研究生英语综合教程课文及翻译资料

1.Recently,oneofushadtheopportunitytospeakwithamedicalstudentaboutaresearchrotationthatthestudentwasplanningtodo.ShewouldbeworkingwithDr.Z,whohadgivenhertheprojectofwritingapaperforwhichhehaddesignedtheprotocol,collectedthedata,andcompiledtheresults.Thestudentwastodoaliteraturesearchandwritethefirstdraftofthemanuscript.Forthisshewouldbecomefirstauthoronthefinalpublication.Whenconcernswereraisedabouttheproposedproject,Dr.Zwasshocked."lthoughtIwasdoingherafavor,"hesaidinnocently,"andbesides,Ihatewriting!"2.Dr.Zisperhapsabitnaive.Certainly,mostresearcherswouldknowthatthestudent'sworkwouldnotmeritfirstauthorship.Theywouldknowthat"gift"authorshipisnotanacceptableresearchpractice.However,anearlierexperienceinourworkmakesuswonder.Severalyearsago,inconjunctionwiththegrantfromtheFundfortheImprovementofPottSecondaryEducation(FIPSE),ateamofphilosophersandscientistsatDartmouthCollege2ranaUniversitySeminarseriesforfacultyonthetopic"EthicalIssuesinscientificResearch."Atoneseminar,aseniorresearcher(let'scallhimProfessorR)arguedasimilarpositiontothatofDr.Z.InthiscaseProfessorRknewthat"gift"authorship,authorshipwithoutasignificantresearchcontribution,wasanunacceptableresearchpractice.However,hehadareasontogiveauthorshiptohisstudent.Thestudenthadworkedforseveralyearsonaprojectsuggestedbyhimandtheprojecthadyieldedtopublishabledata.Believingthathehadadutytothestudenttoensureapublication,ProfessorRhadgiventhestudentsomedatathathehimselfhadcollectedandtoldthestudenttowriteitup.Thestudenthadworkedhard,hesaid,albeitonanotherproject,andthestudentwoulddothewriting.Thus,hereasoned,theauthorshipwasnota"gift."3.Thesetwostoriespointupamajorreasonforencouragingcoursesinresearchethics:Goodintentionsdonotnecessarilyresultinethicaldecisions.Bothofthefacultymembersintheabovescenarios"meantwell."Inbothcases,thefacultymemberstrulybelievedthatwhattheyweredoingwasmorallyacceptable.Inthefirstcase,Dr.Z'sindefensibleerrorwasthathewasunawareoftheconventionsofthefield.Inparticular,heseemedblissfullyoblivioustothemeaningoffirstauthorship.Inthesecondcase,ProfessorRwasdongwhathethoughtbestforthestudentwithouttakingintoconsiderationthatmoral.tyisapublicsystemandthathisactionswithregardtoasinglestudenthavepublicconsequencesforthepracticeofscienceasaprofession.4.Well-meaningscientists,suchasthosejustmentioned,can,withthebestofintentions,makeunethicaldecisions.Insomecases,suchdecisionsmayleadindividualstobecomeembroiledincasesofmisconduct.Acourseinresearchethicscanhelpsuchscientiststoappreciatethatitistheirresponsibilitytoknowprofessionalconventionsaswellastounderstandthepublicnatureofmorality.1.最近，我们当中的一员有机会与一名医科学生谈论她正计划要做的一个实验室轮转项目。她将与给她布置论文撰写任务的Dr.Z一起完成该项目。Dr.Z已经设计好研究工具，并收集数据，整理了实验结果。该学生只需做做文献检索，然后撰写初稿。这样，在论文最终出版的时候，她就可以成为第一作者。然而，当该项目受到越来越多非议时，Dr.Z震惊之余无辜地说，“我以为我是在帮她，而我也确实讨厌写作”。2.Dr.Z或许有一点天真。当然，大多数研究人员都知道，该学生所做的工作并不称第一作者这个头衔。他们知道，这种“赠予”原创作者头衔的做法，并不是可以接受的科研行为。然而，早期的工作经验使我们产生疑问。若干年前，在高等教育改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一个由哲学家和科学家组成的团队在达特茅斯学院，为全体教员举办以“科学研究中的伦理问题”为主题的系列讲座。在其中一次研讨会上，一个资深研究员（让我们叫他R教授）与Dr.Z持有相似的观点。在这个案例中，R教授明知道把原创作者身份“赠予”没有研究贡献的人是不符合学术道德规范的。然而，他却有理由给他的学生一个作者身份。因为这个学生已经在他所建议的项目上花费了几年的功夫，然而却没能发表任何研究结果。他认为他有责任帮助这名学生发表论文。于是R教授给了该学生一些他自己收集的数据，让其撰写一篇论文。R教授说这名学生一直努力的做项目，尽管不是同一项目，而且该生还负责论文写作，所以他认为原创作者头衔并不算“赠予”。3.这两个故事都强调了推动开设科研伦理课程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引导人们做出正确的道德选择。上述两个情节中的教师本意是好的。这两个案例中的教师认为他们所做的事情在道德层面上是可以接受的。在第一个案例中，Dr.Z的解释之所以站不住脚是因为他没有意识到这一领域的公约。而他似乎也遗忘了第一作者的概念。在第二个案例中，R教授自认为他所做的事情都是对他学生最有益的，然而却没有考虑道德是一个公共体系，他对这一名学生的做法却对科学研究产生了公共影响。4.例如刚刚提到的那些善意的科学家，他们的意图是好的，但却做出了不道德的决定。一些情况下，这样的决定可能会导致个人卷入到学术不端的指控中。科研伦理课程可以帮助这样的科学家明白，他们有责任去了解职业惯例以及公共道德的本质。5.Therearescientistsforwhomacourseinresearchethicswillbelessuseful.EfraimRacker,ina1989article,describedastudentinhislabwhowasa"professional"fabricatorofdata.Thisstudentcomposedlabbookswithoutperformingexperiments,addedradioactivematerialtogelstoproducebandswherehewishedthosebandstobe,andliedtohiscolleaguesabouthisactions.Anotherresearcher,EliasAlsabti,describedbyD.J.Miller,wasameticulousplagiarizer.Thisphysician-researcherfabricatedhiscurriculumvitae,copiedacolleague'sgrantforhisownuse,publishedotherpeople'sdataunderhisownname,andco-authoredhispilfereddatawithfictitiouscollaborators.Individualssuchastheseareunlikelytolearnresearchethicsthroughinstructionbecausetheyarenotinterestedinbecomingethicalpractitioners.6.Theethicsofscientificresearchissomewhatuniquewithinprofessionalethicsinthesensethatgoodsciencerequirestheethicalpracticeofscience.Nevertheless,acourseinresearchethicscannotandshouldnothaveasitscentralfocusthequestion,"WhyshouldIbemoral?Thisquestion,whileimportant,isnotspecifictothefieldofscientificresearch.Acourseinresearchethics,asenvisionedbytheDartmouthteam,mustbeacoursethatteachesthetoolsformakingethicaldecisionsrelativetomattersofresearch.Itwillbedesignedforthosescientistswhoarealreadycommittedtobeingethicalresearchers.Suchacourseshouldprovidestudentstheanswerstothequestion,"HowcanImakemoraldecisions?"7Althoughitisthefabricatorsandtheplagiarizerswhomwemostoftenthinkofwhenwethinkofresearchmisconduct,thesearenottheonlypeopleaccusedofmisconduct.Theyareasonottheonlypeoplewhoareguiltyofmisconduct.Manyotherscientistshavehadliveandcareersaffectedbymisconductcases.8Itisundoubtedlyunfairtogeneralizefromafewcasesofmisconducttoanentireprofession.Nevertheless,reportedcasesofmisconductarenotuncommon,andthiscouldreflectafailuretotrainstudentstothehighestethicalstandards.The1993OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)4publicationreportedthe1991-1992caseloadtoinclude29institutionalinquiries,21institutionalinvestigations,andORIinquiriesorinvestigations.The1995ORIpublicationreportedthe1994caseloadas13institutionalinquiries,17institutionalinvestigations,and80RIinquiriesorinvestigations.Ofactionsclosedintheseyears(5in1991-1992;44in1994),someinvolvedfabrication,somefalsification,someplagiarism,andotherssomecombinationoffabrication,falsification,plagiarism,and"othermisconduct."Slightlyfewerthanhalfoftheinvestigatedcasesclosedasofthesereportswerefoundtoinvolvemisconductandresultedinsanctionagainsttheaccusedparty.Theacademicrankoftheaccusedrangedfromtechniciantofullprofessor.Caseswerereportedfromanumberofinstitutions,andtheaccusedpartieswerefundedbyavarietyoffundingsources.5.对于有些科学家来说，科研伦理课程可能作用并不大。EfraimRacker在其1989年发表的文章中描述了一个他实验室里“专业的”数据造假者。这名学生没做实验就拼凑出实验书，在凝胶中添加放射性材料来合成他想要的绷带，并欺瞒他的同事。D.J.Miller描述的另一位研究者EliasAlsabti是一个细心的剽窃者。这位医师编造个人履历，抄袭同事的基金申请书为己所用，以个人名义发表他人数据，并虚构合作者一起用剽窃的数据合写论文。像这样的人是不会通过课程学习研究伦理的，因为他们对学术道德并不感兴趣。6.某种程度上讲，科学研究伦理属于职业道德的范畴，并且是独一无二的。而一定意义上，好的科学研究要求符合道德规范的工作。然而，一门学术伦理课程不能够也不应该把“我为什么应该遵守道德？”作为焦点问题。这个问题虽然重要，但并不只是具体针对学术研究领域。正如达特茅斯团队预想的那样，一门学术伦理课程必须教会大家如何就科学研究做出有道德的决策。这将是专门为那些致力于成为遵守道德规范的研究人员而设计的课程。这样的一门课程将会给学生提供这个问题的答案，“我怎样才能做出一个符合道德的决定？”7.虽然当我们思考学术不端时，大多数时候我们想到的是数据造假者或者剽窃者，但是这些人并不是唯一被指控学术不端的人。同样，他们也不是唯一被认定学术不端的人。许多科学家的生活和事业都曾受到了学术不端事件的影响。8.然而，仅凭一些学术不端的个案来推论整个行业无疑是不公平的。不过已披露的学术不端行为的确不在少数，这也反映了学生道德培养水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研诚信办公室（ORI）的报告公布了其在1991年至1992年期间，对其自身以及29个机构的访谈记录和21个机构的调查结果。1995年，该研究室的报告又涵盖了1994年对于13个机构的访问和对17个机构的调查，以及8份该研究室的调查研究。近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的调查显示出，学术行为中主要涉及伪造、篡改、剽窃等，甚至多种不端行为的并存的情况。对于已结案件的调查中，仅有不足一半涉及不断行为被对方指控受到了制裁。当事人的学术职称从技术人员到教授不等。案件多由科研机构自己披露，并且当事人均受到各种基金的资助。9Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinliefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichinclude"otherquestionablebehavior"or"othermisconduct."Withinthisconfusionofdefinitionsitisnotalwaysobvioustostudentsorfacultywhereandtowardwhomtheirobligationslie.10Complicatingtheconfusiongeneratedbythewayinwhichwedefineresearchmisconductistheteachingprocessbywhichstudentsroutinelylearnabouttheethicalobligationsoftheirprofession.Traditionallyascientisttrainswithasinglementor.Fromthismentoringrelationshipthegraduatestudentisexpectedtolearnaboutscientificmethod,thebodyofknowledgethatconstitutesthespecificfieldofsciencesheisstudying,andthe"institution"ofscience.Whatislearnedabouttheinstitutionofscienceincludesknowledgeofthemechanicsofobtainingfunding,informationonthewritingofgrantsandpapers,andanunderstandingoftherolesandresponsibilitiesformaintainingandsharingresearchdata.Aspartofherinstructioninalloftheseareas,itisassumedthatshewillalsolearntheethicsofscientificresearch.11InthecaseofthestoryofDr.Zabove,itisclearthatDr.Z'srelationshipwithhismentordidnotresultinhishavinglearnedabasicconventionofthefield.So,itisnotsurprisingthatDr.Zwaspreparedtopasshisunrecognizedconfusiontoastudentwhowasworkingwithhim.Mentoringrelationshipswithinscienceeducationdonotnecessarilyresultinadequatefamiliaritywiththeethicsofresearch.12JudithSwazey5oftheAcadiaInstitutehasstudiedthisissueandpresentssomeverydistressingdataoftheefficacyofmentoringrelationshipsingraduateeducation.Although89%of2,000graduatestudentrespondentsfrom98departmentsofmajorresearchinstitutionssaidthattheyrelatedtoasinglefacultymemberwhowasparticularlysupportiveoftheirwork,lessthan45%ofstudentsfeltthatthisfacultymembergavethem"alot"ofhelptowardteachingthemthedetailsofgoodresearchpractice,and15to20%ofthestudentsfeltthatthehelptheygotinthisareawas"none."9.学术不端并不是能够简单评价的问题。其中一个重要问题是，在科学领域里，对于什么样的行为有违伦理规范，应当受到惩罚，仍然模棱两可。工程，法律，和医学领域对道德行为的定义有明确的书面指导原则。虽然某些特别复杂的案例会挑战这些原则的底线，但多数原则具有指导意义。科学研究也并不提供书面的行为准则。联邦政府和私人机构一直试图阐明学术不端行为的裁定标准，比如一些描述科研不端行为的核心定义，包括编造，篡改和等等。然而这些行为容易与包含“可疑行为”在内的其他不太确定的类别相互混淆。这些混淆的定义让学生和教职人员也不是很清楚他们到底承担哪些责任和义务？10.我们对学术不端的定义往往会带来困惑，而学生们日常学习职业道德规范的过程则更加剧了人们的困惑。传统而言，一位科研工作者要接受导师的培训指导。通过指导，这名研究会学到科学研究方法，构成她得学科领域的知识体系，和科学的“制度”。这些“制度”包括获取经费的技术性细节，关于基金申请和论文撰写的知识，以及在维护和共享研究数据中的角色和职责的理解。除了以上这些方面，科学研究伦理也将是她课程学习的一部分。11.以Dr.Z的案子为例，很显然，Dr.Z与他的导师的关系并没有使他学到了这个领域的一个基本公约。所以，随后Dr.Z把他的困惑传递给了他的学生，也就不足为奇了。因此，科学教育中的师徒关系不一定能使学生充分了解学术道德。12.阿卡迪亚学院的Judith

Swazey对这一问题进行了研究，研究数据显示研究生教育中师徒关系的效果令人失望。在对98所主要研究机构中抽取的2000名研究生的调查中，89%的受访者说他们只与一位非常支持他们工作的师长有联系，不到45%的学生认为这为师长在告诉他们如何提高研究质量的细节方面，给了他们“许多”帮助。15%—20%的学生觉得他们在这一领域没有收获。Fewerthan45%ofstudentsbelievedthattheygot"alot"ofhelpfulcriticismonaregularbasis.Inthemajorityofcases,studentsfeltthattheirfacultysupportpersondidnotprovidethetypeofmentoringrelationshipthatonewouldhopeforintheethicstrainingofaresearchscientist.13WhenSwazeyaskedstudentstocomparetherolethatadepartmentshouldtakeinpreparingstudentstorecognizeanddealwithethicalissuesintheirfieldtotheroleactuallytakenbythedepartment,herresultswereequallydisturbing.Eighty-twopercentofstudentsfeltthedepartmentshouldtakean"active"or"veryactive"roleinthisprocess,whileonly22%feltthatanactiveorveryactiverolewasactuallytaken.14Theperceptionsoffacultywerenotmuchdifferentfromthoseofthestudents.Ninety-ninepercentof2,000facultymemberssurveyedfeltthat"academicsshouldexercisecollectiveresponsibilityfortheprofessionalconductoftheirgraduatestudents;"only27%ofthesefacultyfeltthattheyfollowedthroughwiththisresponsibility.15Thesedataprovideevidencetoindicatethatindividualmentoringisalessthanadequateteachingmethodforethics.Ifthemajorityofstudentsdonotreceivementoringthatleavesthemwithaclearunderstandingoftheirresponsibilitiesasscientists,thencasesofunintentionalmisconductandquestionablepracticeareinevitable.16TheroleandimportanceofethicseducationhavebeguntoberecognizedbytheNIH.GuidelinesforNIFresearchtraininggrantsnowrequireaminimalnumberofhoursofethicseducatio'1.Ethicsneednotbetaughtwithinasinglegraduatecourse,butitisbeginningtoberecognizedthateducationinthebasicconventionsofthefieldandinthebasicapproachestoethicaldecisionmakingcannolongerbelefttoone-on-onementoringalone.Astheever-dwindlingavailabilityofresearchfundsfuelsthefireofcompetition,therewillbeincreasedpressureonscientiststobendorbreakrules.Researchlaboratories,particularlylargegroupswheresomestudentsrarelyseetheirfacultyadvisers,cannotbeassumedtoteachresearchethics,oreventotrainstudentsinallresearchconventions.17Whetherscientificethicsisapproachedthroughasinglecourseoraseriesofcoursesorseminarsthroughoutthegraduatecurriculum,ithasbecomeobviousthatstudentsneedexposuretoethicsinanumberofcontexts.Researchethicscanandmustbetaughtinaformalizedmanner.Itisourbeliefthatcoursesinresearchethicsthatincorporateasolidphilosophicalframeworkhavethegreatestpotentialforlong-termusefulnesstostudents.(1902words)不足45%的学生认为他们定期的得到了很多有益的批评教育。但在大多数情况下，学生们觉得他们的师长并没有和他们建立那种他们希望的导师制关系，一种可以从中学习到的一个科学家需要具备的学术道德的关系。13.在辨别和应对学科领域的道德问题方面，Swazey让学生们比较所在院系应起的作用和实际所起的作用，结果同样令人担忧。82%的学生觉得院系应该起到“积极的”或“非常积极的”作用，而只有22%的学生认为所在院系起到了“积极的”和“非常积极的”作用。14.教职人员和学生们的看法没有多大的不同。在接受调查的2000名教职人员中，有99%的人认为“学者们”应该对研究生的职业行为负有集体责任，而只有27%的教职人员认为他们履行了这一职责。15.这些数据提供的证据表明，单独的师生指导并不是最理想的道德教育方法。如果大多数学生所接受的指导，不能让他们清晰地了解科研工作者的职责所在，那么无意识的学术不端行为与可疑的学术不端行为将在所难免。16.美国国立卫生研究院首先认识到学术道德教育的作用和重要性。美国国立卫生研究院资助的研究培训指南要求用最短时间完成学术道德教育。学术道德不需要以单独一门课程讲授，但是人们开始认识到，学科基本惯例和道德决策的基本方法不能再仅仅依赖一对一的师生指导。由于科研基金数量持续减少，业内的竞争愈发激烈，更多的科学家将迫于压力而打破规则。尤其是在大型的研究实验室，学生很少能见到他们的指导教师，所以无法指望实验室教授学术道德，培养学生科研规范。17.无论科研伦理是通过一个课程，一系列课程或是穿插在研究生课程中的研讨班来学习，学生显然需要更多的机会接触学术道德。研究伦理需要而且必须以正式的方式教授。我们相信，在坚实的哲学理论框架指引下，学术伦理课程一定会给广大学子带来长远的益处。英译汉Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinthefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichinclude“otherquestionablebehavior”or“othermisconduct.”Withinthisconfusionofdefinitionsitisnotalwaysobvioustostudentsorfacultywhereandtowardwhomtheirobligationslie.汉译英Researchersshouldtelleveryparticipantaboutallthecharacteristicsanddetailsofthestudy,thoughsuchanactmayaffectthewillingnessofsubjects.Researchersshouldalsotrytoanswerorexplainanyquestionabouttheexperimentfromsubjects.Franknessandsincerityaresupposedtobeessentialtotherelationshipbetweenresearchersandsubjects.Whenresearchershavetohidefromordeceivesubjectsformethodologicalreasons,theyneedtohavesubjectsunderstandthereasonsfordoingsoandtrytorecovertheiroriginalrelationships.Researchersshouldrespectthesubjects’rightsandfreedomtorefuseorterminatetheirparticipationinthestudyatanytime.Thispointisevenmoresalientwhenresearchershavehigherpower-relationshipthansubjects.Asregardsthemoralacceptabilityofexperimentalproceduresandmeasures,theremustbeaclearandfairagreementreachedbyresearchersandsubjectsattheoutsetinordertoclarifyeachother’sresponsibility.Researchershavearesponsibilitytoabidebyandcomplywiththeprovisionsofcommitmentsandobligationsintheagreement.学术不端并不是能够简单评价的问题。其中一个重要问题是，在科学领域里，对于什么样的行为有违伦理规范，应当受到惩罚，仍然模棱两可。工程，法律，和医学领域对道德行为的定义有明确的书面指导原则。虽然某些特别复杂的案例会挑战这些原则的底线，但多数原则具有指导意义。科学研究也并不提供书面的行为准则。联邦政府和私人机构一直试图阐明学术不端行为的裁定标准，比如一些描述科研不端行为的核心定义，包括编造，篡改和等等。然而这些行为容易与包含“可疑行为”在内的其他不太确定的类别相互混淆。这些混淆的定义让学生和教职人员也不是很清楚他们到底承担哪些责任和义务？研究者应告诉所有参加研究的被试有关研究的一切特点和细节，尽管这样做也许会影响被试参加实验的意愿，但还是应该这样做。研究者应对被试提出关于实验的各种问题给予解释和回答。坦率和诚恳应当是研究者和被试之间关系的基本点。当研究出于方法上的需要不得不向被试隐瞒或欺骗时，研究者必须设法让被试理解这样做的理由，并力求回复两者之间原有的关系。研究者应尊重被试在研究中任何时候自由提出拒绝参加或终止实验的要求，特别是当研究者的权力高于被试时，更需要注意这一点。有关实验步骤和措施在道德上的可接受性，应该在一开始就要在研究者和被试之间达成明确和公正的一致意见，明确每个人的责任。研究者有责任遵守和履行协议中规定的承诺和义务。UNIT31.MostAmericanswouldhaveadifficulttimetellingyou,specifically,whatthevaluesarethatAmericansliveby.Theyhavenevergiventhemattermuchthought.2.EvenifAmericanshadconsideredthisquestion,theywouldprobably,intheend,decidenottoanswerintermsofadefinitivelistofvalues.ThereasonforthisdecisionisitselfoneveryAmericanvalue—theirbeliefthateveryindividualissouniquethatthesamelistofvaluescouldneverbeappliedtoall,orevenmost,oftheirfellowcitizens.3.AlthoughAmericansmaythinkofthemselvesasbeingmorevariedandunpredictablethantheyactuallyare,itissignificantthattheythinktheyare.Americanstendtothinktheyhavebeenonlyslightlyinfluencedbyfamily,churchorschools.Intheend,eachbelieves,“IpersonallychosewhichvaluesIwanttolivemyownlifeby.”4.Thedifferentbehaviorsofapeopleoraculturemakesenseonlywhenseenthroughthebasicbeliefs,assumptionsandvaluesofthatparticulargroup.Whenyouencounteranaction,orhearastatementintheUnitedStatesthatsurprisesyou,trytoseeitasanexpressionofoneormoreofthevalueslistedhere.5.Beforeproceedingtothelistitself,weshouldalsopointoutthatAmericansseeallofthesevaluesasverypositiveones.Theyarenotaware,forexample,thatthepeopleinmanyThirdWorldcountriesviewsomeofthesevaluesasnegativeorthreatening.Infact,alloftheseAmericanvaluesarejudgedbymanyoftheworld’scitizensasnegativeandundesirable.Therefore,itisnotenoughsimplytofamiliarizeyourselfwiththesevalues.Youmustalso,sofaraspossible,considerthemwithoutthenegativeorderogatoryconnotationthattheymighthaveforyou,basedonyourownexperienceandculturalidentity.PersonalControlovertheEnvironment6.AmericansnolongerbelieveinthepowerofFate,andtheyhavecometolookatpeoplewhodoasbeingbackward,primitive,orhopelesslynaive.Tobecalled“fatalistic”isoneoftheworstcriticismsonecanreceiveintheAmericancontext;toanAmerican,itmeansoneissuperstitiousandlazy,unwillingtotakeanyinitiativeinbringingaboutimprovement.7.IntheUnitedStates,peopleconsideritnormalandrightthatManshouldcontrolNature,ratherthantheotherwayaround.Morespecifically,peoplebelieveeverysingleindividualshouldhavecontroloverwhateverintheenvironmentmightpotentiallyaffecthimorher.大多数美国人在谈起其赖以生存的价值观时会感到力不从心。他们从未仔细考虑过价值观这个问题。2.即使美国人考虑过这个问题，他们最终也不可能决定以一张明确的价值观清单来回答。做出这样的一个决定，本身就是一个非常美国式的价值观——他们相信每个个体都是独一无二的，相同的价值观永远也不可能适用于所有的美国公民，甚至不能适用于大多数公民。3.尽管美国人可能认为他们自己比实际看上去更加变幻莫测，但重要的是他们的确认为自己变幻莫测。美国人普遍认为他们受家庭、教会或学校影响很轻微。最终，每个人都认为“我个人会根据自己生活方式选择我的价值观”。4.一个民族的不同行为方式或者一种文化之所以有意义，是因为人们通过该民族的基本信仰、看法和价值观念来看待它们。在美国，如果某一个行为或某一句话使你感到吃惊，那么你可以将其与下面罗列的价值观对号入座。5.在探讨这个清单之前,有必要指出美国人认为这些价值观是充满正能量的。他们没有意识到许多第三世界国家的人们可能认为其中一些价值观是消极或者可怕的。事实上,许多外国人认为美国人的这些价值观是消极和不受欢迎的。因此，仅仅熟悉这些价值观是不够的，还必须尽可能做到不因自身经历和文化身份而对这些价值观有负面和贬损的看法。对环境的自我把握

6.美国人不再相信命运的力量，那些相信此道的人被认为是落后、原始和极其幼稚的。在美国语境下，“宿命论者”是对一个人最糟糕的评价之一；对美国人来说，这一评价意味着这个人迷信、懒惰且不思进取。7.在美国,人们认为人定胜天,而非受制于自然的观点既正常又正确。更确切地说，人们相信每个人都应该控制周围环境中任何可能影响到自己的因素。Theproblemsofone’slifearenotseenashavingresultedfrombadluckasmuchashavingcomefromone’slazinessinpursuingabetterlife.Furthermore,itisconsiderednormalthatanyoneshouldlookoutforhisorherownself-interestsfirstandforemost.TimeandItsControl8.Timeis,fortheaverageAmerican,ofutmostimportance.Totheforeignvisitor,Americansseemtobemoreconcernedwithgettingthingsaccomplishedontime(accordingtoapredeterminedschedule)thantheyarewithdevelopingdeepinterpersonalrelations.Schedules,fortheAmerican,aremeanttobeplannedandthenfollowedinthesmallestdetail.9.ItmayseemtoyouthatmostAmericansarecompletelycontrolledbythelittlemachinestheywearontheirwrists,cuttingtheirdiscussionsoffabruptlytomakeittotheirnextappointmentontime.10.Americans’languageisfilledwithreferencestotime,givingaclearindicationofhowmuchitisvalued.Timeissomethingtobe“on,”tobe“kept,”“filled,”“saved,”“used,”“spent,”“wasted,”“lost,”“gained,”“planned,”“given,”“madethemostof,”even“killed.”11.Theinternationalvisitorsoonlearnsthatitisconsideredveryrudetobelate—evenby10minutes—foranappointmentintheUnitedStates.(Wheneveritisabsolutelyimpossibletobeontime,youshouldphoneaheadandtellthepersonyouhavebeenunavoidablydetainedandwillbeahalfhour—orwhatever—late.)Equality12.Equalityis,forAmericans,oneoftheirmostcherishedvalues.ThisconceptissoimportantforAmericansthattheyhaveevengivenitareligiousbasis.Theysayallpeoplehavebeen“createdequal.”MostAmericansbelievethatGodviewsallhumansalikewithoutregardtointelligence,physicalconditionoreconomicstatus.Inseculartermsthisbeliefistranslatedintotheassertionthatallpeoplehaveanequalopportunitytosucceedinlife.Americansdifferinopinionabouthowtomakethisidealintoareality.Yetvirtuallyallagreethatequalityisanimportantcivicandsocialgoal.13.TheequalityconceptoftenmakesAmericansseemstrangetoforeignvisitors.Seven-eighthsoftheworldfeelsquitedifferently.Tothem,rankandstatusandauthorityareseenasmuchmoredesirableconsiderations—eveniftheypersonallyhappentofindthemselvesnearthebottomofthesocialorder.Classandauthorityseemtogivepeopleinthoseothersocietiesasenseofsecurityandcertainty.PeopleoutsidetheUnitedStatesconsideritreassuringtoknow,frombirth,whotheyareandwheretheyfitintothecomplexsystemcalled“society.”一个人在追求美好生活的过程中出现挫折人们不认为是因为运气差，而是由自己的懒惰所导致。而且，人们认为如果一个人把追寻个人利益放在第一位是很正常的。把握时间

8.对普通美国人来说，时间至关重要。在外国人看来，美国人似乎更关注按时（根据预定的日程表）完成任务而不是发展深层人际关系。美国人认为，哪怕最小的细节也必须在日程安排中列出来并付诸实施。

9.你或许会觉得美国人完全被戴在手腕上的那个小玩意所控制着，为了能准时赴下一个约会，他们会突然打断谈话。10.美国人的语言中充斥着时间的指示词，这也暗示出人们对于时间的重视程度。时间可以遵守、填补、节省、利用、度过，浪费、失去、赢得、计划、给予，充分利用，甚至可以消磨。11.外国人很快就会发现，在美国与人约会，即使迟到十分钟就会被认为是很不礼貌的行为。如果实在无法准时到达，应事先打个电话告诉不得不久等你的人你将迟到半小时或怎样。平等

12.平等是美国人最珍视的价值理念之一，美国人也因此而赋予这一理念以宗教基础。他们说人“生来平等”。大多数美国人相信上帝会平等地看待每一个人，而不考虑其智力、体力或经济方面的差异。通俗地说，这种信仰被解释为一种信念，即每个人都有平等获得成功的机会。美国人在如何把这种理想转化为现实的看法方面存在分歧，然而人们一致认为平等是公民和社会共同追求的重要目标。13.这种关于平等的理念常使外国人感到美国人不可思议。十之八九的外国人并不认同这一理念。对他们来说，等级、地位和权威是人们更加向往的东西，即使他们碰巧发现自己接近社会次序的底层。等级和权威似乎能给那些其他国家的人一种安全感和确定感。美国以外的人认为一个人从刚一出生就知道自己是谁、属于被称之为“社会”的复杂体系的哪个阶层会让人感到宽慰。14.Manyhighly-placedforeignvisitorstotheUnitedStatesareinsultedbythewaytheyaretreatedbyservicepersonnel(suchaswaitersinrestaurants,clerksinstores,taxidrivers,etc.).Americanshaveanaversiontotreatingpeopleofhighpositioninadeferentialmanner,and,converselyoftentreatlowerclasspeopleasiftheywereveryimportant.NewcomerstotheUnitedStatesshouldrealizethatnoinsultorpersonalindignityisintendedbythislackofdeferencetorankorpositioninsociety.Aforeignershouldbepreparedtobeconsidered“justlikeanybodyelse”whileinthecountry.IndividualismandPrivacy15.Americansthinktheyaremoreindividualistintheirthoughtsandactionsthan,infact,theyare.Theyresistbeingthoughtofasrepresentativesofahomogenousgroup,whateverthegroup.Theymay,anddo,joingroups—infactmanygroups—butsomehowbelievethey’rejustalittledifferent,justalittleunique,justalittlespecial,fromothermembersofthesamegroup.Andtheytendtoleavegroupsaseasilyastheyenterthem.16.Privacy,theultimateresultofindividualismisperhapsevenmoredifficultfortheforeignertocomprehend.Theword“privacy”doesnotevenexistinmanylanguages.Ifitdoes,itislikelytohaveastronglynegativeconnotation,suggestinglonelinessorisolationfromthegroup.IntheUnitedStates,privacyisnotonlyseenasaverypositivecondition,butitisalsoviewedasarequirementthatallhumanswouldfindequallynecessary,desirableandsatisfying.ItisnotuncommonforAmericanstosay—andbelieve—suchstatementsas“IfIdon’thaveatleasthalfanhouradaytomyself,Iwillgostarkmad.”Action/WorkOrientation17.“Don’tjuststandthere,”goesatypicalbitofAmericanadvice,“dosomething!”Thisexpressionisnormallyusedinacrisissituation,yet,inasense,itdescribesmostAmerican’sentirewakinglife,whereaction—anyaction—isseentobesuperiortoinaction.18.Americansroutinelyplanandscheduleanextremelyactiveday.Anyrelaxationmustbelimitedintime,pre-planned,andaimedat“recreating”theirabilitytoworkharderandmoreproductivelyoncetherecreationisover.Americansbelieveleisureactivitiesshouldconsumearelativelysmallportionofone’stotallife.Peoplethinkthatitis“sinful”to“wasteone’stime,”“tositarounddoingnothing,”orjustto“daydream.”

19.Sucha“nononsense”attitudetowardlifehascreatedmanypeoplewhohavecometobeknown