學術名詞學科分類架構建置之研究

A Study on the Construction of Classification Structure for Academic Terms

陳郁文(Yu-Wen Chen)

指導教授 ： 陳雪華

國立臺灣大學/文學院/圖書資訊學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.01301

摘要

學術名詞翻譯的標準化是學術知識交流溝通之基礎，而學術名詞的編譯、統一、推廣及發展素為國家教育研究院編譯發展中心之重要職掌，但長久以來，因缺乏系統化的知識組織工具將整個學術體系依知識內涵進行分類，使得學術名詞的分類工作缺乏客觀之參照依據，而有名詞重複編譯或某些學科遭到忽略的情形發生。因此本研究主要目的在於依編譯發展中心需求建構出一初步的學科分類架構，以提升學術名詞翻譯與後續審譯工作之效能，並改善「學術名詞資訊網」學術名詞資料之呈現。

於研究方法上，考量分類架構之周全完整性，本研究結合由下而上（bottom-up）和由上而下（top-down）之方式進行二階段之架構建置。第一階段大類架構之建置，先以既定的分類體系為基礎，比較分析國內外現有的學科分類系統，挑選適合本研究目的者為發展基礎，同時蒐集相關教育統計數據、知識分類架構，進行比較分析；而後透過與需求對象之討論進行架構調整，產出第一階層架構共29大類。爾後，以發展出之大類架構為基礎，考量現有名詞委員會分組類別，輔以理論與實務面向主題資料，進行各領域細部主題歸納分析之動作，產出第二至三階層領域主題範圍；依此產出之細部分類，透過專家問卷調查方式確立建構領域之完整與周全性。最後考量目前學科發展狀況及實際需求，進行整體架構調整，建置出符合研究目的與需求的「學術名詞學科分類架構」，最終產出之學科分類架構共分有30大類。

為驗證產出架構之適用性，將編譯發展中心現有產出的學術名詞詞條類別一一歸入架構中，發現本研究產出之學科分類架構可涵蓋現有產出名詞之範圍，表示此架構於學術名詞審譯業務上是有助益的，亦顯示其可做為改善「學術名詞資訊網」名詞資訊呈現與檢索之工具，提供廣大學術社群有效利用。

由上研究結果發現：（一）「分類架構」應是目前較適用於呈現學術名詞資訊之知識組織架構類型；（二）分類架構之建置需確定其詳細建構目的與用途、範圍等，以確切釐清進行之方向、廣度與分類取向；（三）學科分類架構之建置需廣納多方意見與客觀資料輔助，如，現有發展出架構、實際學術指標、專家意見等，並配合需求對象所提需求，確立架構之用途，方可建構符合目的之完善架構；（四）架構之建置過程凸顯出bottom-up與top-down兩種方法同時進行、互相搭配之重要性，使產出架構具理論基礎與專家效度。

提出對本研究現有內容之建議，包括：（一）主題領域架構階層需再精緻化；（二）細類主題歸納分析建議加上各領域定義以輔助問卷填答；（三）尋找具代表性之領域專家進行架構詢問，以提升主題架構結果代表性；（四）於架構內容確認方面，建議採納「專家訪談法」或「焦點團體法」，以補足問卷調查方式結果之不足，並強化架構內容之精確性與代表性。

提出對後續研究之建議：（一）進一步細分下層分類，並探討分析學科關聯性；（二）採納與建立多元指標；（三）廣納各領域專家意見；（四）規劃學科分類設置原則；（五）預留學科未來發展空間；（六）跨領域學科分類之設置；（七）學科分類架構後續之評估與維護。

依據如上步驟發展出的學科分類架構除可作為學術名詞翻譯歸類及現有發展出之名詞工具書與辭典的分類依據，另可作為排定名詞審譯工作領域優先順序之參考，並可據以成立相應之名詞審譯委員會，同時調整現有名詞審譯委員會之細部結構；亦可據此尋找合適的審譯委員，最終助於未來兩岸學術名詞之翻譯對照工作，提供溝通之基礎與促進學術交流。

關鍵字

學術名詞 ； 學科分類 ； 分類架構 ； 需求分析 ； 分類架構建置

並列摘要

The standardized translation of academic terms provides a basis for sharing and exchanging academic knowledge. One of the important functions performed by National Academy for Educational Research (NAER) is to support the promotion and development of the unified and standardized translation of academic terms. However, since there has been a persistent shortage of systematic knowledge organization tools used to organize academic disciplines in terms of knowledge content, classification of academic terms has been criticized for a lack of validated reference standards. For this reason duplicate translations of the same term occur, and certain fields of study have been ignored or excluded from the present knowledge systems. Therefore, this study aims to construct a preliminary classification structure for all academic disciplines in order to enhance the effectiveness of translation of academic terms.

Considering the overall comprehensiveness of the proposed classification structure, both bottom-up and top-down approaches are employed in this two-steps study. For the first step, to begin with, the researcher selected classification scheme which seems to fit for the purpose of the study in light of the current understanding of the established classification schemes for categorizing all academic disciplines. Next, analyses were conducted to compare various extant knowledge classification schemes and different education-related statistics found in a range of resources. Then discussions were conducted with staffs of NAER to adjust, fine-tune and generate the first-tier classification structure, and finally finalized to 29 categories.

For the second step, on the basis of existing categories of NAER’s committees and by means of collecting existing subject classification structures to induce and analyze the content for structure, in order to generate the second-tier classification structure. Afterwards, according to the output of the above process, questionnaires designed to survey experts’ opinions about established classification structure were conducted to ensure the completeness and comprehensiveness of the categories. Finally, investigative interviews with staffs of NAER were conducted to adjust and generate final classification structure of academic disciplines and ultimately it is revised to 30 categories. And then the established classification structure is verified for its applicability by feeding academic terms into it. Through this process, it is proven that the classification structure is helpful in the domain of academic terms translation.

Results identified: (1) Classification structure would be the suitable type of knowledge organization structure for present academic terms; (2) It is necessary to identify the objective and purpose, as well as to confirm the content that the structure expects to cover first before constructing classification structure in order to clarify the orientations of the study; (3) While constructing classification structure, it is necessary to collect and take various kinds of resources into account, including experts’ opinions, existing established classification schemes, academic indicators, etc. Moreover, it must also meet the users’ requirements in order to construct a comprehensive structure; (4) The analyzed results of constructing classification structure highlights the importance for both bottom-up and top-down methods to coexist and work cooperatively in order to ensure the classification structure that is based on both theories and expert validity.

Some suggestions to the current study are proposed: (1) Refining classes of classification structure; (2) Adding definitions for each discipline to assist experts answering questionnaires in the process of inducting subject contents for the second step; (3) Finding representative discipline experts to confirm the validity of this classification structure. ; (4) Adopting research methods such as “experts interview” or “focus group method” in the structure confirmation process, to make up for the deficiency, and to strengthen the accuracy and representativeness of the classification structure.

Some suggestions to further study are proposed: (1) To subdivide sub-classes of this classification structure and explore the relationships between the classes; (2) To adopt established indicators from multiple disciplines; (3) To adopt the opinions of experts from various fields; (4) To plan principles for setting up subject classification structure; (5) To leave room for future development of subjects classification; (6) To plan principles for classification of cross-discipline subjects; (7) To evaluate and maintain of the current classification structure.

The classification structure this paper has put forward not only can be used as a basis for categorizing academic terms that have been translated and forming of the primary reference for glossaries and dictionaries of terminology, but it will also contribute to the prioritization of translations done in different subject fields. Furthermore, such a classification framework can be used as a guideline for terminology experts to follow, in cases such as reorganizing the existing terminology translation and review committees or setting up new ones. It can also be a guideline for the recruitment of qualified committee members. It is hoped that a wider application of this classification framework will facilitate cross-strait exchanges of academic terminology translations and provide a communication platform for professionals of all fields.

並列關鍵字

Academic terms ； Classification of academic disciplines ； Classification structure ； Needs assessment ； Construction of classification structure

參考文獻

田振榮、宋修德計畫主持（民92）。我國技職教育體系建立能力標準建構之可行性研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系研究報告，未出版。

鄭惠珍（民98）。中西圖書分類原理之比較研究（未出版之博士論文）。臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。

胡德佳（民101）。圖書資訊學領域電子書研究之趨勢分析（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。

林巧雯（民99）。以關鍵字、書目耦合、共被引探討圖書資訊學研究主題之分布及變遷（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。

朱雅琦（民98）。臺灣原住民族知識組織架構之建構方法研究—以阿美族物質文化為例（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。