출처: Yung-chen Chiang (2001). Social Engineering and the Social Sciences in China, 1919-1949. Cambridge University Press.
자료: 구글도서
※ 주요 차례
1. Introduction (1)
2. The Yanjing Sociology Department: The Social Service Phase, 1919-1925 (23)
3. The Yanjing Sociology Department: From Social Service to Social Engineering, 1925-1945 (46)
4. The Nankai Institute of Economics: The Germinating Stage, 1927-1931 (78)
The Financial Base (79)
- The Foreign-Educated Faculty and the Administrators (82)
- Franklin Ho and the Origin of the Nankai Institute of Economics (87)
- The Entry of the Institute of Pacific Relations (90)
- Nankai under the Aegis of the Institute of Pacific Relations (92)
5. The Nankia Institute of Economics: Academic Entrepreneurship and Social Engineering, 1931-1947 (103)
6. Marxism, Revolution, and the Study of Chinese Society (136)
7. Genesis of a Marxist Social Science Enterprise in the Early 1930s (159)
8. The Social Sciences, Agrarian China, and the Advocacy of Revolution (184)
9. Rockfeller Foundation and Chinese Academic Enterprise (222)
10. Conclusion: The Legacy (256)
- Social Engineering (258)
- A Transpacific Transplantation of a Paragigmatic Debate (261)
※ 발췌 (excerpts):
pp. 224~
Although the Institute had engaged John B. Condliffe to become the research secretary in early 1927, no research program had crystallized before its biennial conferences in Honolulu in the summer of that year. Condliffe favored a more patient approach, especially because he had not made a reconnaissance trip to East Asia. However, pressure for projects from New York was mounting. Carter had funds from Laura Spelman Rockfeller Memorial and was eager to prove to the latter the efficiency of the Institute as an agency for social science research on East Asia. [n.4] There was pressure from academic entrepreneurs as well. James Shotwell, professor of history at Columbia University and chairman of the Institute of the International Research Committee of the Institute, was eager to have projects that he could present to the Social Science Research Council.
This pressure turned the Institute's Research Committee meetings at the 1927 Honolulu conference into a desperate search for projects. The meetings were attended by a motley group with diverse backgrounds and interests. ( ... ) The meetings were chaotic and futile. Condliffe was soundly reproached by Carter and Shotwell for failing to come up with projects in advance. The exasperated Shotwell went so far as telling Condliffe that "the tail was going to wag the dog" and there was no future for him in the Institute.[.6] ( ... ) With the help of other conference participants, Condliffe eventually came up with an assortment of a dozen projects for Shotwell to take to the Social Science Research Council.
( ... ... )
( ... ... )
( ... ... )
Although the Institute continued to support social science research in China until 1949, its importance was outshone in the early 1930s by the entry of the Rockefeller Foundation into the social science field.
The Rockefeller patronage of the social sciences in China had been sporatic, represented by a grant to Yanjing in 1928 and another to Nankai in 1932. Both were block grants to be expended entirely at the discetion of the beneficiaries, a practice Ruml pioneered at the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. [n.10] When the Foundation entered the social science field in China in the early 1930s, its China Program departed in two important aspects from its established practices. First, bringing together social scientists, public health experts, engineers, and agronomists for a concerted attack on China's rural problems, the China Program cut across several divisional lines within the Foundation─the Division of the Social Sciences, the China Medical Board, and the International Education Board. Second, the China Program articulated an ambitious goal in social engineering, which the Foundation had eschewed. This program owed its tenacity to its creator, Selska Gunn, vice-president of the Foundation.[n.1]]
( ... )
Although the Institute had engaged John B. Condliffe to become the research secretary in early 1927, no research program had crystallized before its biennial conferences in Honolulu in the summer of that year. Condliffe favored a more patient approach, especially because he had not made a reconnaissance trip to East Asia. However, pressure for projects from New York was mounting. Carter had funds from Laura Spelman Rockfeller Memorial and was eager to prove to the latter the efficiency of the Institute as an agency for social science research on East Asia. [n.4] There was pressure from academic entrepreneurs as well. James Shotwell, professor of history at Columbia University and chairman of the Institute of the International Research Committee of the Institute, was eager to have projects that he could present to the Social Science Research Council.
This pressure turned the Institute's Research Committee meetings at the 1927 Honolulu conference into a desperate search for projects. The meetings were attended by a motley group with diverse backgrounds and interests. ( ... ) The meetings were chaotic and futile. Condliffe was soundly reproached by Carter and Shotwell for failing to come up with projects in advance. The exasperated Shotwell went so far as telling Condliffe that "the tail was going to wag the dog" and there was no future for him in the Institute.[.6] ( ... ) With the help of other conference participants, Condliffe eventually came up with an assortment of a dozen projects for Shotwell to take to the Social Science Research Council.
( ... ... )
( ... ... )
( ... ... )
Although the Institute continued to support social science research in China until 1949, its importance was outshone in the early 1930s by the entry of the Rockefeller Foundation into the social science field.
The Rockefeller patronage of the social sciences in China had been sporatic, represented by a grant to Yanjing in 1928 and another to Nankai in 1932. Both were block grants to be expended entirely at the discetion of the beneficiaries, a practice Ruml pioneered at the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. [n.10] When the Foundation entered the social science field in China in the early 1930s, its China Program departed in two important aspects from its established practices. First, bringing together social scientists, public health experts, engineers, and agronomists for a concerted attack on China's rural problems, the China Program cut across several divisional lines within the Foundation─the Division of the Social Sciences, the China Medical Board, and the International Education Board. Second, the China Program articulated an ambitious goal in social engineering, which the Foundation had eschewed. This program owed its tenacity to its creator, Selska Gunn, vice-president of the Foundation.[n.1]]
( ... )
글
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기