Finalized on May 1, 1995, the Preparatory Office of the Institute of Sociology was set up on July 1 of the same year. Dr. Hei-yuan Chiu was appointed the first director of the office. Seventeen researchers in related fields transferred to this new institute from the Institute of Ethnology and the Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy. These researchers are still supported by their previous institutes in terms of salary and research resources. The extra budget for preparatory work was provided by Academia Sinica. The Preparatory Office first established the Committee on Academic Development to deliberate on its overall plans in research, regulations and codes, and academic activities. Dr. Ying-hua Chang was appointed chairman of this committee, and the other members include Drs. Shu-ling Tsai, Mau-kuei Chang, and Chih-ming Ka, and the director of the Institute. The Preparatory Office will publish academic books and a journal. A Committee for Academic Publication was organized in December 1995. The elected editor-in-chief is Dr. Ly-yun Chang, and other editorial board members include Drs. Ying-hua Chang, Chih-ming Ka, and Yu-hsia Lu, and director Chiu. Two sociologists off Academia Sinica were invited to join the committee to edit a new journal Taiwanese Sociological Review. Currently the first issue of the journal is being prepared.
The Institute also launched a series of Monday seminars, in which both its research members and outside scholars present their research. A lunch-time club is also held at least every other week. The club's current topic is "Sociology and I". Through this informal gathering, colleagues share their research experiences and personal encounters with sociology, thereby deepening their commitment to the field.
Since April 1996, four research groups have been orga-nized for tackling four areas. These four groups, and other new groups to be formed in the future, are expected to initiate innovative research projects and activities.
|
At both macro and micro levels, researchers of this Office have made considerable contributions to the understand-ing of the historical development of capitalism in Taiwan. The key question that we attempt to answer is: What are the characteristics of capitalism in Taiwan? To answer this question, we will explore the following issues further and deeper: the changing relationship between Taiwan's and the world's division of labor, Taiwan's transition to capitalism, the articulation between family and capitalism, urban/rural contradiction under Taiwanese capitalism, labor regimes in Taiwan, class formation and disfor-mation, and sexual division of labor.
 |
To advance the debate on ethnicity and nationalism, the construction of peoplehood should be brought to the forefront. While ethnicity is the salient classifying criterion of peoplehood in Taiwan today, it is by no means the only one and the omnipresent one. Other classifying criteria assumed primacy historically, such as origins of birth, kinship, state staff/commoners, etc. Informed by this constructionist and historical perspective, we will explore the following issues: How did the different forms of classifying peoplehood emerge and phase out under different historical contexts? How do we comprehend the relationships between the classification of peoplehood, on the one hand, and power process, economic production and the legitimacy of the system, on the other? What are the relationships between individuals and the collective projects and mobilization of classifying peoplehood? How are we to understand the relationship between the classification of peoplehood and the formation of the subjectivity (as related to a variety of "identities")? What are the implications of the classification of peoplehood for democratic practices?
Many researchers of the Institute have contributed to the study of family and stratification substantially. By further integrating quantitative and qualitative methods, the approach of life history can make significant contributions to the understanding of related human behavior, attitudes and values as well as their inter-relationship. Furthermore, it can bridge the gap of the cross-sectional approach: that of dividing human development into a sequence of separated stages. The life history approach can also be linked to several macro social phenomena, such as social stratification, work history, social mobility, and rural/urban migration.
The overarching theme of this research group is on the social implications/consequences of the rise of formal organization for social order. To understand the orga-nizational penetration into modern life, we will first empirically document the way in which formal orga-nization emerges as a dominant form of socioeconomic organization, and secondly examine both the driving force in favor of organizational dominance and the obstacles to unleashing the efficacy of formal organization. Most important, we will focus on the interface of organizational imperatives and personal network in order to explore the development of institutional reference for human behavior in contemporary society.
The Institute currently has a research staff of 23, including 14 full-time research members (8 research fellows, 4 associate research fellows, 2 assistant research fellows), 6 joint appointment research members (2 research fellows, 3 associate research fellows, 1 assistant research fellow), 3 listed assistant research fellows (belonging to the Office of Survey Research), 1 postdoctoral fellow and 3 admini-strative personnel.
Our research members continue to do their research and use facilities at their previous institutes this year. The administrative office is temporarily located in the New Research Building of the Institute of History and Philology. The Institute has some office and research facilities equipped under the financial support of Academia Sinica.
Our research staff have completed the following major projects in the last two years: