研究怎么申请基金

其实寻找方向真的是很难的一件事情，最近在看《心理学的未来》，觉得很迷茫，我们究竟是以什么为方向，以什么为最终目标，在苦苦探索呢？

I was trained as a sensory psychologist and after a couple of academic positions lucked onto a career in R&D. I have spent most of the last 15 years working in sensory research and human factors in the medical device industry (SOLA International and Carl Zeiss Vision). I heard about InnoCentive when I was managing a product development area and we were looking to improve the product innovation process. In particular, I was impressed with the ideas Charles Leadbeater was promoting about new models for collaborative innovation in the future.

With this in mind, I believe the model set out by InnoCentive, combined with the ever increasing connectedness of the planet, is a major step in the right direction. It is clear to me that collaborative innovation and other forms of networking with customers are going to be the basis of some great innovations as we move forward.

I’m also excited to see many newer companies starting life with collaborative innovation built into the fabric of their organization. I currently work for Image-Line Software, an innovative Belgian company that makes music/audio production, DJ & web development software. Their business and product development model is how I think the smart, flexible, companies will organize themselves in an increasingly capricious marketplace. That is, they have a globally distributed workforce, many of whom work via the net from home, and tightly integrated customer relationships through social media networking and their own forums. Watching the to-and-fro of ideas between customers and the software developers on their forums and social media sites is to experience collaborative innovation in action every day.

I think the big challenge is for traditional and established companies to take on these values open innovation, as the processes usually fall under layers of confidentiality and trade secret provisions. I have noticed that it is particularly difficult for the IP department, who squirm at the thought of opening up the R&D process and the complexities of IP ownership. That’s where I see Innocentive providing a valuable mediation role between the great mass of customers/thinkers and the internal R&D processes. But I digress, I am just passionate about the opportunities in this area and would love to see more of this type of collaboration.

Interestingly, my work background had little to do with the challenge I solved. It was more about keeping an eye on the challenges and then one day a problem appears that makes your heart race, you have an answer! There are millions of answers out there just waiting for a problem, all companies need to do is pose the challenge.

PS: If you want to know what I am doing in the bio pic, recording the sound of Bees, you can hear and download the recording from another wonderful collaborative site (Freesound) here…

http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=59451

Regards

Scott Fisher

同意一楼

差距是有的，这一点大家都认可。但我们也一直在进步啊，现在的目标就是缩小差距。

我觉得有点言过了。如果按照这样的逻辑，那么全世界除了美国，其他国家的的人就都不要做研究了。这是不靠谱的。比如在原子弹的研究方面，美国先研制出来，我们总不能说美国已经研制成功了，我们已经落后很多了，所以我们就不要研究了。这样怎么行？他们研究的好毕竟是他们的，他们能拿来无偿给我们用吗？一旦涉及到国家利益，他们肯定不会考虑咱们的。所以，即便我们目前落后，我们仍然要研究，而且还得非常努力的去做好研究。

1.有专门的发表理论文章的杂志啊，比如心理科学进展。另外，国内理论性质的研究本来数量也不是很多啊，理论文章/实证文章与搞二者研究的人大约是成比例的。所以从这一点批判，我觉得是没有多少道理的，当然，如果是楼主写的文章，我就不说什么了。
2.以心理学报为视角，可以窥一斑，犹如管中窥豹一样，是不能反映全面的。所以只是分析心理学报10年发表的文章，当然也不能反映中国心理学研究领域的全貌。
3.我不否定这个话题有意义，但是我个人觉得应该朝积极的方向引导。

确实，但并不是每一项都有关国家利益。感觉心理学、nudge就是。

至少就我观察，即便是发到国际上一流期刊的文献也没有特别关注到这些领域

任何一门学科的研究都可能会关系国家利益，心理学也同样如此。比如一些认知心理学、工程心理学和军事心理学的研究，这都可以为军方服务的。只是目前我们的研究还没有达到那样的高度。但我们还是应该前瞻性的看到这些潜在的利益冲突，还是得把自己的研究做好，哪怕目前水平不如他人高。

咱们倒是可以把这些讨论发给学报的主编和编辑，不知道他们看后有何想法。

要想在心理学上有所创新，应当以自己为主，以他人为辅的研究上。如果只是以他人为研究，多会只能抓住标却难抓得住本，也就多偏形态难有规律上的总结了；当然，也就难有科学上的创新了。