英语翻译Among the disciplines or subdisciplines forwhich one might have expected to find anargument for their inclusion,the followingare perhaps the most conspicuous omissions:• sociology,especially in regard to the analy-sis of publi

英语翻译Among the disciplines or subdisciplines forwhich one might have expected to find anargument for their inclusion,the followingare perhaps the most conspicuous omissions:• sociology,especially in regard to the analy-sis of publi
英语翻译
Among the disciplines or subdisciplines for
which one might have expected to find an
argument for their inclusion,the following
are perhaps the most conspicuous omissions:
• sociology,especially in regard to the analy-
sis of public attitudes;
• the decision sciences,especially the analy-
sis of behaviour in the face of risk;
• international studies,particularly that sub-
specialism concerned with the understand-
ing of international resource regimes;
• organization studies and public adminis-
tration; and
• information technology and computer
sciences.
To what sort of topics might the inclusion of
individuals with expertise or interest in these
disciplines have been relevant?Here we offer
only a partial list:
• the public’s perception of risk,particularly
of new technologies (sociology,the decision
sciences);
• access to environmental information (soci-
ology,organization studies,public adminis-
tration,information technology);
• the reorganization of the administration of
pollution control (organizational studies
and public administration); and
• the construction of international regimes
for environmental protection (organization
studies,public administration,interna-
tional studies).
Although our list is only partial,these are all
topics that have been of central importance
across a number of the investigations that the
Royal Commission has undertaken.
If there were to be a useful contribution
from these disciplines,is it possible to say
why they have not been included?Without
knowing more than we currently do about the
selection process,the answer is that we can
only hazard some conjectures.Clearly,some
people with the relevant disciplinary back-
ground may have been considered for mem-
bership,but ultimately rejected because
someone else who was included had stronger
claims.(To test this properly would require
looking at the list of those ever considered for
membership,and these data are not,of
course,in the public domain – indeed,we
suspect that they are unlikely to be part of
any organization’s memory.) Alternative
reasons for passing over these disciplines
might be that some of the skills were already
thought to be covered in the existing member-
ship,for example organizational analysis
from those in industry,and international
studies from an international lawyer.To some
extent this must be true,given what we have
already said about the multiple claims which
some individuals will have,and the upper
bound on the number of people it is sensible
to have on such a body.
还有1~2部分没发完

英语翻译Among the disciplines or subdisciplines forwhich one might have expected to find anargument for their inclusion,the followingare perhaps the most conspicuous omissions:• sociology,especially in regard to the analy-sis of publi
在纪律和非纪律之间有一方需发现争论点在他们的结论当中,以下可能是主要的点：
社会学,关注于公共态度的分析
决定性科学,面对危险时的行为分析
国际间学习,关注于国际资源的制度的理解
组织性学习和公共管理
信息技术和电脑科学
对于这些话题,个人的意见或兴趣小组相关的知识,以下我们提供一部分：
公共冒险的几率,特别是新技术（社会学,决定性科学）
进入环境学信息（社会学,组织性学习,公共管理,信息技术）
污染控制的管理的认知（组织性学习,公共管理）
环境保护的国际社会制度的构建（组织性学习,公共管理,国际间学习）
虽然我们只是列了一部分,但是这却包含皇家委员会所调查的所有的重要的部分.
如果有利于纪律吃的话,那可以说为什么都包括了?除了我们现在知道的,答案是我们有些猜想.明显的,一些人跟纪律背景相关的会被认为是其成员,但大部分否定是因为有些人有强烈的反对意识.最后通过的原因是纪律很有可能是一些技术存在于成员之间.例如在这些工厂和国际性学习的组织性分析来自于国际间的律师.在某种程度上是真的,我们已经反复宣称的个人可能有的,这样来说是明智的.