论学术道德建设的运行机制

学术道德建设的机制是多种机制的整合。学术道德建设主要应形成学术道德教育培养机制、学术道德舆论引导机制和学术活动规范综合运行机制。这些机制的良性运行 ,才能促进学术活动的健康有序发展     

编辑法律规范论略

编辑法律规范由涉及编辑工作的一系列法律、法令、条例、标准等有关条款规定构成 ,具有明显的权威性和强制性特点。作为精神生产活动 ,编辑工作应严格遵守《宪法》及党和国家的各项方针政策 ,坚持正确的政治方向 ,坚持三审稿件制度 ,保守党和国家秘密 ;要充分尊重并保护作者的著作权 ,准确把握对他人作品的合理使用。遵守编辑法律规范 ,关键在于编辑人员树立自觉、牢固的法律意识 ,学习并掌握足够的法律知识。     

学生为本--高校德育新观念

"学生为本"的观念认为,大学德育的目的是为学生服务的,内容是根据学生生存、发展和健康成长的需要而确定的,德育的过程不仅是教师教育学生的过程,更应该是在教师的组织和引导下,在参与各种教育和教学活动中自我教育和相互教育的过程;在德育评价中,学生不仅是评价中的对象,也应是这一评价的主体.     

从多元系统理论角度看五四前后的外国文学翻译

五四前后的翻译文学经历了从中国文学系统的边缘走向中心的一个特殊过程。五四前(1898年~1919年),文学翻译的目的往往是借鉴外国的思想和文明,“思想启蒙”和“消遣娱乐”成为当时文学翻译的选择规范,形成了保守的翻译文学形式库和静态经典性;五四后(1919年~1927年),西方各种思潮涌入中国,“文学改革”和“反映现实”的文学作品成为翻译选择的主流,译作竭力充分表现原文,形成了改革的翻译文学形式库和动态经典性。     

我国婴幼儿托育服务标准规范体系的现状及其优化研究

近年来,我国婴幼儿托育服务标准规范建设进程较快,当前体系框架已初步建立。但由于长期以来标准规范建设比较缓 慢、推进机制不健全等客观因素制约,当前婴幼儿托育服务在通用基础标准规范方面整体滞后,婴幼儿安全照护和权益保障标准 规范方面仍存短板,监管和人员标准规范方面较弱等问题。根据托育标准规范体系现状,结合托育服务发展需求,当前亟需建立 托育服务标准规范体系的协同推进工作机制,加快通用基础标准规范研制,促进服务提供标准规范的健全,补足支持保障标准规 范的短板,进而完善标准规范框架体系,推动各类标准规范的兼容,进而为婴幼儿托育服务高质量发展提供支持和保障。     

于根元先生的语言规划观

于根元先生的语言规划观主要体现在“语言规范观”“语言主体多样观”“语言服务观”三个方面。在语言规划研究方面,于先生提出了许多具有鲜明特色的重要命题,如语言规范的参照项是交际值、检验规范的成效是对语言生活的影响、语言规范制定时应重视语言的可预测性、规范就是服务等,这些命题如今看来,依然具有学习借鉴的理论意义和实践价值。     

Disabled children’s childhood studies: a distinct approach?

This paper suggests that the emergence of disabled children’s childhood studies as an area of study offers a distinct approach to inquiry; it represents a significant shift away from the long-standing deficit discourses of disabled childhoods that have dominated western culture and its reaches. On the one hand, contemporary childhood studies contest normative, Eurocentric mantras around the ‘standard child’; while on the other, disability studies critique the medical discourses and the scope of its authority. However, while drawing on these two approaches, disabled children’s childhood studies provide more than this combined critique. In disabled children’s childhood studies, disabled children are not viewed as necessarily having problems or being problems, but as having childhoods.     

Family violence laws: Traditional narratives and the (in)visibility of lesbian relationships and lesbian-parented families

Abstract

Feminist advocacy and activism over the last 40 years broke historic ground in shining a light on “domestic” or “family” violence, traditionally conceptualized as male violence against female intimate partners and their children. This has resulted in a large body of research, particularly in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and similar jurisdictions, around the gendered nature of family violence and violence within heterosexual relationships and heterosexual-parented families. As a consequence, the predominant narrative—in political, policy, and advocacy settings—is largely heteronormative. Less research has focused on family violence in non-heterosexual relationships. The data that do exist have employed different methodological approaches and there are limitations on the extent to which they can be compared to the data on violence within heterosexual relationships. However, the existing research does demonstrate that family violence within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) communities is a significant issue. Even so, the current narrative does not acknowledge this, and predominantly reflects heterosexual norms of intimate relationships and family structures in society. LGBTI relationships are described as “invisible” in policy and practice responses to family violence, due to the failure to acknowledge violence in such communities. This article explores these claims in relation to lesbian relationships in the context of Australian legislative responses to family violence. It considers the extent to which family violence laws in two Australian jurisdictions recognize and frame lesbian identity in intimate relationships and lesbian-parented families. This is considered in light of the emerging conceptualization of family violence in lesbian relationships and lesbian-parented families, as evidenced by the wider scholarly literature on the nature and dynamics of such violence.     

儒家的社会规范与阴阳五行秩序

所谓规范指称"标准化的秩序"。社会规范指的是为社会成员所提供的是非标准和行为指南,因而也是人们具体行为必须要遵循的行为法则。儒家的社会规范可分为两种:一是以"德礼"为核心的积极的规范,其目的在于通过教化的力量来改变人们行为的根本态度;二是以"法刑"为核心的消极规范,其目的在于通过物理的制裁来暂时控制人们的行为。规范必须拥有其合理性。在儒家看来,社会的规范不是来自于近代社会学理论所讲的社会契约,而是来自于自然本身的秩序。因而"三纲五伦"以及"礼乐"、"刑政"等规范都体现着阴阳五行的自然法则。跟近代的社会学理论相比,儒家的社会规范具有以下的特点:其一,儒家的社会规范不是以平等的个人,而是以有差别的个人为前提;其二,儒家规范的根本目的不在于实现功利性或者效率性,而在于实现道德性;其三,儒家的规范不是为了实现社会契约,而是为了实现阴阳五行的自然秩序。