Vol.1 No.1 2008

8/76

−5−Preface : A journal of original papers of Type Tow Basic Research (H. Yoshikawa)Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.1 (2008) output of Type 1 research is knowledge, while it is an artifact for Type 2 research. If the realized output is knowledge, its validity can be logically confirmed, but if it is an artifact, its validity can only be demonstrated by actual use in society. This brings forth the following distinctions:(1) In Type 1 research, the researcher exercises originality in selecting subjects from the body of knowledge of a given discipline and in selecting the research method, experimental or analytic, appropriate for the discipline. In Type 2 research, the researcher must establish a knowledge subset without limitation by discipline, choose the method, experimental or analytic, that enables the use of knowledge from the diverse candidates, and integrate them into a meaningful whole.(2) In Type 1 research, the realized output is knowledge, and good results are incorporated into the body of knowledge of each discipline. In Type 2, the realized output is an artifact and good results are put to use by society.Looking at these distinctions, it should be noted that the difference is two-dimensional. First, the way of using knowledge is different, and this leads to different activities. Second, the significance of the realized results is different, and this is the difference of the recipient. The following table summaries this concept.As it can be seen from the table, there should be four categories due to the two-dimensionality of the system, where items (A) and (B) are blank. This is a result of historical development where Type 1 Basic Research aims for the production of knowledge, while Type 2 aims to make a contribution to society. This is also the cause of segregation between society and academia and should be dissolved. In Type 1 Basic Research, currently there are great expectations for contributions to society, but merely providing knowledge is insufficient. Recently, this expectation has been met in the form of advisory contributions by diverse researchers such as climate change warnings in meteorology or bioethical advice in biology, and this is a supplement to (A). On the other hand, Type 2 cannot be called “basic research” if it does not affect the body of knowledge, so the hole specified by (B) is unacceptable.Here, what exactly goes in (B) must be clarified. Traditionally, in research that produces artifacts, the artifacts leave the researchers’ hands to be evaluated by society. As a result, the structure and function of the artifact become public property, but the process of realization is unrecorded and lost. Recall the first distinction. In Type 1 research, the process is formulated and shared by almost all researchers, and although there is originality in the novelty of the selected knowledge, there is no particular originality in the selection method itself. In Type 2 research, however, the selection method is far more varied with no standard, hence originality is required. Originality of the selection method is an important factor of research, because without it there will be no uniqueness of knowledge necessary to realize the original artifact. Nevertheless, there is no way to record the efforts spent in individual research. As a result, Type 2 researchers are not justly evaluated and remain unrewarded. This means the researchers’ efforts fail to become public property in society, and this constitutes a major loss to society when so much intellectual work is conducted in order to produce artifacts in enormous quantities. The elimination of this situation or the recording and systematization of knowledge selection is one way of supplementing (B). There is another issue for (B). When knowledge is selected from multiple disciplines as mentioned above, steps to integrate knowledge are taken. There is no standard integration method, so originality is required in individual research. Integrated knowledge can be called “a temporary discipline”, and only when this is established, can the researcher become capable of rational thought for artifact realization. In general, the forming of this temporary discipline is a creative activity, however, it is often unrecorded and disappears. It may be named and recorded only when the artifact wins social acknowledgement from the market, but this is an exception. Heat engine engineering, automobile engineering, and aircraft engineering are relatively mature disciplines, but most disciplines have a lower level of maturity where knowledge is simply arranged linearly. Furthermore, there is nothing recorded for new artifacts in new fields. The problem is that temporary disciplines of engineering lack universality, and they not only cannot be applied to other disciplines, but their creation process is not indicated. The task necessary now is to record the original creation of the temporary disciplines of individual research while learning from past experiences of such creations, and then to seek a universal method. This is the issue of (B).Only when these issues are resolved can Type 2 Basic Research be called true basic research. This new journal, a collection of original papers of Type 2 Basic Research, attempts to resolve the issue.4 Original paper of Type 2 Basic Research - Characteristic of the journalAlthough it has not been pointed out clearly so far, decision of the knowledge selection method, the selection of ActivityReception Knowledge of a single disciplineKnowledge of an unlimited disciplineEffect on academia (body of knowledge) Type 1 Basic Research(B)Effect on society (real value) (A)Type 2 Basic Research

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です