当代乡贤：地方精英抑或民间权威

分别梳理了地方精英与民间权威的概念与脉络,指出地方精英更强调客观支配、民间权威更侧重于本土文化建构的特征。当代乡贤的核心特质,即介于自身的客观支配力与当地人们的主观认定之间,认为乡贤具有由当地特定文化观念体系塑造与建构的特质。从乡村治理的意义上,讨论了乡贤文化与乡贤培育的真正意义,乡贤文化不仅仅是指乡贤本人的嘉言善行,更指的是能够建构或生长出乡贤的本土文化体系。培育乡贤更意味着对乡村社会本土文化观念的尊重、培育与引领,只有这样,才有可能形成乡贤得以生长的文化土壤。     

历史与现实的呼唤——论邓小平对树立法律权威重要性的阐述

树立法律权威是任何国家建立法治社会必备的基本要求。邓小平通过对历史经验的深刻总结以及从社会主义现代化建设的现实需要两个方面深入地阐述了树立法律权威的重要性。这为我们党和国家走依法治国之路、实现由人治向法治的转变奠定了思想基础。     

论高校思想政治理论课权威的建设

高校思想政治理论课是当前我国宣传思想工作的重要载体，思想政治理论课需要获得社会的尊重并树立自身的权威。随着我国社会政治文化的发展，过去建构在权力基础上的高校思想政治理论课强制性权威受到了挑战与质疑，出现了功能弱化趋势，如理论权威的弱化、课程权威的弱化、学科权威的弱化与组织权威的弱化等。新时期，高校思想政治理论课应注重自觉性权威的建设，如道德表率权威、知识蕴涵权威、价值判断权威与表达方式权威等等，同时坚持强制性权威与自觉性权威的辩证统一，才能发挥其价值引领的重要阵地作用。     

试论内部审计机构的强化与业务的发展

本文分析了内部审计存在的重要性和社会根源,阐述了内部审计在公司治理中真正的角色和地位,并对当前内部审计的机构设置及工作开展的相关问题进行了论述,提出了改进内部审计的意见。     

From where do legislators draw scientific knowledge? Organizations as scientific authorities in four countries' parliamentary debates

Organizations far beyond traditional academic institutions have become prolific science producers, with many now providing evidence-based advice for national governments and policy-makers. Neo-institutional sociology explains organizations' growing investment in research activities and research-based policy advice by the all-embracing scientization and the expansion of the educated population, phenomena observable throughout the world. There is, however, considerably less knowledge about how the organizations' increased knowledge production and the supply of science-based policy advice are reflected in national policy-making, including the legislative work of parliaments, and to what extent distinct organizations are deemed authoritative in different countries. In this paper, we examine how different organizations are used as scientific authorities in parliamentary debates over new legislation. Drawing on analyses of 576 parliamentary debates from Australia, Finland, Kenya, and the United Kingdom, we study what organizations are acknowledged as scientific authorities and the relative weight of different organization types in the context of political debates over new legislation. The results reveal that while organizations in general are frequently evoked as scientific authorities in all four countries, there is remarkable variation in the types of organizations considered authoritative in different national contexts. We elaborate these findings by analysing ways in which politicians evaluate organizations as sources of scientific authority. While the same set of evaluative schemas are used in all four countries, each is typically applied to certain types of organization. The results suggest that both the supply of scientific policy advice and political culture shape legislators' rhetorical practices when drawing on organizations' scientific authority.     

Evidence in Norwegian child protection interventions – Analysing cases of familial violence

How is expert evidence used in care order proceedings when children are considered for foster care placement because of familial violence? What are important factors and how do the decision-makers use and evaluate evidence from specialists and experts? In this in-depth analysis of 104 published care order decisions from the Norwegian County Boards, I investigate how decision-makers use and evaluate evidence from expert witnesses to determine whether a care order may be granted. The analysis shows that the evidence largely revolves around social functioning, care context and topics about how parents and children relate to each other. Led by the law, the decision-makers use this evidence to determine whether the child's situation is harmful, whether support services are viable and whether a care order is in the child's best interests. I find that decision-makers draw unevenly on evidence with regards to these legal requirements, and that the use predominantly defers to expert authority. However, there is also evidence of independent reasoning, where deferral to the epistemic authority of the experts is weakened. This is shown through evaluative and critical assessments and scrutiny of the disciplinary evidence.     

权威缺位与策略调整:新生代农民工子代教养问题研究

家庭教育不仅是主体及资源问题,也是权力问题。新生代农民工子代之所以难教,关键在于家庭教育权威的缺位。研究发现,新三代家庭结构很难培育教育权威。其中,子代外出的代际分工结构使合法性权威难以在场,教育出现权力真空;分权式的家庭权力结构使教育权力很难集中,代际配合困难。农民家庭因此出现了易养难教型、教养混乱型和有养无教型三种家庭教育类型。面对问题,农民家庭调整了教养策略。通过父辈授权、祖辈让权形成了“严祖慈母”和“台前幕后”两种新模式。也有家庭通过权力转移放弃了家庭教育,使家庭沦为有养无教的荒地。