He has ALREADY gone!

What would you think when you are the last one to know your supervisor's resignation? He has ALREADY gone when I get back!! I couldn't even talk to him face-to-face as he was boarding when I finally got contact with him on phone!


The day I was back was his last day. Clive's resignation came with effect in two days. He has planned to relocate to Norway for a visiting professorship a couple of months back, but did not intend to put his resignation on until mid 2010. From what I have heard he got some more pressure from the CSIRO management on his to-be-published paper, plus he suffered from mental stress to a point that led him to seek medical advice. He couldn't afford to stay anymore.

So what will happen to me? My scholarship has been secured. Supervision is not going to be a problem as he is likely to remain in my supervisory panel and someone else down the corridor will be assigned as my CSIRO supervisor mainly for administrative purposes. It is more like he is shifting from being my 'executive' supervisor to a 'non-executive' one. There is possibility that I can use Clive's unused funding for fieldwork. Sounds not too bad!

It wouldn't be a big problem as long as project funding and good project partners could be identified. I hope I can join Clive somewhere in Europe in the later stages of my PhD (as visiting student). Yet it is still frustrating when the one who brought me in has quitted and moved to the other end of the Earth - feel like being abandoned.

Things change

It is aweful when your PhD supervisor decides to leave the organization when your stipend is taken from his research grant. This made (still does) me stressful and at times depressed. Coz it is possible for my scholarship to be suspended although I was told it should be fine.
Yet for sure there will be some changes to my project. I am inclined to stay in ANU and the supervisory panel is likely to remain unchanged. Timing becomes an issue as the extension of the scholarship now becomes uncertain. Also I will be forced to work more independently on a project that can't be done without teamwork. Plus I am still not confident in doing a social experiment in such a different culture given language barriers and unfamiliarity.

I enjoy working alone, but being forced alone is frustrating. Same for social relationships.

做學者跟做Sales有沒有分別?

做學者跟做Sales有沒有分別?

本質上是沒有。

行外人總覺得做學者不吃人間煙火，社會地位高，薪水不俗，工作穩定，而且工作悠閒 – 教教書、寫寫文章就是了。統統不對。放在二、三十年前的話倒不錯，老早簽了長約的有鐵飯碗護身，好不自在。但今時今日新人要在學術界謀一官半職，卻要懂得推銷，『營業額』要達標才能生存。

其實由唸博士開始，我們就已經離不開這個『跑數』式求生遊戲。首先，必須了解『Publications壓倒一切』這個黃金定律。這是你的營業指標，PhD畢業後找不找到工作、往後晉升如何，全都取決於發表了多少篇學術文章、在哪些期刊裡發表，博士論文洋洋10萬字，寫得天花龍鳳也抵不上一篇短短7000字的期刊文章。同理，博士學位是次要，是副產品，主角是期刊文章 (兩個博士學位大概也抵不上兩篇期刊文章!)，論文未寫好就要趕發表，發表有著落，論文未寫好也可以有offer。一篇也沒有嗎? 大概連面試機會也渺茫。教授們都有達標的壓力，不會發表就是不會生蛋的母雞，又或者是雙層魚柳包 - 多舊魚，是冗員，所以不達標就要被照肺，再不長進就被踢走。大學要趕排名，而排名很受校內教授的發表量所影響，沒發表就是沒貢獻，誰容許你只是教教書而已?

那麼發表到底是什麼一回事? 這不是一般向報紙雜誌投稿那麼簡單。過程是寫一篇7000-8000的文章，寄到適合的期刊，然後期刊編輯會找兩至三個行家審閱，他們說行就行，說不行的話就退稿，當然編輯也可以推翻他們的決定，但一般也是以reviewers的意見為主。文章擲地有聲固然是必要條件，英文也要好，文章要層次分明。評審過程中，那些reviewers是匿名的，投稿者不會知道他們是何許人，reviewers也不會知投稿者是誰。Reviewers是非常critical的，意見多半尖酸狠辣，不留情面。小弟幸運地自行發表過兩篇文章，有些人以為這很了不起，但不為人知的是，我被退稿的次數比接納發表的還要多，被退稿的幾次裡，評語都相當相當尖酸刻薄，有些是接近嘲笑的地步，批評我英文不到家我倒沒話可說，畢業自己英語寫作能力有限。背上被插了幾把刀的感覺實在不太好受，但在這行混，被人插是家常便飯，所以面皮要夠厚，心臟要挺得住。

批評其實沒有什麼不合理，畢竟學術就是要批判思考。可惜有些reviewers好像把你當殺父仇人似的，吹毛求疵不在話下，文章裡說了兩句不中聽的說話就會以reviewer之身份大肆蹂躙一番。詹教授跟我說，評審文章很花時間，有空義務評審文章的很多都是閒來沒事做的學者，他們有些是為批評而批評，有沒有毛病都要罵個你狗血淋頭才顯得出自己有本事，不然，你沒問題就是我有問題。當批判成為一個目的就變成批鬥，學術本有門派之分，不同門派互插實屬本份，可是學者不是外人想像中那麼事事客觀，『客觀科學』之說從來都是用來掩護主觀意願，遇到有不對自己門派的多半不會怎樣包容，因為推翻別人就可以讓自己跑出。有人說過現代科學的進化是靠推翻人家的學說而來的，這句話是有道理，卻為盲目相信有單一『真理』存在而付出代價，也為『為批評而批評』這做法提供了動機。

好了，能發表文章是不是可以安枕無憂呢? 妄想。簡單來說，沒40歲也沒飽飯吃。博士畢業生一般要先當兩至三年『後博士研究員』才有機會當上助理教授。『博士後』是一種短期合約職位，主要是當老闆的跟班，做做研究，自由度不高，薪水只有2萬多，沒很多福利，沒雙糧沒花紅，沒晉升機會 – 約滿不會直升助理教授。事實上能不能找到『博士後』也沒有保證，以社會科學學系而言，一個學系通常只有兩三個空缺，二/三流大學更可能只有一個，然而每年博士畢業生往往多於此數，所以是僧多粥少，難怪博士畢業生的失業率比本科畢業還高。一般而言，博士畢業也差不多30歲，再過兩年『博士後』，已經過了而立之年，該穩定下來了吧。不對，好戲還在後頭，助理教授的空缺比博士後更少，就算有名的大學也不會年年請人，說三、四年才請一個也不過份。競爭大不在話下，沒三、四篇發表文章也不用多想，更殘酷的這是一個『三年又三年』的煎熬。新入職的助理教授首六年是合約制，三年review一次，發表量不夠就out，過得三年再review一次，合格就多半會升職，不然就out。當由32歲開始算起，助理教授到38歲才『有機會』坐正 - 加薪和轉長工。人工4萬多，好像不錯，但別忘記在30歲前都是當廉價勞工，萬多元薪水夠吃不夠儲，搞不好留下一屁股債，正正是過得一日得一日，要儲錢結婚生仔卻是有心無力。還有，38歲有得留低固然要謝主隆恩，沒有的話怎辦，博士學位在大學以外有屁用 (尤其是在香港)，由低做起當個跑腿research assistant會不會太丟臉? 去當中學教師也嫌老吧，唸社會科學的『楂兜』的風險更高。有不少人轉去當instructor，就是專責教書那類講師，薪水不高，沒啥晉升機會，不會自動升上助理教授，永遠是合約制，隨時被兜走，沒保障，比中學教師還不如。十年寒窗得個桔，仔細老婆嫩，怎辦?

學術圈很講究關係和學術血統，唸博士要年年去研討會不真的為了發表什麼，而是拉關係，正面點說是找合作機會，也要面皮厚，要巴結明星教授，巴結期刊編輯。論文指導老師也不能得罪，每一個學術領域都劃分了無數sub-fields，研究範圍細分之下，變得既專且窄。能做指導老師的一般有一定經驗，而由於圈子小，老師亦往往都為行內人所認識，開罪了老師就等於在該圈子裡留下惡名。學術界極重視師長推薦，美國大學更如是，如果老師對你不多關照，推薦信沒寫好，大概求職時也會處處踫壁。

工作悠閒? 發夢，如果算時薪的話可能比文員只好一點點。剛才說合格的意思據說是一年發表最少兩篇質量不錯的文章，這要求在社會科學界裡這也不算過份。可是要發表一篇文章要過五關斬六將，嘔心瀝血的嘔出來的，寫學術文章跟寫專欄文章差天共地，我算寫東西寫得快了，認真寫也往往要花上一天才寫得一頁 400-500字左右，更別說前後預備資料和文章編輯工作，要由頭寫起7000字去投稿，前後最少足足要用一整個月時間。但當學者還不是寫文章就行，還要教書，現在的大學生態度惡劣，教書大概也是令人嘔算的工作吧 (對我而言是)。還有，研究資金不會從天上掉下來，教授要錢就要寫proposal去fight，完事後可能還要寫一堆report和presentation向米飯班主 (提供研究資金的機構)交代，過程相當費時。除此之外，還有林林總總的校內行政工作，例如收生，管理undergrad那班馬騮相信是十分傷神，最好也搞個碩士班來吸水 (不然怎樣養起教授們)，結果晚上休息時間又奉獻了給老闆們 (碩士學生)，還有要不停看學術文章來確保不會脫節，我認真全神看一篇大概要3小時。結果，一個助理教授最好朝七晚十，周末也上班，多勞多得，不勞就早抖，壓力之下只好拼命，不成功便成仁，陰功。

最後就是社會地位，不用多說，隨著大學數目上升，教授數量多就變得不稀罕。在老一輩心中或許光環仍在，可是年輕一點的卻可能不以為然，其中一個原因或許是金錢因素，年輕教授薪金低，找工作不容易，工作也不穩定，相比起同樣是大學或碩士畢業、身處熱門行業中的才俊猶有不及。30多歲還只拿2萬多月薪，人家十年前已經有這個數目了，如此怎教人不看低一線? 唸社會科學的有時要去『乞』數據，找這個幫忙找那個疏通，臉皮不厚不成，以前我當研究助理時，要去學校跟一些老師聯絡來收集數據(就是找學生做survey)，我那位教授上司以前當副校長，比這些老師高幾班，可是為了要他們幫忙，對他們也不免有點低聲下氣，老師有怨言也只好硬食，不然以後人家不再給面子就麻煩了。我自己做的那個survey，要做上門訪問，也是見盡人情冷暖，要看面色，香港大學又如何? 學者要走入民間，放下身段是理所當然，也正因如此，不在高高在上。

很多當博士/學者的都是外表風光，其實是啞子吃黃蓮，有苦自己知，博士生更是不消說。以前博士畢業就等於升上神枱，現在則是被趕入鬥獸場的開始，狗咬狗的慘況其實不異於市場。博士學位既是入場劵，也是負累，成也蕭何，敗也蕭何，實際價值比MBA還低。所以，學術之路其實是相當tough的，沒有『雖千萬人吾往矣』的心態的話，請三思。

'This is really wonderful'

The best thing to an aspiring scholar is not money, but recognition. Thanks Li Ka Shing.


**************************************
Dear Mr LO Yu Hong,

I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected as one of the recipients of the Li Ka Shing Prizes (2007-2008).

The Li Ka Shing Prizes are set up by using part of a generous donation from Dr. Li Ka Shing. The Prizes are awarded annually on the basis of academic excellence, four for the PhD theses and two for the MPhil theses. The Prizes, in the form of gold medals (for desk display), shall in each year be awarded to graduates from within the two faculty groups – Group A, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Architecture, Arts, Business & Economics, Education, Law and Social Sciences; and Group B, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Dentistry, Engineering, Medicine and Science.

[..................]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate you for winning the Prize. I look forward to seeing you at the award presentation ceremony.

Yours sincerely,
(Miss) Anna Wong
Executive Officer
Graduate School
The University of Hong Kong
******************************************

Dear Alex,

I am delighted to learn of the outcome of our nomination. This is really wonderful. I offer my warmest congratulations on your outstanding achievement. We look forward to shaking your hand at the ceremony.

Regards,
Jim

C Y Jim
Department of Geography
The University of Hong Kong

Economics in diversity

'Decoupling the concept of monetary values from economic monism must be complemented by correspondingly decoupling the norms of value articulation from the established value hierarchy whose viability is causally interdependent on the elicited values. Logically it is impossible to include all types of values; a more fruitful way of thinking is to repudiate institution that would exclude any. To paraphrase Samuel Tilden (cited in Dewey, 1954), the means by which a hierarchy comes to be a hierarchy is the more important thing. The monistic economic value is sustained by, and in turn sustains, the monistic structure of economics. Merely diversifying the ends to be pursued is not sufficient to addressing value pluralism. '

This is a paragraph in my literature review. The idea is theoretically oriented and complex. This is the central theme of my thesis, which embodies the notion of 'economics in diversity'. I have a feeling that this is a quite important concept to dealing with our current challenge, that is, ecological limits, risks, and uncertainties, and all associated social impacts. The linkage is not very clear to me at the moment. But I think the 'targets' of the sustainability movement are beyond science and human's selfishness. The core issues, in fact, revolve around ethical diversity.

Maybe I can write this up as a book some day??!

'English needs work'

I need to work harder on my English writting. This is a comment from Clive after he read my journal submission (he was 'accidentally' asked to adjudicate my paper which the journal editor was unable to make a decision because the two reviewees' comments went to extremes. I was surprised when he told me he got my article from the editor. Actually I has sent him for comment long before formally submiting it but he was too busy to take a look):

'I suggested restructuring a bit in the end because of the repetition. The paper felt long, which is an indicator that it is not flowing as it should. I think all your points are basically valid but they could come across better.

The English needs work and unfortunately is a major distraction. Your basic style is good but gets let down by various errors. You will see where in my corrections. No journal will accept papers with these errors so you either need an English speaking helper or to learn yourself. You might want to consider co-authorship unless the latter works for you.'

Actually, Prof Jim, my MPhil supervisor, had made a similar comment on my thesis - verbose and ambiguous, and suggested me to work harder on English. I got even more harsh comments on my rejected papers - one reviewer described it as 'awful'. Have to admit that my English writting is not good - by academic standard. Really need some professional English editing service next time when I sumbit something for publication............

Thesis proposal seminar passed

Passed my thesis proposal seminar! With generally positive comments. Only a handful of people came (coz of the location & lack of advertisement), but almost everyone asked questions (more means good). Yet I think I still need to learn to handle Q&A better.

Now ready to submit my proposal, and move on to the next stage. The next challenge is the research design. Outlined in my proposal but there are still lots of practical issues and uncertainties unsolved. Especially this is a medium-size project and we work with another team in CSIRO. Means it'll get more complex as things unfold. Will fix them in the coming months.

Another ongoing task is writing the literature review. It's really time-consuming, but exciting. I plan to produce at least two publications from this review. One to be published with Clive. My target is get the first draft done by September this year.

How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold everything else constant.
None: They are all waiting for the invisible hand.

Alcon and Solarz: 'The Autistic Economist'
Yale Economic Review, Summer 2006

PhD Proposal

For some reasons, I didn't add anything during the past 5 months. 5 months already...time flies.
And for some reasons, I need a change. Change? Yes, I can.
Got my PhD proposal finished. Post here to mark the milestone. But abstract only, the whole document has >5000 words (pretty long as a proposal)


***********************************************************

The Normative and Practical Content of Deliberative Monetary Valuation:
An Investigation into the Ideological Beliefs Influencing and Subjective Factors Associated with the Articulation of Environmental Values in Deliberative Settings


PhD Research Proposal

Alex Lo
Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences,
The Australian National University


Abstract
Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) is a hybrid approach built upon the theory of deliberative democracy. It seeks to articulate money values of non-marketed public goods from small group deliberation. Yet current practice falls short of theoretical coherence and appear at odds with the deliberative political ideals. This creates a thin and fragile integrative basis for value plurality. A study is proposed to assess the present state of knowledge and examine the potential of a political model. This will involve separate investigation of the perceptions of practitioners and citizen deliberators concerning DMV processes and outcomes. The study will ascertain the ways in which deliberative value is defined in theory and its meanings in actual deliberation. For the former, data will be sought from a practitioners survey based on Q methodology. Deliberative forums are being planned for the latter. Two discussion groups are designed in accordance with democratic and decision-analytic principles respectively. They will be compared to distinguish the political strand of DMV from its more common counterpart of analytic deliberation. Two groups of local citizens will participate in a series of discussions about a water planning issue in Australia. Verbal protocols will be employed for analyzing the participant interviews to understand how people make sense of the valuation questions. Findings are expected to shed light on the principles and roles of DMV, and the potential of applying verbal protocol analysis to DMV research.

"Don't Become a Scientist!"

This is an article I came across elsewhere in the forum. It's about early academic career, one of unsecure, unstable, and underpaid. Worse, reresearch budget cuts are coming. Even worse, there are traditionally fewer vacancies in social sciences than science.

-----------------------------------------
Don't Become a Scientist!
Jonathan I. Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.


Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover themysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learnhow the world works? Forget it!


Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you aresmart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as anundergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation,you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should noteven consider going to graduate school in science. Do something elseinstead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or somethingelse which appeals to you.


Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you fromfollowing a career path which was successful for me? Because times havechanged (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American scienceno longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school inscience it is in the expectation of spending your working life doingscientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve importantand interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed,probably when it is too late to choose another career.

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobsfor them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the pricedrops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes theform of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs.Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaininga real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) mostyoung scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have noprospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoralposition and move every two years. For many more details consult the YoungScientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of theWashington Monthly.

As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent AssistantProfessorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduateschool (he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinksis brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was heoffered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility ofit six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new jobevery two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for anotherAssistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctortypically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27(computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrialdemand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence,ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeedin any of these other professions.

Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biologicalsciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate studentstipends are less than half these figures). Can you support a family onthat income? It suffices for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist whose wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospect of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district andall the other necessities of ordinary middle class life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy.

Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to goto medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns twoto three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a goodsenior-level job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in orderto have the freedom to work on problems which interest me. But you probablywon't get that freedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else's ideas,and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independentcollaborator. Eventually, you will probably be squeezed out of scienceentirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not dothis at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientificjob market first? The longer you spend in science the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers inother fields.
Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; someuniversity (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences)will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labor means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a very long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appear to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find that the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and that they must struggle with the rest.

Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because yourproposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity,but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflectingcriticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems.They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in aproposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, howeveroriginal and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that originalideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet beenproved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they canbe, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you findthat it is not what you wanted after all.

What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyonewho does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue anothercareer. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations.Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence ofa reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it.If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people fromIndia and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I haveknown more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physicsthan by drugs.

If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try topersuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientistsis entirely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduateeducation is paid for by federal grants). The funding agencies arebemoaning the scarcity of young people interested in science when theythemselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. Theycould reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand,but they refuse to do so, or even to discuss the problem seriously (for manyyears the NSF propagated a dishonest prediction of a coming shortage ofscientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). Theresult is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensiblyrefuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak Americanstudents and with foreigners lured by the American student visa.


Source is here:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

Read two theoretical writings

本來這個月是用來閉關苦讀，可以種種事情令我不能集中，總覺得不在狀態

不過，在過去的三個星期也能夠把兩本對我的工作比較重要著作看過大半，我的目的很明確：在開始研究之前要先把其理論脈絡用清楚，不然無法知道所得的結果在學術上有何意義，更無法從根本地解答當前問題。


第一本是John O'Neill 的"Market, Deliberation and Environment" (Routledge, 2007)
雖然這本書的內容都十分有趣而且重要，但大都已經被其他人及作者自己在其他articles討論過，這本書似乎是作者自己的論文總結，沒什麼創新觀點。主要是圍繞經濟價值的謬誤，及deliberative democracy的優劣。當中有一點是值得深思，有些人 - 包括Clive和我 - 都主張用deliberative institution去articulate 環境價值，即是透過半公開、實驗形式的小組討論去為某一環境物品定價，然而O'Neill卻似乎反對一切定價行為，他所提出的論據不無道理，例如很多公共財產都有道德價值，根本不適宜被冠上幣值。但我在想是不是一定是all or nothing，到底問題是出在幣值本身，還是它背後理論假設及運作模式? 是否可以將後二者來點改變，然後重新定義環境價值(monetary)? 有沒有中間路線呢?



第二本是我supervisor，另一位John，John Dryzek的"Discursive Democract" (Cambridge, 1990)
此書為該領域的奠基著作之一，它提出了一套新的民主理論，此一理論即為上文提及的deliberative institution 的基礎。大意是公共決策該由collective, public communication而始，而非individualistic, aggregative voting，再簡單點說就是talk before vote，視public dialogue為最主要的決策原素，而非次於majority voting。另一個重要觀點是(inter)subjectivism取代objectivism，就是說在政策層面上，科學化、重結果的reasoning不應被用作處理公共資源的絕對準則，這兩者都或多或多了假設了某種特定的價值觀，例如經濟學裡的『效率』，取而代之的是communicative rationality，其主要主張為: the only authority is better arguments (not material gains)。這套理論最大優點是容納多元價值，但我仍是沒法從中找到適當的理論途徑去解讀從deliberative institution所產生的monetary value，即是以group的形式、經過商議及專家討論後所同意的willingness-to-pay是代表著什麼? (WTP in market is price, which is easy to understand)。另外deliberative institution又是否exclusive of strategic reasoning? 但別忘記有時候strategic reasoning也是多元價值的表達形式之一。

在我的研究領域內，提出、測試及解釋可容納多元價值的制度是一個新方向，但多元價值卻與傳統經濟系統合不來，要經濟利益老是屈於其他價值之下也不合民主原則，且是難於實行，用一套independent-of-all的approach i.e. communicative rationalization似乎比較合理，但如何可以做到? 如何解讀?

Neverheless, I can see there is one possible way to interpret. It stems from the theory of communicative action by Jurgen Habermas, the leading philosophy in 20th century (from which Dryzek and others developed the idea of deliberative democracy). Communicative rationality is that it is tied to subject-subject relation between interacting individuals, rather than subject-object relation between monologically acting individuals presumed by instrument rationality underpinning economics. So, value from deliberative institutions should be understood as a matter of intersubjectivity, not exclusively objectivity nor subjectivity. It is the interaction among people as a group that forms the value, not isolated individuals; not uncontested economic nor ethical interests, but the interplay between them.