交互大数据创新高校思想政治教育工作研究

新时代大学生是信息时代的原住民,习惯于使用网络交流思想、表达情感和学习新知。从高校思想政治教育工作实际需要出发,对校园中海量化和碎片化的网络交互大数据进行收集和整理,从提升思想教育实效性和针对性的角度,构建多维度可视化分析模型,探索交互大数据在高校思想政治教育中的应用路径。     

论跨文化管理产生的必然

经济全球化是人类社会发展的历史必然 ,且导致了跨文化管理的必然性。对此 ,我们应该有清醒的认识 ,从而使我们有一个能够正确处理跨文化管理问题的前提和基础     

改土归流后汉文化在土家族地区的传播及其影响

文章认为,改土归流后,汉族物质文化、制度文化和精神文化以多种方式向土家族地区渗透.土家族文化在强大的汉文化作用下发生变迁.土家族的宗教信仰、风俗习惯、语言文字等都发生了变化,汉族的许多价值现在土家族地区得到确立.通过吸收汉族先进文化,土家族文化得到发展,土家族地区开发进程加快,统一的多民族国家更加稳固.与此同时,汉文化传播也带来一些消极影响,土家族一些优秀的文化因为统治者的破坏而丢失,汉族文化的一些消极因素也进入了土家族地区.     

论中国古代小说戏曲诗歌的互动

纵观北宋后期到清初中国古代小说戏曲诗歌之内在关系 ,三者经历了三个互动阶段 :1 宋元时期戏剧“小说”化 ,改变了自身的内容、性质、体制而真正成熟。 2 明代长篇小说“戏剧”化 ,小说由叙事为主变为写人为主 ,由记事为主变为记言为主 ;又吸纳了戏曲宾白的经验 ,使用方言。 3 明末清初 ,小说戏剧“诗”化 ,《红楼梦》用诗歌创造意境 ,结构小说 ,塑造人物。小说戏剧诗歌互动 ,使三者完美融合 :小说有诗之意境、节奏、韵律和戏剧般人物 ;戏剧有了曲折情节和诗的意境 ,诗歌可以结构小说、塑造人物     

论哈贝马斯的理性观

如何获得生活的价值和意义,对于这个问题,哈贝马斯从对理性的重新阐释入手,提出“交往理性”,以补充“目的理性”的不足,力求拯救在现代化进程中人类局限于单一的目的理性即工具理性而导致的异化现状。本文主要对上述问题作出分析。     

Social interaction distance and stratification

There have been calls from several sources recently for a renewal of class analysis that would encompass social and cultural, as well as economic elements. This paper explores a tradition in stratification that is founded on this idea: relational or social distance approaches to mapping hierarchy and inequality which theorize stratification as a social space. The idea of 'social space' is not treated as a metaphor of hierarchy nor is the nature of the structure determined a priori. Rather, the space is identified by mapping social interactions. Exploring the nature of social space involves mapping the network of social interaction--patterns of friendship, partnership and cultural similarity--which gives rise to relations of social closeness and distance. Differential association has long been seen as the basis of hierarchy, but the usual approach is first to define a structure composed of a set of groups and then to investigate social interaction between them. Social distance approaches reverse this, using patterns of interaction to determine the nature of the structure. Differential association can be seen as a way of defining proximity within a social space, from the distances between social groups, or between social groups and social objects (such as lifestyle items). The paper demonstrates how the very different starting point of social distance approaches also leads to strikingly different theoretical conclusions about the nature of stratification and inequality.     

Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions

It is almost cliché to say that there has been an explosion in the amount of research on leadership in a cross-cultural context. In this review, we describe major advances and emerging patterns in this research domain over the last several years. Our starting point for this update is roughly 1996–1997, since those are the dates of two important reviews of the cross-cultural leadership literature [specifically, House, Wright, and Aditya (House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In: P. C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 535–625). San Francisco, CA) and Dorfman (Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In: B. J. Punnett, & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research, pp. 267–349, Oxford, UK: Blackwell)]. We describe the beginnings of the decline in the quest for universal leadership principles that apply equivalently across all cultures, and we focus on the increasing application of the dimensions of culture identified by Hofstede [Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Abridged ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage] and others to describe variation in leadership styles, practices, and preferences. We also note the emergence of the field of cross-cultural leadership as a legitimate and independent field of endeavor, as reflected in the emergence of publication outlets for this research, and the establishment of long-term multinational multi-investigator research programs on the topic. We conclude with a discussion of progress made since the two pieces that were our departure point, and of progress yet to be made.     

Cross-cultural influences on organizational learning in MNCS: The case of Japanese companies in China

This paper draws on the social construction perspective and on social learning theory to examine the cross-cultural influences on organizational learning in MNCs. Social learning theory suggests that constructive engagement and member solidarity are key constituents of organization-based collective learning. Literature suggests, however, that cross-cultural differences in assumptions about social participation by organization members may impair organizational learning. The paper also reports a qualitative study, conducted at five Japanese-invested manufacturing companies in the Pearl River Delta, China. The research found that managers perceived Chinese frontline workers as lacking constructive engagement and member solidarity as compared with their Japanese counterparts, thus limiting organizational learning, and attributed these perceived differences to deep-seated cultural values. Attempts in two of the companies to ‘Japanize’ the workforces were reported to have had some impact, but appeared not to have substantially changed this picture. Urging caution regarding cross-cultural stereotyping and home country bias, we consider the implications for organizations with international manufacturing operations.     

Conceptualizing Resistance

Recently, there has been a rapid proliferation of scholarship on resistance but little consensus on its definition. In this paper, we review and synthesize the diverse literatures that invoke the concept of resistance. This review illuminates both core elements common to most uses of the concept and two central dimensions on which these uses vary: the questions of whether resistance must be recognized by others and whether it must be intentional. We use these two dimensions to develop a typology of resistance, thereby clarifying both the meaning and sociological utility of this concept.