当前,国内研究法国学界对于中国的研究结论两极化趋势十分明显,要么认为中国的国家形象十分正面;要么认为中国的国家形象十分负面,这非常不利于中国深化与法国的双边关系。为了更好地了解和掌握法国学界在2008年之后对于中国的研究的观...当前,国内研究法国学界对于中国的研究结论两极化趋势十分明显,要么认为中国的国家形象十分正面;要么认为中国的国家形象十分负面,这非常不利于中国深化与法国的双边关系。为了更好地了解和掌握法国学界在2008年之后对于中国的研究的观点和看法,笔者采用文献计量的研究方法,对法国学界有关中国的研究成果进行可视化分析。本文依托数据文献统计研究法,对"科学网"(Web of Science,WOS)所收录的相关文献数据进行梳理,并在此基础上利用可视化软件,绘制相关的科研成果图谱。本研究初步厘清了当今法国学界对中国研究的关键词、研究热点和研究状况,为将来中国学界进一步加强与法国学界的交流及合作提供合理化建议。展开更多
In recent years, Chinese scholars have made important progress in research on later Greek philosophy. Using current European and American work as a reference point, this article explores the differences and gaps betwe...In recent years, Chinese scholars have made important progress in research on later Greek philosophy. Using current European and American work as a reference point, this article explores the differences and gaps between foreign and Chinese scholars in this field of research. The author believes that on the question of the boundaries of later Greek philosophy, Chinese scholars have, through long years of exploration, come up with independent opinions and solutions that differ from those of their European and Ameriean counterparts, and that they have a better grasp of the distinctive features of later Greek philosophy. Their work, however, clearly falls short with regard to historical source material. As far as methodology is concerned, there is a clear tendency towards convergence between Chinese scholars and their foreign colleagues.展开更多
文摘当前,国内研究法国学界对于中国的研究结论两极化趋势十分明显,要么认为中国的国家形象十分正面;要么认为中国的国家形象十分负面,这非常不利于中国深化与法国的双边关系。为了更好地了解和掌握法国学界在2008年之后对于中国的研究的观点和看法,笔者采用文献计量的研究方法,对法国学界有关中国的研究成果进行可视化分析。本文依托数据文献统计研究法,对"科学网"(Web of Science,WOS)所收录的相关文献数据进行梳理,并在此基础上利用可视化软件,绘制相关的科研成果图谱。本研究初步厘清了当今法国学界对中国研究的关键词、研究热点和研究状况,为将来中国学界进一步加强与法国学界的交流及合作提供合理化建议。
基金financed by the Distinguished Professor Project of Zhejiang University
文摘In recent years, Chinese scholars have made important progress in research on later Greek philosophy. Using current European and American work as a reference point, this article explores the differences and gaps between foreign and Chinese scholars in this field of research. The author believes that on the question of the boundaries of later Greek philosophy, Chinese scholars have, through long years of exploration, come up with independent opinions and solutions that differ from those of their European and Ameriean counterparts, and that they have a better grasp of the distinctive features of later Greek philosophy. Their work, however, clearly falls short with regard to historical source material. As far as methodology is concerned, there is a clear tendency towards convergence between Chinese scholars and their foreign colleagues.
