Vol.5 No.1 2012
69/82

Report : Synthesiology through knowledge integration to innovation−66−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.5 No.1 (2012) experts of that particular discipline can determine whether a conclusion is a unique solution. However, in the synthetic research, the evaluation should be done by people who use the research results or those who gain benefit from them. I think the reviewing of synthetic research may be a merit review done by non-experts.Issues of the present society including the environmental issues are extremely complex. Although the “science of synthesis” is needed along with the “science of analysis,” the “science of synthesis” has not been sufficiently formulated, and the knowledge of what ought to be done are only accumulated and enclosed within individual researchers or groups. I do not want such knowledge to be lost. It must be accumulated as social assets, and made available to the public. Also, I want the researchers who are capable of the “science of synthesis” to be highlighted more, to have their proper place in society, and to be more active in promoting innovation. One of our innovation issues is “how to form the strong link between basic research and the real world.” It is necessary to establish the methodology of the “science of synthesis” and to solve the issues of the present society through its practice. To do so, it is important to develop a formulation of original research papers to describe the “science of synthesis,” and that is the reason we launched the new journal Synthesiology.The characteristic of Synthesiology is that it offers the shift from a narrow discipline to wide disciplines, from the novelty of knowledge to its usability, and from the peer review to merit review. It also highlights the researchers capable of innovation. Another characteristic of the journal is that the discussions between the authors and reviewers are placed at the end of the papers with disclosure of reviewers’ names. In ordinary academic journals, reviews are done anonymously from the perspective of neutrality and fairness, but we took the stance of developing the paper formulation with the cooperation of the authors and reviewers, as well as the readers, and decided to present the dialog between the authors and reviewers. What we learned from this is that because the names are disclosed, the reviewers cannot give biased opinions and comments, and due to this autonomous feedback and the obligation to be neutral and fair, they give excellent reviews, and the discussions with the authors are now very interesting. Some readers even read the discussions between the authors and reviewers before they read the actual papers.In the past four years, we received various positive comments from many readers. Some authors said, “I was able to write things that could not be written in conventional academic journals.” Some readers said, “It is interesting because I can understand clearly researches of other fields,” and some industry people commented, First of all, in scientific research, one selects a discipline such as physics, biology, or electricity. Next, using the method of analysis, one classifies various phenomena into hierarchies, break them down into knowledge elements, and finally organize them systematically to understand a certain aspect of nature. Ever since the birth of science in the 17th century, science has been developed mainly by reductionism and analytic methods. On the other hand, there is the activity of creating a purposeful artifact that does not originally exist in nature. Using knowledge elements obtained in various disciplines, materials, parts, components, systems, services, and environments are created according to scenarios. Here, the processes of synthesis from and integration of knowledge elements are important. The former may be defined as “science” and latter as “technology.” When an artifact created is recognized as an “entity,” that itself becomes the subject of analysis, and results of these analyses are used for technology again. I believe this is the interaction of “science” and “technology.” This is what is called kogaku (engineering) in Japanese. However currently, there is a trend where engineering itself is also being broken down into disciplines.Let us compare analytical research and synthetic research. In terms of methodology, the analytical research is by analysis and breakdown, while synthetic research is by synthesis and integration. The former normally is done in a single discipline, while the latter is done across multiple disciplines. The major difference between the two researches is whether there is a unique solution. Under the belief that there is a unique solution with factual knowledge, the analytical research never stops until a unique solution is attained, and the research is completed when this point is reached. In the synthetic research, there can be multiple, equivalent solutions. Although there may be varying degrees of excellence among the solutions, the nature of synthetic research is very distinct from that of analytic one in the point that there may be multiple, equivalent solutions. When evaluating the analytical research, the peer reviewing is done by experts, because in a finely specialized discipline, only the Integration and synthesisAnalysisSelection of elementsSelectionof disciplineScenario CMaterial, parts, components 3Systematization of knowledgeKnowledge element 3Reduction to elementHierarchizationScenario-drivenProductSystemServiceEnvironmentMarket introductionHypothesis verificationProposal, planningHypothetic inferenceKnowledge element 2Knowledge element 1Material, parts, components 2Material, parts, components 1Scenario BScenario ANature, entityArtifact (social value) Technology Science Accumulation of factual knowledgeAccumulation of “ought” knowledgeDiscipline CDiscipline BDiscipline AComparison of analytic research and synthetic research“”“”Laws and data of discipline ALaws and data of discipline BLaws and data of discipline C

元のページ 

page 69

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です