milbourne, R. What Determines Research Output of Academic Econonists?[J]. Economic Record,1999(75):256-267.
[57]Fox, M. F. Men, women, and publication productivity:patterns among social work academics[J]. The Sociological Quarterly,1985(26):537-549.
[58]Freeman, C. The Economics of Technical Change[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1994(18):463-514.
[59]Friedman, R. S.,& Friedman, R. C. Organized Research Units in Academe Revisited. In Managing High Technology:An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds., Mar, B. W., Newell, W. T.,& Saxberg, B. O. Amsterdam:North Holland-Elsevier, 1985:75-91.
[60]Gibbons, M. Science's new social contract with society[J]. Nature,1999,402(2): 81-84.
[61]Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H. et al. The New Production of Knowledge:The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society[M]. London:Sage Publications,1994.
[62]Golde, C. M.,& Gallagher, H. A. The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs[J]. Ecosystems,1999(2):281-285.
[63]Gordon, M. D. A Critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication[J]. Scientometrics,1980,2(3):193-201.
[64]Gordon, M. E.,& Purvis, J. E. Journal Publication Records as a Measure of Research Performance in Industrial-relations[J]. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,1991,45(1):194-201.
[65]Gulbrandsen, M.,& Smeby, J.-C. Industry funding and university professors' research performance[J]. Research Policy,2005(34):932-950.
[66]Haeckel, S. H.,& Nolan, R. L. Managing by wire[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1993,71(5):122-132.
[67]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within internati-onal strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991(12):83-103.
[68]Hamel, J. The case method in sociology[J]. Current Sociology,1992(40):99-120.
[69]Hamovitch, W.,& Morgenstern, R. D. Children and the Productivity of Academic Women[J]. The Journal of Higher Education,1977,48(6):633-645.
[70]Harande, Y. I. Author productivity and collaboration:An investigation of the relationship using the literature of technology [J]. Libri,2001(51):124-127.
[71]Hargens, L. L. A new approach to referees'assessment of manuscripts [J]. Social Science Research,1990,19(3):1-16.
[72]Hargens, L. L. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates[J]. American Sociological Review,1988,53(2):139-151.
[73]Hassan, A., Tymms, P.,& Ismail, H. Academic productivity as perceived by Malaysian academics[J]. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2008,30(3):283-296.
[74]Heeringen, A. van,& Dijkwel, P. A. Mobility and Productivity of Academic Research Scientists[J]. Czechoslovak Journal of Physics,1986, B36:58-61.
[75]Heffner, A. G. Multiple Authorship and Sub-authorship Collaboration in Four Disciplines[J]. Scientometrics,1981(3):23.
[76]Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy[M]. London:Allen & Unwin.1963:23.
[77]Helleloid, D.,& Simonin, B. L. Organizational Learning and a Firm's Core Competence[A]. Hamel G.& Heene A. Competence Based Competition[C]. New York:Wiley,1994:213-239.
[78]Holsti, O. R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,1969.
[79]Hopp, W. J., Iravani, S. M. R.,& Liu, F. The role of internal collaboration and communication on research productivity and impact of an engineering school. Working Paper Northwestern University,2008.
[80]Houben, G., Lenie, K.,& Vanhoof, K. A Knowledge Based SWOT-analysis as an Instrument for Strategic Planning in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises[J]. Decision Support Systems,1999(2):125-135.
[81]Hsieh, H. F.,& Shannon, S. E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis[J]. Qualitative Health Research,2005,15(9):1277-1288.
[82]Huber, G. P. Organizational learning:the contributing process and the literatures [J]. Organization Science,1991(1):88-115.
[83]Hussey, J & Hussey, R. Business Research:A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students[M]. Basingstoke, Macmillan,1997:10-54.
[84]Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E.,& Murphy, L. D. Content analysis in leadership research:examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use[J]. Leadership Quarterly,1997,8(1):1-25.
[85]Jackson, M. O.,& Wolinsky, A. A strategic model of social and economic networks [J]. Journal of Economic Theory,1996(71):44-74.
[86]JACS[EB/OL]. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_studrec&task=sh-ow_file&Itemid=233&mnl=07051&href=jacs2.html,2010-10-28.
[87]JACS[EB/OL]. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1776/296/,2010-10-28.
[88]Johnston, W. J., Leach. M. P.,& Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business reseach[J]. Industrial Marketing Management,1999(28): 201-213.
[89]Jones, P. C.,& Merritt, J. Q. Critical Thinking and Interdisciplinarity in Environmental Higher Education:The Case for Epistemoligical and Values Awareness[J]. Joural of Geography in Higher Education,1999,23(3):349-358.
[90]Katz, J. S.,& Martin, B. R. What is Research Collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997(26):1-18.
[91]Kaid, L. L. Content analysis. In Emmert, P.,& Barker, L. L. (Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior(pp.197-217). New York:Longman.
[92]Kassarjian, H. H. Content Analysis in Consumer Research[J]. Journal of Consumer Research,1977(4):8-18.
[93]Klein, J. T. Crossing boundaries:Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplina-rities[M]. Charlottesville and London:University Press of Virginia,1996: 37-48.
[94]Klein, J. T. Interdisciplinarity-history, theory and practice[M]. Detroit:Wayne State University Press,1990:56.
[95]Klein, J. T. Thinking about Interdisciplinarity:A Primer for Practice[J]. Colorado School of Mines Quarterly,2003,103(1):101-114.
[96]Kockelmans, J. J. Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education[M]. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press,1975:307.
[97]Kogut, B.,& Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology [J]. Organization Science,1992,3(3):383-397.
[98]Kolbe, R. H.,& Burnett, M. S. Content-analysis research:an examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity[J]. Journal of Consumer Research,1991,18(9):243-250.
[99]Krippendoff, K. Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. The Sage Commtext Series, Sage Publications Ltd, London,1980.
[100]Laband, D. N. An evaluation of 50 "ranked" economics departments-by quantity and quality of faculty publication and graduate student productivity [J]. Southern Economic Journal,1985,52(1):216-240.
[101]Landry, R., Traore, N.,& Godin, B. An econometric analyisis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity [J]. Higher Education, 1996(32):283-301.
[102]Lanjouw, J.,& Schankerman, M. Patent quality and research productivity: measuring innovation with multiple indicators [J]. Economic Journal,2004, 114(495):441-465.
[103]Larsen E. The Cavendish Laboratory:Nursery of Genius[M]. New York: Franklin Watts Inc,1962:93.
[104]Leipzig, R. M., Hyer, K., Ek, K. et al. Attitudes toward working on interdisciplinary health care teams:A comparison by disciplines[J]. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,2002,50(6):1141-1148.
[105]Levin, G. S.,& Stephan, E. P. Age and Research Productivity of Academic Scientists[J]. Research in Higher Education,1989,30(5):531-549.
[106]Levine, D. M, Becker, D. M., Bone, L. R. et al. Community-academic health center partnerships for underserved minority populations[J]. JAMA,1994, 272(4):309-311.
[107]Leydesdorff, L.,& Etzkowitz, H. Emergence of a Triple Helix of University Industry Government Relations[J]. Science and Public Policy,1996(23): 279-286.
[108]Leydesdorff, L.,& Etzkowitz, H. The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies[J]. Science and Public Policy,1998,25(3):195-203.
[109]Lindeke L. L.,& Block, D. E. Maintaining professional integrity in the midst of interdisciplinary collaboration[J]. Nursing Outlook,1998(46):213-218.
[110]Lipset, S. M., Trow, M.,& Coleman, J. Union democracy:The Inside Politics of the International Typographical Union[M]. New York:Free Press,1956: 419-420.
[111]Lisa, R. L. Creating Interdisciplinary:Interdiciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty[M]. Nashville:Vanderbilt University Press,2001:2.
[112]Liu, F. The Impact of Collaboration Networks on Organizational Perform-ance[D]. A Dissertation for the Degree:Doctor of Philosophy in Northwestern University,2008:167-168,172.
[113]Liu, Z., Yan, H., Wang, K. et al. Crystal structure of spinach major light-harvesting complex at 2.72 A resolution[J]. Nature,2004(428):287-292.
[114]Long, J. S. Productivity and Academic position in the Scientific Career[J]. American Sociological Review,1978,43(12):889-908.
[115]Long, J. S.,& Fox, M. F. Scientific careers:universalism and particularism[J], Annual Review of Sociology,1995(21):45-71.
[116]Long, R., Crawford A., White, M. et al. Determinants of faculty research productivity in information systems:An empirical analysis of the impact of academic origin and academic affiliation[J]. Scientometrics,2009,78(2): 231-260.
[117]May, K. A.,& Ferguson-Pare, M. Preparing nurse leaders for the future:views from Canada[J]. Semin Nurse Manage 1997(5):97-105.
[118]Mayring, P. Qualitative content analysis[J/OL]. Forum:Qualitative Social Research,2000,1(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00 mayring-e.htm.
[119]McCain, K. W. Cotited Author Mapping as a Valid Representation of Intellectual Structure[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1986(37):111-122.
[120]McCain, K. W. Neural network research in context:a longitudinal journal cotitation analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field [J]. Scientometrics, 1998(41):389-410.
[121]McGee, G. W.,& Ford, R. C. Faculty research productivity and intention to change positions[J]. The Review of Higher Education,1987,11(1):1-16.
[122]Menard, H. W. Science:Growth and Change[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1971:32.
[123]Meredith, J. Buiding operations management theory through case and field research[J]. Journal of Operation Management,1998(16):441-454.
[124]Meyer, M. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature [J]. Research Policy,2000(29):409-434.
[125]Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology[EB/OL]. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/,2010-09-20.
[126]Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A.,& Singer, P.'Mind the gap':science and ethics in nanotechnology[J]. Nanotechnology,2003(14):9-12.
[127]Morris, R. Computerized content analysis in managenment research:a demon-stration of advantages & limitation[J]. Journal of Management,1994,20(4): 903-931.
[128]Mott, N. F. The Life in Science[M]. London:Taylor & Francis,1986:38-39.
[129]Narin, F., Albert M., Kroll P. et al. Inventing our future-the link between Australian patenting and basic science[R]. CHI Research Inc,2000.
[130]NCES. Classification of Instructional Programs:2000 edition[EB/OL]. http:// nces.ed.gov,2010-10-28.
[131]NCES. Classification of Instructional Programs:2010 edition[EB/OL]. http:// nces.ed.gov/ipeds/news_room/ThisWeekInIPEDS.asp?TWID=12,2010-10-28.
[132]Newman, J. M.,& Cooper, E. Determinants of academic recognition:the case of the journal of applied psychology[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,1993, 78(3):518-526.
[133]Newman, M. E. J. The structure of scientific collaboration networks[C]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2001,98(2):404-409.
[134]Nissani, M. Fruits, Salads, and Smoothies:A Working Definition of Interdisciplinarity[J]. Journal of Educational Thought,1995,29(2):121-128.
[135]Nobel Laureates[EB/OL]. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/history/nobel.php,2010-10-02.
[136]Nowotny, H., Scott, P.,& Gibbons, M. Re-thinking Science:Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty [M]. London:Policy Press,2001.
[137]Nunnally, J. C.,& Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory, New Jersey, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[138]OECD. Interdisciplinarity:Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities [M]. Paris:OECD Publications,1972:25.
[139]O'Looney, J. Modeling Collaboration and Social Services Integration:A Single State's Experience with Development and Non-Development Models [J]. Administration in Social Work,1994,18(1):61-86.
[140]Orchard, C., Curran, V.,& Kabene, S. Creating a culture for interdisciplinary collaborative professional practice[J]. Medical Education Online,2005,10(11): 1-13.
[141]Ormerod, R. J. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation?[J]. The International Journal of Management Science,2000(28): 241-245.
[142]Orpen, C. Tenure and Academinc Productivity:Another Look[J]. Improving College and University Teaching,1982,30(2):60-62.
[143]Ostermeier, C.,& Michel, H. Crystallization of membrance proteins[J]. Current Opinion in Structural Biology,1997,7(5):69.
[144]Palmer, C. L. Work at the Boundaries of Science[M]. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2001:23.
[145]Park, S. H.,& Gordon, M. E. Publication Records and Tenure Decisions in the Field of Strategic Management[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(2): 109-128.
[146]Pelz, D. C.,& Andrews, F. M. Scientists in organizations:productive climates for research and development. New York:Wiley,1966.
[147]Perreault, W. D.,& Leigh, L. E. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments[J]. Journal of Marketing Research,1989,26(5):135-148.
[148]Perry, J. L.,& Kraemer, K. L. Research Methodology in the Public Administration Review,1975-1984[J]. Public Administration Review, 1986(46):215-226.
[149]Perry-Smith, J. E. Social yet creative:The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006, 49(1):85-101.
[150]Pinch T. Culture of Scinentists and Disciplinary Rhetoric[J]. European Journal of Education,1990,25(3):295-304.
[151]Platt, J.'Cases study' in American methodological thoughts[J]. Current Sociology,1992(40):17-44.
[152]Porter, A. L.,& Chubin D. E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research[J]. Scientometrics,1985(8):161-176.
[153]Porter, A. L.,& Rossini, F. A. Multiskill Research[J]. Knowledge:Creation, Diffusion, Utilization,1986,7(3):219.
[154]Pravdic, N.,& Oluic-Vukovic, V. Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship [J]. Scientometrics,1986, 10(5-6):259-280.
[155]Price, D. J. Networks of scientific papers[J]. Science,1965(149):510-515.
[156]Price, D. J. The science-technology relationship[J], Research Policy,1984(13): 3-20.
[157]Purdue University[EB/OL]. http://www.purdue.edu/,2010-09-12.
[158]Ranga, L. M. Structure and Determinants of the Innovative Capacity of Academic Research Groups Involved in University-Industry Collaboration [D]. Unpublished Dphil Thesis. SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton,2003.
[159]Report of the Cluster/Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee to Evaluate the Cluster Hiring Initiative. [EB/OL]._http://www.provost.wisc.edu/2008clusterrep-ort.pdf,2009-04-02.
[160]Rhoten, D. Interdisciplinary Research:Trend or Transition[J]. Items and Issues: Social Science Research Council,2004(5):6-11.
[161]Rice, R. E.,& Sorcinelli, M. D. Can the tenure process be improved? In R. Chait(Ed.), The Questions of tenure[M]. Cambrige, MA:Harvard University Press,2002:101-124.
[162]Richard, B. D. University-Industry Collaboration, Technology Demands for New Innovation Systems. FED,2003.10.8.
[163]Robertson, D. W., Martin, D. K.& Singer P. A. Interdisciplinary Research: Putting the Methods under the Microscope[J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology,2003(3):1-5.
[164]Rothwell, R. Successful industrial innovation:Critical factors for the 1990s[J]. R & D Management,1992,22(3):221-239.
[165]Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. S. et al. Not so different after all:A cross-discipline view of trust[J]. Acad Management Rev,1998(23):393-404.
[166]Rowe, H. Multidisciplinary teamwork-myth or reality?[J]. Journal of Nursing Management,1996(4):93-101.
[167]Riiegg, W. Interdisciplinarity in the History of the European University [J]. Globa Environmental Change,1997(8):177-182.
[168]Salter, L.,& Hearn, A. Outside the Lines:Issues in Interdisciplinary Research[M]. Montreal and Kingston, Canada:McGill-Queen's University Press,1996.
[169]Saunier, M. E. Objective measures as predictors of reputational ratings[J]. Research in Higher Education,1985,23(3):227-244.
[170]Sa, C. M.'Interdisciplinary strategies'in U.S. research universities[J]. Higher Education,2008(55):537-552.
[171]Scapens, R. W. Researching management accounting practice:The role of case study methods[J]. The British Accounting Review,1990,22(3):259-281.
[172]Schummer, J. Interdisciplinary Issues in Nanoscale Research[M]. in Baird D., Nordmann A.,& Schummer J. (eds.) Discovering the Nanoscale,2004b:9-20. Amsterdam:IOS Press.
[173]Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization[M]. New York:Doubleday,1990.
[174]Sinkula, J. M. Market information processing and organizational learning[J]. Journal of Marketing,1994(58):35-45.
[175]Slater, S. F.,& Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization[J]. Journal of Marketing,1995(59):63-74.
[176]Spender, J. C.,& Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm, Overview[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996(17):1-9.
[177]Stake, R. E. Case studies[A]. Denzin, N. K.,& Lincoln, Y. S. Handbook of qualitative research[C]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications,2000:435-454.
[178]Steensma, H. K. Acquiring technological competencies through inter-organizational collaboration, An organizational learning perspective [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1996,12(4):267-286.
[179]Straub, D. W. Validating Instruments in MIS research[J]. MIS Quarterly,1989, 13(2):147-176.
[180]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G.,& Shuen, A. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997(18):509-533.
[181]The Chronicle of Higher Education. Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index [EB/OL]. http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2006&primary= Choose+Area+of+Study%3A&bycat=Go,2010-08-17.
[182]The History of the Cavendish[EB/OL]. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/history/, 2010-09-03.
[183]The University of Tokyo[EB/OL]. http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index/b00_e.html, 2010-08-04.
[184]Tijssen, R. J. W. A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology:Co-classification analysis of energy research[J]. Research Policy,1992(21):27-44.
[185]University Leadership Council. Competing in the Era of Big Bets:Achieving Scale in Multidisciplinary Research[R]. National Best Practice Report, Washington, D.C.:xii,67.
[186]Van den Besselaar, P.,& Heimeriks, G. Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary-Concepts and Indicators. In M. Davis and C S Wilson(Eds.)[A]. Proceedings of the 8th International conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Sydney:University of New South Wales,2001: 705-716.
[187]Vest, C. M. Pursuing the Endless Frontier:Essay on MIT and the Role of Research Universities[M]. Massachusetts:MIT Press,2005.
[188]Waever, O. Still a Discipline After All These Debates? in T. Dunne, M. Milja and S. Smith(eds) Inernational Relations Theories, ch.15. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[189]Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S.,& Gregorio, D. I. Research productivity in academia:a comparative study of the science, social sciences and huamanities[J]. Sociology of Education,1981(54):238-253.
[190]Weingart, P. From'Finalization'to'Mode 2':Old Wine in New Bottles?[J]. Social Science Information,1997,36(4):591-614.
[191]Wimmer, R. D.,& Dominick, J. R. Mass Media Research:An Introduction,6th edn. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth,2000.
[192]Wu, J.,& Hobbs, R. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology:An idiosyncratic synthesis[J]. Landscape Ecology,2002(17):355-365.
[193]Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F.& Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge[J]. Science,2007,316(5827):1036-1039.
[194]Yan, M.,& Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:A comparative case study[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6):1478-1517.
[195]Yin, R. K. Case Study Research, Design and Methods[M]. California:Sage Publications, Newbury Park,1994.
[196]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods(3rd edition)[M]. Thousands Oaks:Sage Publications,2003.
[197]Yu, X. Chinese Faculty in the Employment Transition:A Case Study of Zhejiang University[D]. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education,2008:38.
[198]Zerhouni, E. The NIH Roadmap[J]. Science,2003(302):63-64,72.
[199]Ziman, J. Prometheus bound:Science in a dynamic steady state[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
[200]Ziman, J. Real Science:What it is and What it means[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
[201]Zucherman, H. Scientific elite:Nobel Laureates in the United States[M]. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers,1996:118,166.
[202]C·斯米尔诺夫,亦舟.现代科学中跨学科过程的某些发展趋势[J].国外社会科学,1985(7)：1-6.
[203]Merton, R. K著.鲁旭东,林聚任译.科学社会学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003：56-63.
[204]NNSFC学科代码[S].国家自然科学基金委员会[EB/OL]. http://www.nsfc. gov.cn/Porta10/default141.htm,2010-09-07.
[205]Tonnies, F著.林荣远译.共同体与社会[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999：52.
[206]彼得·圣吉.经受考验.载罗文·吉布森编.重思未来[M].海口：海南出版社,1999：154.
[207]别敦荣.我国研究型大学的发展定位与战略[J].北京大学教育评论,2009,7(1)：63-69.
[208]伯顿·克拉克著.王承绪等译.高等教育新论—多学科的研究[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1988：2.
[209]柴立和,彭晓峰.东京大学的交叉学科及其启示[J].国际学术动态,2003(6)：17-19.
[210]陈艾华,邹晓东,陈勇等.美国研究型大学跨学科研究的实践创新—以UWMCHI为例[J].高等工程教育研究,2010(1)：117-120,163.
[211]陈艾华,邹晓东.资助改革研究,推进教育创新—美国NSF工程教育研究项目研讨会述评[J].高等工程教育研究,2010(4)：93-99.
[212]陈婵.高等学校跨学科组织的系统管理研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2005：14.
[213]陈春花,杨映珊.科研团队运作管理[M].北京：科学出版社,2004：52.
[214]陈国权,马萌.组织学习的过程模型研究[J].管理科学学报,2000,3(3)：15-23.
[215]陈国权,李赞斌.学习型组织中的“学习主体”类型和案例研究[J].管理科学学报,2002,5(4)：51-67.
[216]陈勇,邹晓东,陈艾华等.促进跨学科研究的有效组织模式研究[J].科学学研究,2010,28(3)：346-350.
[217]成思危.复杂性科学探索[M].北京：民主与建设出版社,2000：23.
[218]程妍.跨学科研究与研究型大学建设[D].博士学位论文,中国科学技术大学,2009：1-2.
[219]大川一毅.关于日本大学“学际的学部”的课程教育.大学史研究第13号,1998：3.
[220]邓小平.邓小平文选(第3卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1993：275.
[221]董金华,刘凡丰.研究型大学跨学科研究的组织模式初探[J].中国软科学,2008(3)：81-87.
[222]窦军生.家庭企业代际传承中企业家默会知识和关系网络的传承机理研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008：63.
[223]冯钢.跨学科研究何以可能?[J].浙江社会科学,2007(4)：18-19.
[224]冯向东.张力下的动态平衡：大学中的学科发展机制[J].现代大学教育,2002(2)：67-71.
[225]付瑶瑶.从斯坦福大学看美国研究型大学中独立科研机构的发展[J].清华大学教育研究,2005,26(3)：16-22.
[226]龚兴英,陈时见.日本“21世纪COE计划”：背景、内容及意义[J].比较教育研究,2007(7)：52-57.
[227]顾海良.人文社会科学跨学科研究的路径及其实现条件[J].高校理论战线,2011(1)：20-23.
[228]顾虹,赵敏.科研经费管理模式的改革及其合理性分析[J].科技管理研究,2003(3)：75-77,101.
[229]国家技术监督局.国家标准《学科分类与代码》(GB/T 13745-1992)[S].1992.
[230]国家教育部.高等学校本科专业目录(1998年颁布)[EB/OL]. http://202.205.177.9/edoas/website18/84/info1212562471366584.htm,2010-06-30.
[231]国家质量监督检验检疫总局,国家标准化管理委员会.国家标准《学科分类与代码》(GB/T 13745-2009)[S].2009.
[232]国务院学位办.授予博士硕士学位和培养研究生的学科专业简介[M].国务院学位委员会办公室、教育部研究生工作办公室编.北京：高等教育出版社,1999：8.
[233]郭中华,黄召,邹晓东.高校跨学科组织实施中存在的问题及对策[J].科技进步与对策,2008,25(1)：183-186.
[234]河野通方.东京大学--现状与课题3[M].东京：东京大学出版会,2001：156-159,138-144.
[235]胡卫锋.一流大学交叉学科建设研究[D].硕士学位论文,中南大学,2004：32.
[236]黄德良,杜俊民.跨学科与科学精神[J].学术研究,2001(6)：73-77.
[237]黄锦奎.先进生产力与价值转化过程[J].生产力研究,2003(4)：6-11.
[238]姜春林.漫漫求索之路,景致这边独好—介评《在科学交叉处探索科学—从科学学到科学计量学》[J].情报杂志,2004(2)：118-120.
[239]姜中一,姜平.跨学科研究视野下的领导科学创新[J].领导科学,2010(23)：4-7.
[240]金薇吟.学科交叉理论与高校交叉学科建设研究[D].硕士学位论文,苏州大学,2005：5-6.
[241]金吾伦.跨学科研究引论[M].北京：中央编译出版社,1997：116.
[242]康旭东,王前,郭东明.科研团队建设的若干理论问题[J].科学学研究,2005,23(2)：232-236.
[243]科学技术部发展计划司.2009年我国R&D经费投入特征分析[R].科技统计报告,2010(25).
[244]克拉克(1981)著,王承绪等译.高等教育系统—学术组织的跨国研究[M].杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994：34.
[245]克莱恩著,姜智芹译.跨越边界—知识、学科、学科互涉[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2005：177.
[246]孔寒冰.基于本体的工程学科框架研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008：28.
[247]国廷云.学科交叉在生命科学研究中的作用[J].杭州师范大学学报(自然科学版),2010,9(3)：161-164.
[248]蓝劲松.致知穷理：大学发展的多维探索[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008：1,102-103.
[249]蓝劲松.致知穷理：大学发展的多维探索[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008：1.
[250]李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下)[J].当代传播,2000(1)：47-49.
[251]理查德·L·达夫特.组织理论与设计精要[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2003：23-25.
[252]李丽刚.中国高校跨学科研究的发展研究[D].硕士学位论文,国防科学技术大学,2005：50.
[253]廖湘阳.面向三个维度,创新高校科研组织模式[J].中国高等教育,2010(5)：52-54.
[254]刘凡丰,沈兰芳.美国州立大学科研组织模式变革[J].高等教育研究,2007,28(5)：99-103.
[255]刘凡丰,项伟央,李文静.美国研究型大学促进跨学科研究的组织策略[J].中国高等教育,2010(2)：61-62.
[256]刘念才,程莹,刘少雪.美国高等院校学科专业的设置与借鉴[J].世界教育信息,2003：27-44.
[257]刘延勃,张弓长,马乾乐.哲学辞典[M].吉林：吉林人民出版社,1985：173-174.
[258]刘仲林,程妍. “交叉学科”学科门类设置研究[J].学位与研究生教育,2008(6)：44-48.
[259]刘仲林.交叉学科分类模式与管理沉思[J].科学学研究,2003,21(6)：561-566.
[260]刘仲林.跨学科学导论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1990：6-7.
[261]刘仲林.迈向跨学科研究的新阶段[J].天津师大学报(社科版),1994(1)：44-46.
[262]刘仲林.现代交叉科学[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,1998：30-31.
[263]柳洲,陈士俊.从学科会聚机制看跨学科科技创新团队建设[J].科技进步与对策,2007,24(3)：165-168.
[264]柳洲,陈士俊.我国科技创新团队建设的问题与对策[J].科学管理研究,2006(2)：92-95.
[265]柳洲,陈士俊,王洁.论跨学科创新团队的异质性知识耦合[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008(6)：188-191.
[266]柳洲.高校跨学科科研组织成长机制研究[D].博士学位论文,天津大学,2008：3-4.
[267]龙献忠,王静.研究型大学跨学科组织运行的保障体系[J].高等教育研究,2010,31(2)：32-36.
[268]鲁兴启.跨学科研究成果评价中的问题及其分析[J].科技导报,2002(4)：26-28.
[269]罗伯特·K·殷著,周海涛译.案例研究：设计与方法[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004：译序6.
[270]马克思,恩格斯著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译. 马克思恩格斯全集(第19卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,2006：375.
[271]马克思,恩格斯著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.马克思恩格斯全集(第23卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1972：59.
[272]马克思,恩格斯著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.马克思恩格斯选集(第26卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：56.
[273]马克思著.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.资本论(第一卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1975：202.
[274]马庆国.管理统计-数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[275]孟卫青.教育研究的跨学科取向[J].教育评论,2003(2)：33-35.
[276]潘向东,杨建梅,欧瑞秋等.团队合作绩效在知识生产领域中的涌现[J].科学学研究,2010,28(2)：288-294.
[277]钱佩忠.高校跨学科研究的组织和障碍分析[J].高等农业教育,2007(1)：55-57.
[278]钱学森.交叉科学：理论和研究的展望[J].交叉科学,1986(1).
[279]邱均平,邹菲.国外内容分析法的研究概况及进展[J].图书情报知识,2003(6)：6-8.
[280]邱均平,赵蓉英,马瑞敏等.世界大学科研竞争力评价的意义、理念与实践[J].科技进步与对策,2006(3)：21-24.
[281]邱均平.中国高校科研竞争力的意义和做法[J].评价与管理,2004(3)：31-34.
[282]饶燕婷.美国研究型大学的教育改革与创新—以杜克大学为例[J].比较教育研究,2008(9)：35-39.
[283]萨默斯.什么是世界一流的大学[J].新闻周刊,2002(13)：60-61.
[284]似田贝香门.第三时代的大学：东京大学新领域创成的挑战[M].东京：东京大学出版会,2001：35.
[285]首尔大学校长与东京大学校长的对话[EB/OL]. http://www.tiantianedu.net/ show.asp?id=607,2010-08-05.
[286]孙绵涛.学科论[J].教育研究,2004(6)：49-55.
[287]孙萍,朱桂龙,赵荣举.跨学科研究发展状况评估体系初探[J].中国科技论坛,2001(1)：35-38.
[288]孙向军.知识生产力研究[D].博士学位论文,中共中央党校,2002：7-8.
[289]孙燕,孙利华.中、美、日三国政府医药研发投入管理比较研究[J].中国医药工业杂志,2010,41(6)：472-476.
[290]孙中才.学科建设：学科和科学[J].学位与研究生教育,1999(2)：37-41.
[291]田华.基于知识溢出的区域性大学发展研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：150.
[292]王金红.案例研究法及其相关学术规范[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2007,12(3)：87-96.
[293]王磊.大学创新学术团队研究[D].博士学位论文,华东师范大学,2008：72-73.
[294]王沛民,孔寒冰.面向高新科技的大学学科改造[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2005：227,229-232.
[295]王沛民.研究和开发“专业学位”刍议[J].高等教育研究,1999(2)：43-46.
[296]王伟.科学创新与科学创新管理—卡文迪什实验室对我国科学创新的启示[J].安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,30(2)：154-156.
[297]王续琨.交叉学科、交叉科学及其在科学体系中的地位[J].自然辩证法研究,2000,16(1)：43-47.
[298]王艳玉.学科建设与优势积累[J].河北大学学报,2002,27(1)：76-79.
[299]王怡然,陈士俊,张海燕等.高校创新团队建设的若干理论问题研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007,24(8)：194-197.
[300]王英.学科建设以合作为基础[J].高等工程教育研究,1999(3)：24-31.
[301]王媛媛.封闭与开放：走向学科研究与跨学科研究的统一[J].高等教育研究,2010,31(5)：47-49.
[302]王媛媛.我国大学跨学科研究与马太效应[J].中国高教研究,2008(8)：44-46.
[303]王志刚.论发展地方高校科学研究[D].博士学位论文,华中科技大学,2004：88-89.
[304]王重鸣.心理学研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1990：22.
[305]文部科学省.卓越研究基地计划[R].2007：3
[306]邬伟娥.知识转移视角的大学学术生产力研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006：99-100.
[307]吴凤.研究型大学跨学科组织的运行管理研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：30,41.
[308]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务[M].北京：科学出版社,2003.
[309]吴琦来,魏薇.日本高等教育交叉学科建设的范例及其启示[J].比较教育研究,2008(3)：26-30.
[310]吴世忠.内容分析方法论纲[J].情报资料工作,1991(2)：37-47.
[311]吴维民,林永寿.关于交叉科学的历史考察[J].社会科学研究,1986(3)：4-9.
[312]夏代云,何沁章,李炳昌.高校创新性基础科学研究团队特征研究[J].自然辩证法研究,2010,26(8)：56-62.
[313]夏先良.知识论[D].博士学位论文,中国社会科学院研究生院,2000：19-23,30-31.
[314]肖向晨,马卫华.论高校人文社会科学研究平台的建设[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2007,29(1)：62-64.
[315]校长办公室总括委员会[EB/OL]. http://cirp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/organi-zation/#anker23,2010-09-28.
[316]谢彩霞,刘则渊.科研合作及其科研生产力功能[J].科学技术与辩证法,2006,23(1)：99-102.
[317]谢彩霞.关于科学合作本质属性的探讨[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,34(4)：19-21.
[318]胥青山.跨学科人才培养与高校学科组织创新[J].辽宁教育研究,2004(1)：21-23.
[319]炎冰,宋子良. “交叉学科”概念新解[J].科学技术与辩证法,1996(4)：51-54.
[320]阎康年.卡文迪什实验室—物理实验室的典范[J].国外科技动态,2000(8)：41-44.
[321]阎康年.卡文迪什实验室选择和培养人才的经验研究[J].自然科学史研究,1996,15(3)：197-206.
[322]颜士梅,王重鸣.并购式内创业中的人力资源整合水平和模式研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,37(1)：178-189.
[323]姚东瑞.密切校企合作,提高地方高校科研生产力[J].中国高等教育,2009(18)：45-46.
[324]姚威.产学研合作创新的知识创造过程研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009：237.
[325]叶康涛.案例研究：从个案分析到理论创建—中国第一届管理案例学术研讨会综述[J].管理世界,2006(2)：139-143.
[326]叶澜.深化中国高等学校内部管理体制与运行机制改革的研究报告[J].教育发展研究,2005(5)：11-15.
[327]叶伟巍.产学合作创新机理与政策研究—以浙江省为例[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009：14.
[328]余菁.案例研究与案例研究方法.经济管理[J].经济管理,2004(20)：24-29.
[329]张辉.高校跨学科组织研究生培养机制的创新研究[D].硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：6.
[330]张炜,邹晓东,陈劲.基于跨学科的新型大学学术组织模式构造[J].科学学研究,2002,20(4)：362-366.
[331]张文军,张健,许为民.个体主义文化传统对英国高等教育专业设置的影响[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,37(2)：143-150.
[332]张学文.基于知识的产学合作创新：边界与路径研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010：42-44.
[333]张志强.英美国家的出版学学科归属及对我国的启示[J].中国出版,2009,17(9)：21-24,52.
[334]赵红州,蒋国华.在科学交叉处探索科学--从科学学到科学计量学[M].北京：红旗出版社,2003：424.
[335]赵红州.科学能力学引论[M].北京：科学出版社,1984：1.
[336]赵红州.论科研生产关系[J].中国社会科学,1996(1)：17-30.
[337]赵红州.论科研生产关系与我国科研体制改革问题[J].科研管理,1996(2)：41-45.
[338]赵黎明,高杨和韩宇.专利引文分析在知识转移机制研究中的应用[J].科学学研究,2002,20(3)：297-300.
[339]赵树智,张薇.现代跨学科研究的兴起和特点[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1993：14.
[340]赵晓春.跨学科研究与科研创新能力建设[D].博士学位论文,中国科学技术大学,2007：157-160.
[341]中国工程院.中国工程院院士增选学部专业划分标准(试行)[S],中国工程院学科分类标准研究课题组,2004.
[342]中国科技统计[EB/OL]. http://www.sts.org.cn/tjbg/tjgb/tindex.asp,2011-01-27.
[343]中国社会科学院语言研究所.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1985：1308.
[344]周彬,周军,徐桂红.论科研团队的冲突管理与有效沟通[J].中国科技论坛,2004(3)：119-122.
[345]周朝成.当代大学中的跨学科研究-学科文化与组织的视阈[D].博士学位论文,2008：147.
[346]周光召.青年科学家与科学前沿[J].科学学研究,1996,14(2)：1-2.
[347]周寄中.科学技术创新管理[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002：98.
[348]周兆透.论大学中的跨学科研究组织及其管理创新[J].高等农业教育,2006(9)：21-24.
[349]朱道本.加强交叉学科,提升创新能力[J].中国科学基金,2001,15(6)：321-323.
[350]朱平芳.现代计量经济学[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.
[351]朱学彦.基于嵌入性关系和组织间学习的产学知识联盟研究[D].博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009：39.
[352]朱蔚彤.国家自然科学基金委员会资助学科交叉研究模式分析[J].中国科学基金,2006(3)：184-189.
[353]综合科学技术会议“科学技术基本计划”,1996年3月,2001年3月,2006年3月.
[354]邹晓东,黄争舸,陈劲.基于学科核心能力的学科组织创新[J].科学学研究,2004,22(4)：438-441.
[355]邹晓东,舟杭.研究型大学学科组织创新研究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2004：64,119.