The education industry is a far-reaching, innovative and rapidly evolving field of business. To ensure success and integrity in the education industry, organisations and companies strive to deliver high-quality products and services in an efficient and ethical manner. Education research plays an important part in the education industry by underpinning product and service developments, and through illustrating impact. Organisations and companies also share these research claims when marketing to potential customers and investors. However, there can sometimes exist a disjunction between those conducting research and those responsible for interpreting the research for the purpose of public dissemination. This article first investigates what constitutes an education research claim. The risks associated with such claims are then identified and a review process suggested so educational bodies can ensure accuracy and ethicality in their claims. Adopting a case study approach, educational claims-making is contextualised from the stance and perspective of a typical international awarding organisation.
{"title":"Research claims within the education industry: managing reflective practice","authors":"Sinéad Fitzsimons, Stuart Shaw","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.36","url":null,"abstract":"The education industry is a far-reaching, innovative and rapidly evolving field of business. To ensure success and integrity in the education industry, organisations and companies strive to deliver high-quality products and services in an efficient and ethical manner. Education research plays an important part in the education industry by underpinning product and service developments, and through illustrating impact. Organisations and companies also share these research claims when marketing to potential customers and investors. However, there can sometimes exist a disjunction between those conducting research and those responsible for interpreting the research for the purpose of public dissemination. This article first investigates what constitutes an education research claim. The risks associated with such claims are then identified and a review process suggested so educational bodies can ensure accuracy and ethicality in their claims. Adopting a case study approach, educational claims-making is contextualised from the stance and perspective of a typical international awarding organisation.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66996678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book review: Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, autocrats, and the future of higher education, by John Aubrey Douglass","authors":"P. Altbach, Tessa DeLaquil","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.35","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42870610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The school curriculum is a vital battlefield on which versions of the ‘good society’ are fought over. For much of the past five decades, the educational left has been losing that battle. Optimistic calls for a curriculum to support a ‘common culture’ fragmented in the face of economic, social and cultural changes. This article charts debates about curriculum and culture, focusing on the work of the sociologist of education Michael Young, who spent his academic life at the IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). It surveys the educational arguments of the New Left in the 1960s, the turn towards knowledge and control and neo-Marxism in the 1970s, the failed modernisations of the 1990s and the influence of postmodern culture on curriculum and school subjects. Finally, it assesses recent moves to reassert the importance of knowledge over skills and processes. The crisis in curriculum is reflective of wider crises in British society, and, it is suggested, Young offers a guide to what comes next.
{"title":"Knowledge, culture and the curriculum in Britain, 1944 to the present","authors":"J. Morgan","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.34","url":null,"abstract":"The school curriculum is a vital battlefield on which versions of the ‘good society’ are fought over. For much of the past five decades, the educational left has been losing that battle. Optimistic calls for a curriculum to support a ‘common culture’ fragmented in the face of economic, social and cultural changes. This article charts debates about curriculum and culture, focusing on the work of the sociologist of education Michael Young, who spent his academic life at the IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). It surveys the educational arguments of the New Left in the 1960s, the turn towards knowledge and control and neo-Marxism in the 1970s, the failed modernisations of the 1990s and the influence of postmodern culture on curriculum and school subjects. Finally, it assesses recent moves to reassert the importance of knowledge over skills and processes. The crisis in curriculum is reflective of wider crises in British society, and, it is suggested, Young offers a guide to what comes next.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46577207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article expands on Aldrich and Woodin’s contributions on the development of primary teacher education at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). It focuses on the Primary Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE); the years before it began and its development between 1977 and 1986. Relevant literature and first-hand accounts provide background and progress. Events leading to the establishment of the Primary PGCE at IOE are discussed, before describing the course itself with its vicissitudes and progress, and internal and external politics. Changes in emphasis and structure are reviewed, together with the influences of central government and its education departments. Demographics of population decline and growth are relevant to the progress of the Primary PGCE, which grew numerically and in stature. Key organisational and structural developments of the Primary PGCE are discussed. It will be seen how the IOE itself and Early Years and Primary courses, with its staff, influence policy and practice, internally and externally. The article concludes that the primary initial teacher education remains unfinished business.
{"title":"The development of primary teacher education at the Institute of Education (London), 1977–1986","authors":"Rosemary G Davis","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.33","url":null,"abstract":"This article expands on Aldrich and Woodin’s contributions on the development of primary teacher education at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). It focuses on the Primary Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE); the years before it began and its development between 1977 and 1986. Relevant literature and first-hand accounts provide background and progress. Events leading to the establishment of the Primary PGCE at IOE are discussed, before describing the course itself with its vicissitudes and progress, and internal and external politics. Changes in emphasis and structure are reviewed, together with the influences of central government and its education departments. Demographics of population decline and growth are relevant to the progress of the Primary PGCE, which grew numerically and in stature. Key organisational and structural developments of the Primary PGCE are discussed. It will be seen how the IOE itself and Early Years and Primary courses, with its staff, influence policy and practice, internally and externally. The article concludes that the primary initial teacher education remains unfinished business.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48234022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent debate has highlighted the Important significance of social partnership in further education for developing new approaches to English vocational education and training (VET). There is international evidence of the contribution that well-established social partnerships between employers, unions and government can make to deliver VET effectively. It is argued that in England VET can benefit from adopting and embedding social partnership models, especially ones in which further education (FE) colleges have a local and regional anchoring role. However, to date, England has persistently failed to implement any kind of significant social partnership for various reasons – a crucial one being government reliance on an employer-led approach to VET. A prerequisite for developing social partnership in further education is to identify and garner support for promising governance and cooperation structures. Such identification foregrounds a conception of a rich civil society and economy, with local and regional partnerships being essential enablers. An examination of FE colleges as part of a VET system reviews the benefits of establishing a coordinated skills system providing coherent local, regional and national pathways for vocational, technical and skilled work. Such a national VET system would integrate universities, employer training, the school curriculum and careers.
{"title":"Developing English VET through social partnership in further education","authors":"N. Crowther, M. Addis, C. Winch","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.32","url":null,"abstract":"Recent debate has highlighted the Important significance of social partnership in further education for developing new approaches to English vocational education and training (VET). There is international evidence of the contribution that well-established social partnerships between employers, unions and government can make to deliver VET effectively. It is argued that in England VET can benefit from adopting and embedding social partnership models, especially ones in which further education (FE) colleges have a local and regional anchoring role. However, to date, England has persistently failed to implement any kind of significant social partnership for various reasons – a crucial one being government reliance on an employer-led approach to VET. A prerequisite for developing social partnership in further education is to identify and garner support for promising governance and cooperation structures. Such identification foregrounds a conception of a rich civil society and economy, with local and regional partnerships being essential enablers. An examination of FE colleges as part of a VET system reviews the benefits of establishing a coordinated skills system providing coherent local, regional and national pathways for vocational, technical and skilled work. Such a national VET system would integrate universities, employer training, the school curriculum and careers.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48992755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK) has a long tradition of engagement with schools to support young children’s learning and co-produce knowledge through research–practice partnerships. From the first demonstration schools in the early 1900s to engagement with contemporary research schools, the vital importance of linking theory and practice in education through schools has been an integral part of the IOE’s values and ethos. One way to link theory to practice is to utilise participatory research methodologies to embed evidence in practice. This article discusses the research project Manor Park Talks, undertaken in collaboration with IOE and a leading partner, a head teacher and IOE alumnus of the East London Teaching and Research School. The aim of the project was to support early language and communication in a cluster of early years settings in Newham, London, and it involved a process of co-production in the design of a systematic review to assess the evidence-based pedagogical strategies that can be used to inform teaching practices to enhance the professional development of early years education practitioners (to include teachers, classroom assistants, childcare workers and other ancillary staff). The research aimed to evaluate a community of practice for early years practitioners to support young children’s early language development and communication, and to inform an evidence-based practice tool to guide teaching practices in early years settings. A commentary on the review findings and methodological innovation of the study in using a participatory approach to review the evidence is provided in this article.
IOE（教育研究所）是伦敦大学学院教育与社会学院（英国伦敦大学学院）与学校合作的悠久传统，通过研究与实践伙伴关系支持幼儿的学习并共同创造知识。从20世纪初的第一所示范学校到与当代研究学校的合作，通过学校将教育中的理论和实践联系起来的重要性一直是IOE价值观和精神的组成部分。将理论与实践联系起来的一种方法是利用参与式研究方法将证据嵌入实践。本文讨论了与IOE及其主要合作伙伴、东伦敦教学与研究学院的班主任和IOE校友合作开展的研究项目Manor Park Talks。该项目的目的是在伦敦纽汉的一组早期环境中支持早期语言和交流，它涉及一个共同制作的过程，设计一个系统审查，以评估循证教学策略，这些策略可用于为教学实践提供信息，以促进早期教育从业者（包括教师、课堂助理、儿童保育工作者和其他辅助人员）的专业发展。该研究旨在评估早期从业者的实践社区，以支持幼儿的早期语言发展和沟通，并为指导早期教学实践的循证实践工具提供信息。本文对使用参与式方法审查证据的审查结果和研究的方法创新进行了评论。
{"title":"A participatory approach to embedding evidence in practice to support early language and communication in a London nursery school","authors":"S. Harmey, L. Ang, Julian Grenier","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.31","url":null,"abstract":"IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK) has a long tradition of engagement with schools to support young children’s learning and co-produce knowledge through research–practice partnerships. From the first demonstration schools in the early 1900s to engagement with contemporary research schools, the vital importance of linking theory and practice in education through schools has been an integral part of the IOE’s values and ethos. One way to link theory to practice is to utilise participatory research methodologies to embed evidence in practice. This article discusses the research project Manor Park Talks, undertaken in collaboration with IOE and a leading partner, a head teacher and IOE alumnus of the East London Teaching and Research School. The aim of the project was to support early language and communication in a cluster of early years settings in Newham, London, and it involved a process of co-production in the design of a systematic review to assess the evidence-based pedagogical strategies that can be used to inform teaching practices to enhance the professional development of early years education practitioners (to include teachers, classroom assistants, childcare workers and other ancillary staff). The research aimed to evaluate a community of practice for early years practitioners to support young children’s early language development and communication, and to inform an evidence-based practice tool to guide teaching practices in early years settings. A commentary on the review findings and methodological innovation of the study in using a participatory approach to review the evidence is provided in this article.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45431956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, we examine our own doctoral supervisory dialogue as it has been institutionally interrupted due to Ahmad’s application for asylum in the UK. As we find ourselves lacking the conditions of recognisability required for our actions to be institutionally understood (or made intelligible) as part of a doctoral supervisory relationship, we are left with a sense of futility of how scholarly work preoccupied with social justice may confront, let alone transform, the larger sociopolitical realities with which we aim to engage. In the light of calls to turn precarity into a productive pedagogical space for ethical action – often regarded as a ‘pedagogy for precarity’, we draw from Blommaert’s (2005) sociolinguistic theory of voice to account for how we attempted to become recognisable to each other throughout the course of our supervisory meetings. In so doing, we reflect on the implications of our analysis for politically engaged academic research, while linking with wider language scholarship on the possibility for, and imaginability of, social transformation in higher education spaces.
{"title":"Pressing times, losing voice: critique and transformative spaces in higher education","authors":"Ahmad Jaber (Benswait), M. Pérez-Milans","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.30","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we examine our own doctoral supervisory dialogue as it has been institutionally interrupted due to Ahmad’s application for asylum in the UK. As we find ourselves lacking the conditions of recognisability required for our actions to be institutionally understood (or made intelligible) as part of a doctoral supervisory relationship, we are left with a sense of futility of how scholarly work preoccupied with social justice may confront, let alone transform, the larger sociopolitical realities with which we aim to engage. In the light of calls to turn precarity into a productive pedagogical space for ethical action – often regarded as a ‘pedagogy for precarity’, we draw from Blommaert’s (2005) sociolinguistic theory of voice to account for how we attempted to become recognisable to each other throughout the course of our supervisory meetings. In so doing, we reflect on the implications of our analysis for politically engaged academic research, while linking with wider language scholarship on the possibility for, and imaginability of, social transformation in higher education spaces.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45178896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the influence of Stephen Ball’s work through the eyes of two former teachers turned academics who met through a mutual interest in his paper, ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’. We note our personal reactions to this particular paper and how Ball’s body of work has and continues to influence our thinking, careers and research. We note that his highly readable, provocative style of writing and passionate denunciation of league tables, inspections and the associated paraphernalia of control that appear central to neoliberal models of educational governance continue to prove useful in understanding global educational policy. This article also critically engages with the effects of such a seminal paper on the lived experience of the teaching profession. The first author argues that while Ball’s writing is useful to understand the pressures and struggles that teachers face, Ball’s use of Foucauldian notions such as ‘docile bodies’ and ‘subject-position’ can be seen to flatten out teachers, rendering them passive bystanders rather than agentic professionals. The second author revisits and recalls the influence of the paper on her early work, particularly on her concept of ‘panoptic performativity’, and the impact that the paper, and Stephen Ball’s work in general, continues to have on the wider field.
{"title":"Beyond the ‘terrors of performativity’: dichotomies, identities and escaping the panopticon","authors":"C. Goodley, Jane Perryman","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.29","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the influence of Stephen Ball’s work through the eyes of two former teachers turned academics who met through a mutual interest in his paper, ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’. We note our personal reactions to this particular paper and how Ball’s body of work has and continues to influence our thinking, careers and research. We note that his highly readable, provocative style of writing and passionate denunciation of league tables, inspections and the associated paraphernalia of control that appear central to neoliberal models of educational governance continue to prove useful in understanding global educational policy. This article also critically engages with the effects of such a seminal paper on the lived experience of the teaching profession. The first author argues that while Ball’s writing is useful to understand the pressures and struggles that teachers face, Ball’s use of Foucauldian notions such as ‘docile bodies’ and ‘subject-position’ can be seen to flatten out teachers, rendering them passive bystanders rather than agentic professionals. The second author revisits and recalls the influence of the paper on her early work, particularly on her concept of ‘panoptic performativity’, and the impact that the paper, and Stephen Ball’s work in general, continues to have on the wider field.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47273968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Education and skills policy since the 1970s have exhorted employers to put themselves at the ‘heart of the system’, to engage voluntarily with colleges and other providers, in a range of roles and activities, some of which may be beyond their competence and experience. However, employers do have an important role to play, but that role should be clearly defined and directed towards those areas where their expertise and experience can be optimally deployed. To function effectively, a system requires partnership between a range of actors – learners, providers, local communities, businesses and voluntary organisations. Contributions and expectations, all of which are important, require coordination and management. It is argued that colleges are well placed to act as ‘anchor institutions’ for bringing together local partners. This article provides a practical example of how one large general further education college fulfils this role.
{"title":"‘Employers at the heart of the system’: whose system is it anyway?","authors":"Prue Huddleston, Suzie Branch-Haddow","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.28","url":null,"abstract":"Education and skills policy since the 1970s have exhorted employers to put themselves at the ‘heart of the system’, to engage voluntarily with colleges and other providers, in a range of roles and activities, some of which may be beyond their competence and experience. However, employers do have an important role to play, but that role should be clearly defined and directed towards those areas where their expertise and experience can be optimally deployed. To function effectively, a system requires partnership between a range of actors – learners, providers, local communities, businesses and voluntary organisations. Contributions and expectations, all of which are important, require coordination and management. It is argued that colleges are well placed to act as ‘anchor institutions’ for bringing together local partners. This article provides a practical example of how one large general further education college fulfils this role.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48525827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Across major anglophone college systems, institutions in various jurisdictions have gained the authority to award the bachelor’s degree. That prospect has come late to further education colleges in England. With its long history of teaching for the bachelor’s degree, the English road to awarding powers has features in common with and different from those in North America and Australia. In the modern-day literature on college higher education in England, little attention has been given to the bachelor’s degree in its own right. Accordingly, a summary history and a digest of quantitative and qualitative evidence are assembled. Domestic debates are reviewed. Issues for policy and research are signalled. In this way, a platform is provided by which to better connect with international debates and comparisons.
{"title":"The bachelor’s degree in college systems: history, evidence and argument from England","authors":"Jennifer Allen, G. Parry","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.26","url":null,"abstract":"Across major anglophone college systems, institutions in various jurisdictions have gained the authority to award the bachelor’s degree. That prospect has come late to further education colleges in England. With its long history of teaching for the bachelor’s degree, the English road to awarding powers has features in common with and different from those in North America and Australia. In the modern-day literature on college higher education in England, little attention has been given to the bachelor’s degree in its own right. Accordingly, a summary history and a digest of quantitative and qualitative evidence are assembled. Domestic debates are reviewed. Issues for policy and research are signalled. In this way, a platform is provided by which to better connect with international debates and comparisons.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48611619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：