中國大陸(Mainland China)做為社會科學學術研究對象，隨學科變遷以及兩岸情勢發展，在各時期有不同主題。承此，本文使用主題分析工具 (CATAR)，對「中國大陸研究」期刊於 1998~2015 年刊載之論文，透過論文的篇名與摘要文字，從事主題群聚(clustering)分析，藉以辨識顯著的研究主題，及其關鍵字，並以此觀察各主題發展趨勢。結果呈現出「中國大陸研究」之 473 篇文章，可歸類為七大主題，每一主題各有關鍵字。從每個主題的發表量(包括「發表..

With the rapid development of cross-strait situation, “Mainland China” as a subject of social science studies reflects different topics in different eras. This study applies an automatic content analysis tool(CATAR)to analyze the journal “Mainland China Studies”(1998-2015)to observe research trends based on clustering of the texts from the title and abstract of each journal article. The results show that the 473 articles published by the journal are clustered into seven salient topics. By publication n..

1970 年代前後，西方曾有許多重大的學術知識「轉向」，旨在批判或修改邏輯實證論的基本結構。政治學界沒有抓好這個重要的轉折，故陷入方法論的困境，而無法調節學門內各領域的關連，形成「分桌吃飯」的局面。這個危機在冷戰驟然結束之時爆發，形成國關內部現實主義和建構主義的大論戰，其後又形成 2001 年美國「政治學的改造運動」。然而，都未能有效地化解政治學內部長年積壓的矛盾。本文認為，索緒爾開啟的現代語言學概念，以及維根斯坦科學哲學後期的逆轉，共同奠定了一道更寬廣的轉..

According to the language concepts defined by Ferdinand De Saussure and the late philosophy created by Ludwig Wittgenstein, this article attempts to point out a possible “turn” that may render the study of politics “an ecumenical science of politics” upheld by Gregory Kasza in the Perestroika movement of the discipline in 2001.  

從 1950、60 年代受到政治學「行為主義革命」的影響，國際關係理論 開始嘗試建立科學的研究，「科學派」遂以「體系論」(system theory)進行 國際關係的理論化，國際關係的理論化也就成為國際體系的理論化。歷經 1960 年代只有少數國際關係學者關注國際體系理論的「相當低度發展的階 段」，1970 年代起逐漸有較多不同的學者都嘗試藉由其他學科(例如社會 學、生物學、控制學)學者的體系理論提出不同的「國際體系」理論化途 徑，1980 年代由新現實主義..

Following the behavioralism revolution of political science in the 1950– 60s, attempts for international relations(IR)theory to become scientific began with the theorization of IR through systems theory that engendered the theorization of international systems. Through an underdeveloped stage involved with only a few scholars in the 1960s, a contending stage with various approaches proposed in the 1970s, a dominated stage of neorealism in the 1980s, and to an opposite stage of constructivism and international historical..

在國際關係的研究領域中，不論是國家中心論或是以體系為主的體系理論，都以國家為研究的客體。伴隨著全球化浪潮，「全球治理」概念的出現，表明以國家為主的國際政治體系已無法解決國際環境的複雜變化，須藉助許多跨國性次級團體來共同治理。有鑑於此，新現實主義、新自由主義、 與建構主義中以國家為給定對象的國際關係主流理論，遇到解釋上的局限， 需要建構一套新的本體論與知識論，俾有效解釋在國際政治中逐漸呈現的多元行為體治理現象。本文認為國際關係理論面臨三個問題的挑戰:一、如何解..

Theories of international relations(IR), whether through state-centric or systemic approach, put states as centers of research objectives. With trending globalization, the advent of the global governance concepts manifests that a state-focused international political system without transnational sub-political groups has failed to respond to complex changes in the international environment. Accordingly, this challenges neo-realism, neo- liberalism, and constructivism, which focus on the state-centric approach and experience ex..

當代中國政治領導人及公共知識分子努力營造中國是一個「負責任的大國」形象。雖然他們審慎地觀察外界如何期待中國，但是他們卻又未必願意滿足外界對於所謂「負責任」的定義。在全球化時代，外界總是關心中國是否能夠參與解決、減緩或預防各種全球治理問題。不過，不論是古典的或當代的中國政治思想，往往強調反躬自省，因此中國政府在體現對自身的世界責任時，幾乎無例外的都以中國能妥善處理與全球治理相關的內部問題為目標，以確保中國自己不成為全球問題為職志。相較於歐美發達國家勇於標舉全球..

Both the political leaders and intellectuals in China want to present the image of her being a responsible country in the world. Their understandings of responsibility are not directed at an external audience, although they closely watch what the latter expects of China. In the global age, the expectation is always about China’s contribution to conflict resolutions, and alleviation and prevention of global problems, whatever it may be. The Chinese political thoughts, classic as well as modern, are so grounded in their c..