MIT OpenCourseWare


» 進階搜尋
 課程首頁
 教學大綱
 教學時程
 相關閱讀資料
 作業
 下載課程

作業


本頁翻譯進度

燈號說明

審定:無
翻譯:馬景文(簡介並寄信)
譯者註:輔助教室
譯者所設置自學書院網站設有本課程的輔助教室,內容包括部份閱讀文章的翻譯本,中文文獻連結,和自學者論壇。

編輯:侯嘉玨(簡介並寄信)

作業
Class Assignment Questions
課程單元 作業
1 導讀和課程概覽
Introduction and Overview of the Course
第一部份:預讀
Part 1: Preliminaries
2 民意的意義和衡量
The Meaning and Measurement of Public Opinion
民意是什麼?
What is public opinion?

民意應如何定義?如何衡量?兩者是否可以分離?
How should it be defined? How should it be measured? Are these separable questions?

公眾的意義是什麼?是群眾還是專注的大眾?這是重要課題, 因為這引進民主的意義。
What do we mean by Public? Do we mean the mass or the attentive public? Important question, because it gets at the meaning of democracy.

為什麼社會學的傳統日漸式微?我們是否失去了一些民意的重要基本定義?
Why did the sociological tradition fade? Have we lost something essential about the meaning of public opinion?

理解強化有什麼效果(Herbst)?
What is the effect of increasing rationalization (Herbst)?

你是否認同Key把民意分為潛隱性和活躍性?
Do you like Key's distinction between latent and active opinion?

你認為Converse是否有合理地陳述Blummer對總合的批評?
Do you think that Converse fairly characterizes Blummer's criticism of the aggregation method?

政治人物應否留意民意?應否留意民意調查?
Should politician care about public opinion? Should they care about opinion polls?
第二部份:能力的問題
Part 2: Questions of Competence
3 政治無知:成因和後果
Political Ignorance: Causes and Effects
Lupia提出的聽從提示策略是否有其局限?信任和專業知識扮演什麼角色?我們需要訊息來找出有關的提示。Lupia的關鍵論點是訊息脈絡(上文下理)的運作。你需要指出保險公司的定位。這是一般,還是特殊個案-那種情況比較實際?還有,這是「非隨機」抽樣。這會對他的推論帶來難題嗎?
Are there limits to the cue-taking strategies discussed by Lupia? What is the role of trust and expertise - we need information to identify relevant cues. The key to Lupia's argument is the mechanism of contextual information. You need to identify the insurance company's positions. Is it realistic to expect that this will happen in most circumstances, or was this a special case? Also, this was a non-random sample. Does that create problems for his inferences?

你如何看待憑記憶辯論相對於線上辨論?
What do you make of the On-line vs. Memory-Based debate?

有關Zaller的一些問題。Zaller認為精英份子的陳述帶有「指示」和「游說」的訊息,但他沒有為兩者劃出界限。Zaller還說了很多有關和人們的內在傾向是一致或矛盾的訊息。但這些傾向是從何而來?
Some questions/problems with Zaller. Zaller says that both "cuing" and "persuasive" messages are carried in elite discourse. But he doesn't really draw a clear distinction between them - what is what. Also Zaller talks a lot about messages that are congruent or discordant with people's underlying predispositions. But where do these predispositions come from?

政治訊息在社會上不平等分佈會帶來什麼問題?是否有解決辦法?
What are the problems created by the unequal dispersion of political information throughout society? Are there solutions?

有些作者認為要人們參加「測驗」來量度他們的訊息水平是不對的。你是否同意?如果同意,那一個是比較合情理的辦法?
Some authors argue that it is a mistake to give people "tests" to measure their information levels. Do you agree? If so, what is a more sensible method?

回想上星期討論「民眾」的定義。這星期的書目有否改變你對「民眾」的定義?
Think back to last week and the definition of the public. Do this week's readings affect how you think we should define the public?

如果我們的國民是訊息貧乏,民主的起步點在那裡?
If we have a poorly informed citizenry, what is the starting point for democracy?
4 追求至關重要的原則:意識形態和政治理解
The Search for Overarching Principles: Ideology and Political Reasoning
什麼是「意識形態」?什麼是「信念系統」?我們是在尋找什麼?Converse沒有假定有左/右思維(為此他被猛烈批評)。他是在隨意尋找任何思維結構。
What is "ideology"? What is a "belief system"? What are we looking for? Converse doesn't presume a L/R dimension (he gets a bad rap for that). He's looking for any structure.

Lane的「摩氏密碼論」和Converse的「零碎論」有什麼不同?
How different is Lane's "Morselizing" from Converse's "fragmentation."

「模棱兩可」是否不妥?Lane認為意識形態不一定是好事。我們是否要求人們有定型的態度?許多議題的精英份子陳述是難以捉摸-源自美國政治傳統的多面體。是否於人們的態度中反映出來?
Is ambivalence a bad thing? Gets at Lane's contention that ideology is not necessarily a good thing. Do we want people with fixed attitudes? Elite discourse on many issues is slippery and difficult to pin down - draws on different faces of the American political tradition. Is this reflected in people's attitudes?

政治的多元論。Converse如何吻合這論調?他對議題公眾的論點是否正確(回想一下Delli Carpini和Keeter)?
Pluralist view of politics. How does Converse fit into this? Is he right about issue publics (think back to Delli Carpini and Keeter).

如果Achen是正確的,這對Converse是否為致命傷?那麼其他形態的證據又如何:開放答案,跨議題局限,群眾/精英的分別…Converse的爭論著重多個論點。請留意:
If Achen is right, is this fatal for Converse? What about other forms of evidence - open-ended, cross-issue constraint, mass/elite differences… Converse's argument rests on many legs. Finds that:

在回應開放答案的問題時,人們不以意識形態詞語來回答。
People don't use ideological terms in open-ended proves.

測試人們對意識形態詞語的認識-不合格:認識率是50%,這已是相當寬鬆的評分。
People fail recognition tests of ideological terms - 50% recognize, and that's generous.

局限是薄弱的-內部議題的聯繫關係相對為低;精英群較高。
Constraint is weak - inter-issue correlation is relatively low; and higher among elites.

Achen要針對的是時間不穩定性-議題的答案似乎是隨機的,因此不可能是來自零碎(但是協調)的信念制度。
Over time instability; this is the piece that Achen deals with - issue answers seem to be random; therefore can't be driven by fragmented (but coherent) belief systems.

深入檢視Achen。他的論點是什麼?先完成數學部份。關鍵測試是他試圖為答案的差異設計一套模式。他聲稱如果Converse是對的,這並不符合我們期望的政治模式。每一答案都是有差異,因此顯然是問卷出錯。但我們要留意:方法(Converse對答案弄虛作假的批評),喪失數據的問題(1225頁;去除沒有意見的1/3抽樣樣本;似乎他有為本身利益而弄虛作假。)
Let's look at Achen closely. What's his argument? Work through the math. Key test is at end when he tries to model response variance. Says that doesn't follow patterns of political sophistication as we would expect if Converse is right. Everyone is variant, therefore, problem is with the question. But concerns: measures (Converse's criticism of stacking the deck against findings), missing data problem (pp. 1225; knocks out 1/3 of the sample who don't express an opinion; seems like he's stacking the deck in his favor).

你對Lane的技巧了解為何?民眾似乎是理性和統一的。這有多少是真實,有多少是對Lane的方法的回應?
What do you make of Lane's technique? The citizens seem sensible and somewhat coherent. How much of that is real, how much is reaction to method.

我們是否要求人們要有「意識形態」?Lane認為意識形態是壞事,等同思想僵化;他較為偏重人們的思維要有彈性。
Do we want people to be "ideological" Lane sees it as a bad thing - rigidity of thought. He would rather see people as flexible thinkers.
第三部份:從頭說起:民意內涵和公眾愛好的個體基礎
Part 3: Building From the Ground Up: Opinion Ingredients and The Micro-Foundations of Public Preferences
5 物質利益(或象徵政治?)
Material Interests (Or Symbolic Politics?)
我們應如何定義私利(一己之利)?(Sears-狹窄的,短期的;Downs-廣闊的,長期的;還有,什麼是「利」?什麼是「己」?是你自己、家庭、團體?)我們應如何衡量私利?這是否有關聯?這是重要問題,因為對私利的研究指出這(一般並不重要)。這究竟是因為它事實上無關緊要,或是我們的概念構思和衡量方法是拙劣不堪?(核心問題:什麼是「利」?什麼是「己」?主觀相對於客觀。)
How should we define self-interest? (Sears - Narrow, short-term; Downs - Broad, long-term: also, what counts as an interest? What is self? You alone, family, group?) How should we measure self-interest? Are these linked? An important question because the studies of self-interest find that it (generally doesn't matter). Is that because it really doesn't matter, or because we have poorly conceptualized and measured the concept? (Central questions: what is self? What is an interest? Subjective vs. objective).

私利在什麼時候具其重要性?
When does self-interest matter?
- 私利在什麼時候具其重要性?
- Sears and Citrin study of prop 13 - matters when costs are clear and made salient by a campaign.
- 當檢視行為/行動,而不是意見。(Green和Cowden)
- Matters when look at behavior/action rather than opinion (Green and Cowden).

為什麼私利具重要性?
Why doesn't self interest matter?

你對其他替代方案有什麼看法-象徵政治?這會有什麼問題?象徵政治是否長期利益的積累?(這是Sears等人採用專家小組數據的問題。)
What do you think of the alternative - symbolic politics? What are the problems with that? Is symbolic politics just a culmination of long-term interests? (Problems with Panel data used by Sears et al).

精英份子之陳述在此有什麼作用?可能我們要靠精英份子指引我們什麼是我們的利益-第13號案例。
What role does elite discourse play here. Maybe we need elites to point us to our interests - Prop 13 case.

確保不要混淆私利和理性的根本原則。前者的根本原則是指效用函數的內容;後者是效用最大化的過程。這些概念是可以分離的。
Make sure not to confuse self-interest axiom and rational axiom. In the first, we're talking about what goes into a utility function; in the second, we're talking about the process of utility maximization. These concepts are separable.

這星期書目案例中說明私利形成參與模式,這究竟有多少是不尋常?種族共用公車,和社會保障可能有所不同-從中我們可以得出什麼一般性的教訓?
How unusual are the cases we saw in this week's readings where self-interest plays a role in shaping participation patterns? Busing and Social Security might be different - what general lessons can we draw?
6 美國政治的團體:兩陣對立
Groups in American Politics: Us and Them
「種族鴻溝」是什麼意思?架設一個空洞的種族模型是否足以反映這些分歧?
What does the "racial divide" mean? Is a dummy on race enough to capture differences?

群體認同是否吻合以前的作業?《美國選民》的作者似乎對群體認同有相當暗淡的看法(1964 的Converse也是如此)。群體認同是否為政治理解的充份基礎?
How does group identification fit with previous work? The authors of the American Voter seem to take a somewhat dim view of group identification (as does Converse '64). Is group identification an adequate basis for political reasoning?

對你來說,這一組有關群體的文獻有趣之處為何?之後又如何?太集中種族?我們是否繼續以原子論的方法來研究種族?
What is interesting about the literature on groups to you? What should the next steps be? Too focused on race? Do we want to continue with an atomistic approach to studying groups?

群體會員的意思是什麼?我們應如何衡量?圈內與圈外。
What does group membership mean? How should we measure it? Ingroup vs. outgroup.
7 原則和價值
Principles and Values
是否有一套「國家信念」?如果有,為什麼民意有分歧?如果大家的價值相同,為什麼最後目的有所不同?
Is there a "national creed?" If so, how can we have variance in opinion? If everyone holds the same values, how can we arrive at different ends?

讓我們討論方法。我們有多套檢視價值的方法:數量分析(Feldman)、準則數量分析(Feldman與Zaller)和開放式問題(Chong)。這些不同方法有什麼優點和缺點?請你思考Feldman的論點,和告知Luker十 Feldman與Zaller的論點所在。在討論民意時他們有什麼單項和整體的創見?
Let's talk about methods. Here we have a number of different methodological cuts into the question of values: Quant Analysis (Feldman), Quant Analysis of Codes (Feldman and Zaller), Open-ended questions (Chong). What are the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches? Think about Feldman - I ask you - vs. Luker and Feldman and Zaller - you tell me. What can they singularly and together tell us about public opinion?

再多談方法:定義「價值」會有什麼難題?什麼是平等?(有728種分類。)從概念化轉到行動化,難度更大。很難去定義「價值」,要衡量更難。底線:「價值」這概念,一開始就是難題。
More about methods: problems with defining what values are. What's equality? (728 types). This becomes even more difficult as we move from conceptualizing to operationalizing. It's hard to define values, but it's harder to measure them. Bottom line: from the get go, there are a lot of problems with the concept of values.

意識形態和價值之間的界限為何?為什麼兩者之一可以行得通,另一者卻不可以?有什麼不同之處?這些結果有多少是受「方法」推動?(可能是當不同價值有衝突時,意識形態就派上用場-說明如何協調有矛盾的爭議。)
What is the line between ideology and values? Why does one seem to work and the other not? What is the distinction? How much of the results are methods-driven? (May be ideology comes in when values clash - tells you how to reconcile competing arguments).

談一下Feldman的方法。你認為他的衡量策略如何?但是他找出大量的共同因素,這又會如何?
Talk about Feldman's methods. What do you make of his measurement strategy? But, he finds big coefficients. What about that?

有關價值的隨意方向。你會採納你欣賞的人(例如雷根總統)的價值或是會走另一個方向?
Question of causal direction on values. Do you adopt the values of the people you like (such as Reagan) or does the arrow go the other way?

在1988 (Feldman)至1992 (Feldman and Zaller)年間,「平等」有什麼改變?1988年,平等是大事,但到了1992年,人們不怎樣談到平等,反而更多談到個人主義(這在1988年是寂寂無聞的)。
What happened to equality between 1988 (Feldman) and 1992 (Feldman and Zaller)? In 1988, equality is the big thing. But in 1992, people don't say much about equality. Instead, they talk about individualism (which had no pop in 1988).

價值和政治如何連繫起來?作者未多加著墨。這帶出框架和精英陳述,兩者都是下一部份的課程。
How are links made between values and policies? The authors don't spend much time on this. Gets to issues of framing and elite discourse that we'll take up in the next section of the course.

價值排列如何?價值衝突-Alverez和Brehm文章略有談到價值衝突,但大多數有關價值的研究工夫都是零碎的-每次只考慮一項(或兩項)價值;沒有考慮彼此之間的關係。
What happened to value ordering? Value conflict - see some of this in the Alverez and Brehm piece when they talk about value conflict. But most work on values has proceeded in a somewhat piecemeal fashion - look at one value (or maybe two) at a time; don't look at values in relation to each other.
第四部份:外面的世界:社會和政治
Part 4: The World Out There: Society and Politics
8 社會影響
Social Influence
不同的作者如何構思準則-準則是什麼?我們應如何定義準則?它們是否為有用的架構?
How do the different authors conceive of norms - what is a norm? How should we define norms? Are they useful constructs?

你如何看Mutz對各種機制的測試?她選擇議題層面和政治內容來調節與政治接觸的程度(我也是如此),但她沒有探討內部個別項目之間的變化。
What do you think of Mutz's tests of the different mechanisms? She chooses issue areas and political contexts to vary the level of engagement with politics (same thing that I do), but she doesn't look at inter-individual variation as much.

某人在調查中依上下文不同而表達不同的態度,這是什麼意思?是否有特定的文脈內容讓我們評估「真實態度」?還是不同的表達就是不同?回顧上星期Sanders的文獻。
What does it mean for someone to express different attitudes in surveys depending on the context? Is there a particular context that allows us to assess "true attitudes"? Or are different expressions just different? Gets back to the Sanders reading we did that first week.

你對Mendelberg和Oliver的發現有什麼看法?你是否被說服?這是不是研究文脈的最好方法?和Huckfeld和Sprague的策略比較又如何?
What do you make of the Mendelberg and Oliver findings? Are you convinced? Is this the best way to do contextual studies? Compare their strategies to those of Huckfeld and Sprague?

這星期的課題學習是否有顧及到Blumer對文脈的關注?是否還有遺漏?
Does the work this week address the Blumer concerns about context? Or is there still something missing?

我們應如何衡量文脈的效果?哪些是適當的方法?衡量Mendelberg和Oliver的文脈總合指數,衡量Huckfeld和Sprague討論伙伴的意見,或Berinsky的推論法。不同的方法有什麼優點和缺點?
How should we measure the effects of context? What are the appropriate methods? Measuring aggregate indicators of context (Mendelberg and Oliver), measuring the opinions of discussion partners (Huckfeld and Sprague), or inferential methods (Berinsky)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches?

Mutz如何符合政治訊息的鐘形曲線?中央部份沒有什麼不妥當(只是對照準則)。但中央部份有多大-如Lupia;中央部份沒有問題,但是不是差不多每個人都是中央部份?規範性的含意?
How does Mutz fit with the bell-curve of political information. Nothing sinister happens in the middle (there it's just a check). But how big is that middle - like Lupia; the middle is okay, but is almost everyone in the middle? Normative implications?

Huckfeld和Sprague是否有回答你有興趣的問題?他們還可以多做些什麼?
Do Huckfeld and Sprague answer the questions you think are interesting? What else could they have done?

總合相對於個體層次分析。潛在的問題(談論一下Goodman的問題/EI)。
Aggregate vs. individual-level analysis. Potential problems (talk about Goodman's problem/EI).

個人或非個人影響-何者較為重要?
What matters most: personal influence or impersonal influence?
9 框架,預設信息和媒體效應
Framing, Priming and Media Effects
我們應如何學習媒體效果?跨界域二層分析(I+K),實驗(Iyengar和Kinder,Miller和Krosnick Nelson,Berinsky+Kinder),還是晤談採訪(Gillens)?不同的方法有什麼優點和缺點?再者,這是我們第一次接觸實驗性研究-你如何利用它作為研究工具?
How should we study media effects? Cross-sectional secondary analysis (I+K), experiments (Iyengar and Kinder, Miller and Krosnick Nelson, Berinsky+Kinder), interviews (Gillens)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches? Also, this is our first brush with experimental research - what do you make of it as a research tool?

我國應否關注框架效應的存在?對民意的意義和民主的價值有什麼說法-在許多方面我們是回到Converse的觀點,但加上了類似Achen的變奏。改變政治備用方案的陳述方式可能改變民意。
Should we be concerned about the existence of framing effects? What does it say about the meaning of public opinion and question of democratic worthiness - in many ways we're back to Converse, but with an Achen-like twist. Changing the presentation of political alternatives can move opinion.

你對Miller和Krosnick,以及Nelson等人對可行性的研究發現有什麼看法?你認為研究有說服力嗎?這跟Zaller的民意中心論有什麼說法?如果些作者是對的。似乎有更多的代理人影響人們的意見,和我們以前認識的不同。
What do you make of the Miller and Krosnick and the Nelson et al. findings on accessibility. Do you find the research convincing? What does this say about our Zaller-centric view of public opinion? If these authors are right, it seems that people have more agency over their opinions than we give them credit for.

「了解」有什麼角色?大多數作者是針對意見成形的流程-你對某議題先持什麼態度?Berinsky和Kinder嘗試處理政治了解的流程。你有什麼意見?
What about the role of "understanding." Most authors deal with the end-state of the opinion formation process - where do you stand on a given issue? Berinsky and Kinder are trying to deal also with the process of political understanding. What do you think of that?
10 總合與開明偏愛的奇蹟(有誰是對的?)
The Miracle of Aggregation and Enlightened Preferences (Is Anyone Right?)
應用定理的難題。Page和Shapiro爭議「把許多個人的調查回應加起來或平均計算…會把量化眾人意見的隨機錯誤的扭曲效果抹掉。」但事實是否如此?Bartels就這樣說:「如錯誤的源頭同樣影響到整體選民(或整體選民的相當大比數),無論整體選民人數是多少,誤差最後不會被抵銷。」
Problems in applying Condorcet's theorem. Page and Shapiro argue that "the simple process of adding together or averaging many individuals' survey responses . . . tends to cancel out the distorting effects of random errors in the measurement of individuals' opinions." But is this the case. As Larry notes. As Bartels notes, "if sources of error affect the entire electorate (or a significant fraction of the entire electorate) in similar ways, the resulting errors will simply not cancel out, no matter how large the electorate may be."

實踐Condorcet定理的其他難題。Condorcet假設眾多個體是追求一個共同目標。以陪審團為例,目標是尋求案件的真相。但是在一個多種族的社會,可能沒有一個可相比較的目標。雖然眾人能夠百份百掌握某政策影響的信息,他們的需求欲望有基本性的分別,而帶來南轅北轍的答案。還有獨立特行的考慮-Bryan就有談到。Condorcet的結論是要求眾人各自獨立選擇自己的答案。現實世界中,人們是分享共有訊息,彼此溝通。因此,假設每人獨立行事是不切實際的。實際上,這毛病可能不是致命的。Ladha(1992)以有關連的投票進一步伸展Condorcet的結論。
Other problems in applying Condorcet's result. Condorcet assumes that individuals seek a common goal. In the case of juries, this goal is the search for the truth about a case. However in a heterogeneous society, there may not be a comparable goal. Even if individuals had perfect information about the impact of particular policies, for example, fundamental disagreements regarding their wants, needs, and desires might lead them to opposing answers. Also question of independence - Bryan gets at this. Condorcet's result requires that individuals make their choices independently. I the real world, however, individuals share common information and may communicate with each other. Thus, the assumption of independent action may be unrealistic. This flaw may not, in practice, prove fatal. Ladha (1992) has extended Condorcet's result to the case with correlated votes.

Converse強調總合的魔力是倚靠訊息靈通的人士,所以認為是那些持「真正意見」(反對無意見者)的一群,推動Page和Shapiro對這問題的分析-事實上,Page和Shapiro的結論和Converse是同一碼子的事。這是否令人信服?依此你對Page和Shapiro有何看法?總體穩定是來自一系列的中間趨勢。量化的誤差是否被抵銷,或是穩定是掌握最多訊息的人所推動的結果?
Converse argues that aggregation works its magic by riding on the backs of the well-informed. So he would say that it's the people with "real opinions" (as opposed to non-attitudes) who drive Page and Shapiro's analysis of the question - in effect, Page and Shapiro find the same thing as Converse. Is this a reassuring result? What do we make of Page and Shapiro in light of this? Aggregate stability comes from a stable central tendency. Is this measurement error canceling out, or is it the stability of the most informed driving result?

應考慮那一層次的民意?個體層面?總體?兩者之間?我們檢視兩者不同的背景特點-時間與跨界域。想一想Converse。理性有不同的方向。如果人們朝極端相反方向走,情況會如何?這些變動在總體綜合中被抹掉,因而我們失去了重要的趨勢走向。次總體的走向會被誤以為是噪音而抹掉。或許我們應檢視團體的總合。
What is the proper level to examine public opinion. Individual level? Aggregate? Something in-between? Would look at different background characteristics in both cases - over-time versus cross-sectional. Think about Converse. Rationality comes in net shifts. What happens if groups of people move in radically different directions? The change will get washed out in the aggregate. So we're missing important trends there. Sub-aggregate trends can get washed out as noise, even though they are not. Maybe we should be looking at aggregates of groups.

什麼是檢視總體的正確方法?我們應否虛構由個體一跳就跳到總體?似乎由個體出發,進一步到總體比較好。需要一個解釋聯繫的說法。這就是這個項目的難處-不是從個體理論出發-從下而上是比較好。
What is the right way to look at the aggregate? Should we just make the leap up? Seems like it's better to start with the individual, then aggregate up. Need a better connecting story. That's the problem with a lot of this work - doesn't start with a theory of the individual - better to build up.

民主的討論。Page和Shapiro談到社會上的討論和分工的角色。他們提出什麼証據?(沒有)。這是否是個好主意?
Democratic deliberation. Page and Shapiro talk about the role played by discussion and division of labor in society. What evidence do they present (none)? Is this a good idea?

你對Bartels和Athaus提議的策略有什麼意見?他們的難題(訊息的非隨機分派、量化的潛在困難)是否因Mondak所引致?Gilens的策略又如何?這是否解決了問題?你對追求「開明的偏愛」的企業有什麼看法?這是我們應該做的嗎?
What do you make of the strategy proposed by Bartels and Athaus? Are their problems (non-random assignment of information; potential problems in measurement brought on by the Mondak work,…). What about the Gilens' strategy? Does that solve the problem. What do you think about the enterprise of looking for "enlightened preferences"? Is this something that we should be doing?
11 民意和公共政策
Public Opinion and Public Policy

12 民意和公共政策
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
第五部份:反省
Part 5: Reflections
13 最後想一想:民意在民主政治的地位
Final Thoughts: The Place of Public Opinion in Democratic Politics
這一個學期,我們所讀的哪一份研究是最好的?
What is the best of the research we read this semester?

下一門學問應是什麼?
Where should we go next as a field?

是否有其他未探索或探索不足的方面?是否有過時的觀念、不要多花功夫之處?
Are the unexplored/under-explored avenues? Are there dead horses we should stop beating?

 
MIT Home
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Terms of Use Privacy