研究問題的選擇，通常關乎學科知識發展的模式與方向，而科學家問題的選擇又與其所處的社群位置與知識體系的內在結構密切相關。然而，這兩個因素又如何表現在台灣社會學知識生產的過程中？為了回答此問題，本文以台灣社會學者的名單為基礎，收集1998年至2014年TSSCI與THCI的期刊論文資料，藉此測量各社會學家本土知識生產的策略趨向。研究結果顯示，相對於自然科學，由於社會學多元、獨立、競爭的知識結構，使得發散性思維的知識生產策略相當普遍。而其生產過程也未如自然科學般，會因社群位置的優勢而帶來更多元、發散的策略選擇。不過，「量化研究」卻會因其近似常態科學的研究邏輯，更傾向收斂式的知識累積與整合。最後，社會學有其不同於常態科學的「投資──報酬」邏輯。如果社會學者在知識上達成一定的整合與收斂，反而將有益於在鬆散的知識結構中形成「範例」，提高學者的學術影響力。本文的發現將有助於學術社群重新檢視台灣社會學知識生產的特性及其可能伴隨的優勢與劣勢。
How to choice the research questions is usually associated with the mode and the developmental direction of discipline knowledge. For scientists, these selections are also closely related to their social position in the scientific community. All of them are linked to the internal structure of knowledge system. We wonder how would these factors have an effect in the process of Sociological knowledge production in Taiwan. In order to answer this question, we collect Taiwanese sociologists’ journal articles which were published in the period from 1998 to 2014 in TSSCI and THCI to measure the strategic trend of sociological knowledge production. Contrary to natural science, the results shows that the knowledge structures of sociology are more diverse, independent and competitive. The divergent strategies of knowledge production are quite universal. Besides, sociological knowledge production in Taiwan would not count on the advantaged position in communities to bring more diverse and divergent strategy choices. However, "quantitative methodology" is familiar with normal scientific research logic, thus it tends to be more convergent on knowledge accumulation and integration. Finally, sociology is not the same as “return on investment” in normal science. If sociologists achieve a certain integration and convergence of knowledge, it would be the benefit of produce "example" in a loose knowledge structure, and that would improve the academic influence of scholars. The contribution of this article will be helpful to the academic community to review the characteristics in sociological knowledge production and pros and cons.
