Chinese to English: Epistemological Limitation in Deliberative Democracy: Reflections on the Case of Taiwan General field: Social Sciences
Source text - Chinese 審議民主的支持者認為，審議民主一方面可以通過公民們集思廣益的辯難來避免專家政治的知識獨斷（民主原則），另一方面又能夠經由公民們追求「共善」的理性論證來提升民主決策的品質（知識原則），審議民主因此是通過「多元」與「審議」來兼顧公共決策中的民主參與與專業理性。本文首先從審議民主的文獻爭論中指出，知識原則與民主原則其實存在著矛盾，主要是因為審議民主的理論爭議中，對何謂「理性審議」欠缺一個知識論的說明。在第二部分我們論證，專業知識之所以被認為比常識優越，是因為傳統上認為它是邏輯有效與經驗客觀的，但是「客觀的」經驗事實其實是滿載理論意義的（theory-laden），而理論的邏輯有效性是跟其它配套理論形成一種網絡式的互相解釋。因此知識真值的成立存在著一種內在的不確定性。這種不確定性使得各種可能的理性觀點平等地浮現。因此，一個共識或公共決策得以做成，必須依靠某種超越這些同等理性的觀點之決斷，這個決斷本質上就是一種權力的支配。因此，審議民主一方面雖然可以解釋為決策權力的民主化，但是同時也是一種倚賴知識為工具來進行的權力支配活動。在第三部分中，我們則以高雄跨港纜車公民共識會議為例，說明它的舉辦、爭議過程與最後的共識是如何在各種知識與權力的歷史條件中互動產生的。
Translation - English Advocates of deliberative democracy argue that pooling the collective wisdom of citizens through debate and deliberation not only avoids the perils of a “knowledge dictatorship” by technocrats (the democratic principle), but can also raise the quality of democratic decision making by way of pursuit of the “common good” through rational argumentation (the knowledge principle). Deliberative democracy is therefore said to combine the principles of “deliberation” and “diversity” to achieve both democratic participation and professionalism in the public decision-making process. However, this paper argues that in the literature on democratic deliberation, there is a contradiction between the democratic principle and the knowledge principle. This is mainly because the theoretical literature lacks an epistemology of rational deliberation. The paper then goes on to argue that professional or specialized knowledge is believed to be superior to more general forms of knowledge due to an intellectual tradition that supposes the former is logically valid and empirically objective. However, the concept of an “objective” empirical knowledge is theory laden, while the idea of “logically validity” can only be understood in the context of a wider system of mutually supporting theory. Therefore, the true value of knowledge is inherently uncertain. This uncertainty opens the possibility of multiple rival “rational” points of view. In order to arrive at consensus and make policy decisions, it is necessary to decide between various competing positions, all of them claiming to be “rational”. Ultimately, the decision on which of these positions to adopt comes down to the issue of power. Therefore, although deliberative democracy can be viewed as the democratization of the authority to make decisions on public policy, it is also a form of power domination reproduced by certain forms of knowledge. In the final part, we consider the example of the citizen consensus conference on the Kaohsiung Cross-Harbor Cable Car project, and seek to explain how historical production of knowledge and power impacted the organization, deliberative process, and final consensus produced by these meetings.
Chinese to English: Survey on Relationship with Suppliers General field: Social Sciences Detailed field: Business/Commerce (general)
Source text - Chinese 本研究以1500大製造業資料為母體，隨機抽取1/2，共750家企業為樣本，Ю業實際負責與供應商接觸之採購部門主管，或實際負責執行採購任務之資深專員，然後依其與該企業往來之最關鍵供應廠商之經驗情境作答。為實證跨期交叉效度，本研究進行兩期的問卷發放作業，第一期研究之問卷發放於2006年4月15日，第二期研究之問卷發放於2007年4月15日。問卷經一次寄發與一次跟催後，第一期研究共計有效回收問卷為211份，有效回收率為28.13%；第二期研究共計有效回收問卷為215份，有效回收率為28.7%。
Translation - English This population for this study is 1,500 major manufacturing companies. Half the population, or 750 companies, are selected by random sampling. In each business, either a manager in the purchasing department who is responsible for communicating with suppliers or a senior member of staff responsible for purchasing is selected to answer questions based on their experience of interacting with their company’s most important suppliers. In order to show cross-validation across time, questionnaires were distributed in two stages. The first stage took place on April 15, 2006 and the second stage took place on April 15, 2007. After each questionnaire was distributed, a follow up was made if necessary. In the first stage, a total of 211 questionnaires were returned giving an effective response rate of 28.13%. In the second stage, a total of 215 questionnaires were returned, giving an effective response rate of 28.7%.
Years of translation experience: 11. Registered at ProZ.com: Nov 2012. Became a member: Dec 2013.
I am a native English speaker from the United Kingdom, but I have been a resident of Taiwan for more than ten years. I received my language training at the Mandarin Training Center of National Taiwan Normal University. Although I began learning Chinese using traditional Chinese characters, I am now equally proficient translating from traditional or simplified texts.
I have extensive experience in academic translations. My translations have appeared in a large number of journals across a range of disciplines, including: Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, The International Journal of Cultural and Creative Industries, Journal of Sustainable Development, and Asian Survey. I also do translation work in other fields, including tourism, marketing, finance, business, commerce, manufacturing, mobile applications, and games. I have six years and over 1 million characters of translation experience.
Aside from freelance translation work, I am a senior translator at Gengo.com, responsible for translator recruitment, ensuring quality of translation work, and reviewing translator performance. I have a PhD in political science from the National Taiwan University.
Keywords: Chinese, English, political science, social science, science, mathematics, tourism, marketing, finance, business, commerce, manufacturing