Abstract:Scientific misconduct has been regarded as a problem existing both locally and globally. Over the past years, academic scandals have become such a serious problem that it is greatly jeopardizing the research integrity of scientific communities. In a situation like this, the establishment of academic regulations has become something that no serious researcher can ignore. From a philosophical perspective, it is argued that there are three fundamental questions that should be answered before any academic regulation can be introduced. These questions are: Why do we conduct academic research? What is it? How can we do it more scientifically? If we look at the issues related to academic regulations in a Chinese context, it seems that seeking a feasible answer to the question of “What” is more relevant and urgent, compared to the remaining two questions. Following this reasoning, our discussion mainly focuses on the issue of how to define academic practice. The present study covers six parts. The first part is a general introduction to the focus of the study. A case study of scientific misconduct is given in the second part. Calls for academic regulations and factors behind the misconduct are uncovered and discussed in the following two parts. The fifth part is the core part of this research in which the paradigm theory is adopted and a perspective of process-oriented development is introduced to look at the nature of academic training. Eighteen processes identified and analyzed in this part are: globalization, informationalization, netting, digitalization, philosophization, theorization, conceptualization, pioneering, problematization, perspectivization, focusing, structuralization, textualization, modularization, conventionalization, socialization, gaming, and normalization. We suggest in the concluding part that an ecological model of training be adopted so that a good balance can be maintained between technological delicacy and innovative research to reduce new misconduct in the scientific enterprise.

Paradigm and Institutional Facts——And the Issues of Kuhn and Searle's Coincidence at the Point of the Criterion of Objectivity

On Putnam's Criticism of the Fact and Value Dichotomy

Kuhn, Relativism and SSK

A View on the Paradigm of the Dichotomy of Subject and Object in Psychology

From "historicism" to "Constructivism"

Traditional Paradigm and New Complicated One of Organization Science

Searle:A Critical Examination

Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared

SSK:The Paradox Between Descriptionism and Normativism——And the Bifurcation of SSK and Post-SSK Concerning This Paradox

Paradigm Reconstruction and Criticism Practice

Are There Contingent A Priori Propositions and Necessary A Posteriori Propositions(Part I)——A Critique of Kripke's Theory of Knowledge

Major Inquiry Paradigms of Language Testing Research and Future Trends

A Study of Paradigmatic Features in Scholastic Practice

How and Why Do Policy Paradigms Change; and Does It Matter? The Case of UK Energy Policy

The Historical Roots of Objectivity——On Ian Hacking' s Reasoning Styles

Kuhn in Philosophy of Scientific Practices

Kuhn Revisited

Approaches and Paradigms in International Relations Studies

The Offset Paradigm and the Probability of Formation of an Academic Community

The Western Characteristics of the Paradigms of International Studies in America:With the Huaxia System as a Counterexample

The Philosophical Dimension of SSK——From the Perspective of Underdetermination