Causal (mis)understanding and the search for scientific explanations: a case study from the history of medicine
Leen De Vreese
Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science
Ghent University
Blandijnberg 2
B-9000 Ghent
Belgium
Leen.DeVreese@UGent.be
Abstract
In 1747, James Lind carried out an experiment which proved the usefulness of citrus fruit as a cure for scurvy. Nonetheless, he rejected the earlier hypothesis of Bachstrom that the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables was the only cause of the disease. I explain why it was rational for James Lind not to accept Bachstrom’s explanation. I argue that it was the urge for scientific understanding that guided Lind in his rejection and in the development of his alternative theory that humidity was the primary cause of the disease. Central in this process was the search for causal mechanisms which could provide understanding of how the disease developed and which fitted in with the knowledge of the time. Given that the relevant background knowledge and statistical methods were not yet available to Lind, he was right to prefer his own explanation to that of Bachstrom. Although his explanation turned out to be wrong, and Bachstrom’s right, from a historical point of view it offered deeper causal understanding of both the development of the disease and the preventive and curative effects of fresh vegetable food. This case study illustrates how the search for causal mechanisms can not only be enlightening, but also very misleading.
Keywords: causal explanation; scientific understanding; history of medicine; James Lind; causal mechanisms
1. Introduction
James Lind is a celebrated name in the history of research into scurvy. He is best-known for the experiment he carried out in 1747 to examine some recommended treatments for scurvy. This experiment proved the usefulness of lemons and oranges as a cure and is often cited as the first controlled experimental trial in clinical science. Despite his finding, Lind did not regard the absence of citrus fruit from the diet as the primary cause of scurvy, an explanation which was nevertheless already defended by his predecessor J. F. Bachstrom. As a consequence, his research into the causes of the disease is traditionally seen as much less innovative. In a recent joint paper (Weber & De Vreese, 2005), Erik Weber and I argued that this traditional view is not justified and that Lind was as modern in his research into the causes of scurvy as he was in his research into its cures: both exhibit progressive scientific thinking by carefully
observing differences between an experimental and a control group, albeit that in both cases the prospective design suffers from similar and serious shortcomings when compared to contemporary standards.
The work of Lind will be central in this paper as well. I build further on the point of view advanced in Weber & De Vreese (2005). I explain why it was a rational choice of James Lind not to accept Bachstrom’s explanation.
I maintain that scientific understanding plays a vital role in the search for and acceptance of causal explanations. It was precisely the urge to understanding that guided Lind in his reluctance to accept the absence of citrus fruit as the cause and in the development of his alternative theory. Central in this process was the search for causal mechanisms which could provide understanding of how the disease developed and which fitted in with the knowledge of the time.
In section 2, I go deeper into the case study and analyze the argumentation of Bachstrom and Lind respectively. In section 3, I present two negative opinions on Lind’s work. Both William Dock (2003[1953]) and Michael Bartholomew (2002) maintain that it was irrational of Lind to be unwilling to accept the results of his 1747 experiment, which confirmed Bachstrom’s hypothesis. Following these sections, I reinterpret the historical example in terms of causal understanding to demonstrate that Dock and Bartholomew are wrong in their conclusions and employ anachronistic reasoning. In section 4, I shed light on the dual nature of causal mechanisms. I explain how causal mechanisms as inner causal indicators (showing how the cause leads to the effect) form an important confirmatory tool for causal relations hypothesized on the basis of outer causal indicators (such as regularities, counterfactual dependencies and correlations, which merely indicate the naked cause-effect relation). This way, mechanisms lead to explanatory coherence. The other side of the coin is that overconfidence in certain wrongly identified mechanisms can lead to causal
mis understanding by enhancing explanatory coherence in an improper way. The theoretical approach of section 4 serves as a framework for the subsequent reinterpretation of the case study in section 5. Contrary to Dock (2003 [1953]) and Bartholomew (2002), I argue that Lind was indeed very anxious to understand the development of scurvy and had therefore good reasons to reject Bachstrom’s hypothesis. He was trying very hard to uncover the mechanisms leading to scurvy, but because the relevant background knowledge was not yet available, his search led him to causal mis understanding of the disease. What Dock and Bartholomew fail to see is that one has to look at the case study from the perspective of those earlier days. Firstly, people in Lind’s time had not the slightest background knowledge about the influence of nutritional deficiencies. Secondly, statistical methods were lacking. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that - from a historical point of view - Lind’s own explanation was indeed preferable to Bachstrom’s. At that point in history, Lind’s explanation offered deeper causal understanding of both the development of the disease as well as the preventive and curative effects of fresh vegetable food.
My goal in writing this paper is twofold. Primarily, I wish to correct an anachronistic reading of Lind apparently agreed upon in the literature on the history of medicine. Additionally, the case of Lind offers an historical example of the strength and weakness of reasoning with causal mechanisms. By means of this example I wish to qualify the significance for explanation and scientific understanding which has
recently increasingly been ascribed to causal mechanisms at the expense of outer causal indicators. Since, as the case study demonstrates, the search for causal mechanisms can not only be enlightening, but also very misleading.
2. Bachstrom and Lind on scurvy
In this section, I present a short analysis of the ideas and argumentation of two 18th century authors on the causes of scurvy: J.F. Bachstrom and James Lind.
2.1. The explanation of Bachstrom
In a time when there was no agreement at all about the causes of scurvy and a lot of possible causes were proposed, Bachstrom claimed in 1734:
this evil is solely owing to a total abstinence from fresh vegetable food and
greens; which is alone the true primary cause of the disease. (Stewart &
Guthrie, 1953, pp. 314)
He argued for this hypothesis on the basis of a collection of anecdotal and historical arguments, chief of which was the blockade of Thorn (Torun, Poland) in the summer of 1703, where the besieging Swedes remained healthy while many thousands of inhabitants and soldiers inside the city developed scurvy. Bachstrom supposed this could only be explained by the shortage of fresh fruit and vegetables inside the city. A close examination of Bachstrom’s arguments allows us to conclude the following:
1. Bachstrom bases his hypothesis on regularities he did not observe himself, but which were filtered out of various historical and anecdotal narratives.
2. Bachstrom offers us no explanation of how the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables leads to the illness, although such a causal relation was not at all self-evident in his time.
3. In addition, Bachstrom provides no general overarching theory which unifies his hypothesis with contemporary knowledge on the causation of diseases, a lack for which he was in fact criticized at the time. As Carpenter argues:
Bachstrom’s treatise seems to the modern reader a straightforward argument
and one that deserved at least a serious consideration. But to the contemporary main-line physician it would not have been very impressive because it dealt
with a single disease in isolation and did nothing toward establishing a view of the nature of disease in general - an ideal which the medical profession had as its goal, by analogy with the universal laws being developed by the physicists at that time. (Carpenter, 1986, pp. 44-45)
4. Nonetheless, Bachstrom was right that the absence of fruit and vegetables in the diet causes scurvy.
2.2. The explanation of Lind
James Lind, contemporary of Bachstrom and the most celebrated name in the history of scurvy, is well-known for an experiment regarding its cure, carried out during a scurvy outbreak on board the Salisbury in 1747. In the literature on the history of medicine, this experiment by the naval surgeon is generally regarded as the first controlled trial in clinical science1. The design of the experiment was described by Lind himself as follows:
On the 20th of May 1747, I took twelve patients in the scurvy, on board the
Salisbury at sea. Their cases were as similar as I could have them. They all in
general had putrid gums, the spots and lassitude, with weakness of their knees.
They lay together in one place, being a proper apartment for the sick in the
fore-hold; and had one diet common to all, ... Two of these were ordered each
a quart of cider a-day. Two others took twenty-five gutts of elixir vitriol three
times a-day, upon an empty stomach; using a gargle strongly acidulated with it for their mouths. Two others took two spoonfuls of vinegar three times a-day, upon an empty stomach; having their gruels and their other food well
acidulated with it, as also the gargle for their mouth. Two of the worst patients, with the tendons in the ham rigid, (a symptom none of the rest had), were put
under a course of sea-water. Of this they drank half a pint every day, and
sometimes more or less as it operated, by way of gentle physic. Two others
had each two oranges and one lemon given them every day. These they eat
[sic] with greediness, at different times, upon an empty stomach. They
continued but six days under this course, having consumed the quantity that
could be spared. The two remaining patients, took the bigness of a nutmeg
three times a-day, of an electuary recommended by an hospital-surgeon ... ;
using for common drink [a tamarind decoction]. (Stewart & Guthrie, 1953, pp.
145-146)
After two weeks, he observed the following effects:
...the most sudden and visible good effects were perceived from the use of the oranges and lemons; one of those who had taken them, being at the end of six
days fit for duty. ... The other was the best recovered of any in his condition ...
Next to the oranges, I thought the cider had the best effects. It was indeed not
very sound,... however, those who had taken it, were in a fairer way of
recovery than the others at the end of the fortnight ... As to the elixir of vitriol,
I observed that the mouths of those who had used it by way of gargarism, were
in a much cleaner and better condition than many of the rest, especially those
who used the vinegar; but perceived otherwise no good effects from its
internal use upon the other symptoms ... There was no remarkable alteration
upon those who took the electuary and tamarind decoction, the sea-water, or
vinegar upon comparing their condition at the end of the fortnight, with others who had taken nothing but a little lenitive electuary and cremor tartar, at
times, in order to keep their belly open; or a gentle pectoral in the evening, for relief of their breast. (Stewart & Guthrie, 1953, pp. 146-148)
1 To list just some authors making this claim: Stewart & Guthrie (1953), Thomas (1969, 1997), Wyatt (1976), Watt (1985), Mellinkoff (1995). A more subtle view on the extent to which Lind was a practitioner of experimental science, but nonetheless largely in agreement with the general opinion on the progressiveness of Lind’s thinking in his experiment, can be found in Hughes (1975).
Although Lind determined by means of this experiment the best cure for scurvy, he did not consider the absence of citrus fruit as the main cause of the development of scurvy. On the contrary, in the rest of his Treatise he constructed a theory to support the hypothesis that the primary cause of scurvy was a humid atmosphere. He refers to the blocked perspiration theory to support this causal relation:
The body is made mainly of solid tissues and fluids. The fluids naturally tend
to become corrupted. An important function of all the excretions, and
especially of perspiration, is to evacuate these corrupted fluids from the body
to keep only some healthy fluids inside. If the perspiration is blocked, the
corrupted fluids act as a poison and produce some diseases. One can fight
against the poisonous effect of the corrupted fluids by eating fruit whose
acidity acts as a detergent. (Corruble & Ganascia, 1997, pp. 217)
The idea that the skin was a major route of excretion of undesirable humors and vapors from the body, and that this happened through “insensible perspiration”, dates back to Galen (131-201) and even Hippocrates (ca. 460-377 BC), and was further developed by Sanctorius (1561-1636) (Renbourn, 1960; Carpenter, 1986). The conviction that suppressed or obstructed insensible perspiration was a cause of disease in general can also be traced back to the physicians of classical periods:
Many physicians of classical periods (Asclepiades, Themison, Soranus, etc.)
accepted the so-called ‘Methodist’ theory of ‘strictum et laxum’ (tightening or loosening of atoms, corpuscles, pores or ducts); and there is frequent reference in the old literature to fevers and inflammations, and to disease in general,
arising from the superficial or deep pores being too wide or narrow,
asymmetric or kinked, clogged by the action of astringent drugs or cold air,
and by excretions too profuse or too thick to pass out. (Renbourn, 1960, pp.
136)
These ideas recurred in different forms during the following centuries, with Sanctorius as their most important proponent. Throughout the centuries, cold air and damp were often cited among the most important reasons for the obstruction of insensible perspiration. These ideas still strongly influenced the medical minds of Lind’s time. Furthermore, the eighteenth century was an extremely important period in the development of Sanctorius’ ideas on the suppression of perspiration: “Throughout Europe it became fashionable to write dissertations on suppressed
‘perspiration’ and the part it played in various diseases” (Renbourn, 1960, pp. 142). Around 1750, all kinds of diseases, such as cholera and various fevers, were being explained by means of blocked perspiration. Even in the nineteenth century, obstructed insensible perspiration was still cited as the cause of many diseases, including scurvy. (Renbourn, 1960; Carpenter 1986).
Consequently, it does not need to come as a surprise that Lind’s theory on the cause of scurvy was based on blocked perspiration as well. Lind supposed two mechanisms linked moisture to blocked perspiration. Primarily, moisture was supposed to constrict the pores of the skin leading to corrupted fluids in the body. Additionally, moisture was supposed to weaken the spring and elasticity of the air, while pure air was necessary for assisting the lungs in converting crude chyle into blood. In other words, moisture was simply unfit for salutary purposes. Consequently, Lind advised that the
way to prevent the development of scurvy was to counter humidity.
A closer look at Lind’s arguments leads me to the following conclusions: (1) Lind bases his hypothesis on regularities partially observed by himself on board the Salisbury; (2) Lind offers an explanation on how moisture leads to scurvy; (3) Lind’s explanation fits in a general overarching theory, which was at the time accepted as the basis for the explanation of several diseases; (4) Lind offers an explanation of the results of the Salisbury experiment as well: lemons and oranges block the causal mechanism that leads from moist air to scurvy; (5) Lind’s explanation was nonetheless wrong.
3. Recent opinions on the Lind case
In the previous section, I summarized the central elements of the case study. Before going on with my evaluation of the historical example, I cast an eye over some recent opinions on Lind’s work. As the reader will see, these opinions are none too flattering.
In an editorial article of 1953 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - republished in 2003 in the same journal (Dock, 2003) - William Dock compared the scurvy case with atherosclerosis and the effects of excessive dietary cholesterol. The article bears the title: ‘The reluctance of physicians to admit that chronic disease may be due to faulty diet’. In it, Dock complained about the fact that physicians do not easily accept certain causes of diseases for which there is overwhelming evidence from perceived regularities and statistical correlations but no clarifying theory. He noted that while Bachstrom clearly described the cause of scurvy in 1743 and while Lind recommended lemon juice as the best cure in 1754, it took a couple of decades - and most significantly the discovery of the role of vitamin C - before the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables was accepted as the cause by the medical community. Dock argued that the story of scurvy was at that time being reenacted in the history of atherosclerosis and excessive dietary cholesterol. While there was in 1953 clearly a lot of evidence of a correlation between the two, there was as yet no explanation, and the medical community was still reluctant to accept a causal relation between them. Dock’s plaintive conclusion - that physicians have “always hated to accept any theory ascribing chronic disease to bad food” (Dock, 2003, pp. 1345) - clearly supposes that such reluctance is anyhow irrational.
In a recent volume of the Journal for Maritime Research, Michael Bartholomew wrote an article with the promising title: ‘James Lind and Scurvy: a Revaluation’(Bartholomew, 2002). However, in this article the same kind of complaints about the “resistance” of Lind to the idea of dietary deficits as the cause of scurvy reappear. Bartholomew complains about a tension in Lind’s Treatise of the Scurvy between, on the one hand, what is taken as convincing evidence resulting from his experiment with oranges and lemons, and, on the other hand, the remainder of Lind’s research. In his own words:
The link between, on one hand, his experiments with oranges and lemons, and, on the other, his programme of recommendations not only for the prevention
and cure of scurvy, but for the general amelioration of shipboard life, is
extremely tenuous. In rhetorical terms, the Salisbury experiments are given no especial prominence, either in the chapter or in the Treatise as a whole. The
eighteenth century readers of the Treatise who did not single out the Salisbury
experiments as the central, decisive feature of the Treatise were not willfully
misreading the book. There is a real confusion in the text and it arises
chiefly from Lind’s inability, or reluctance, to integrate his experimental
findings with his prior general theory of digestion and with his particular theory of what happens to the body when it is suffering from scurvy. He
never, as it were, clears his throat and declares to the reader the exact
significance of the experiments. (Bartholomew, 2002, pp. 4) (my bold)
Just like Dock, Bartholomew refers to Bachstrom, who in his view too had already convincingly argued before Lind that a lack of fresh vegetable food was the cause of scurvy. For both, this observation constitutes an extra reason for criticizing Lind’s “unwillingness”.
I do not think the comments of William Dock and Michael Bartholomew are justified. Their talk in terms of “unwillingness” and “reluctance” insinuates that Lind exhibited an irrational - and hence unacceptable - obstinacy in his refusal to accept the scientific results of his experiment. In my opinion, it was not at all a matter of unwillingness or stubbornness, but rather proof of Lind’s single-minded dedication (his extreme willingness) to achieving a thorough scientific insight into the causation of the disease. If he had taken the evidence of the experiment at face value, an inference to the best explanation could have led him to accept the conclusion of Bachstrom. However, this would not have provided him with any deeper insight into the causal mechanisms leading up to the disease, something which is, after all, lacking in Bachstrom. One should not confuse here the appreciation of an influencing factor on the basis of a controlled experiment with a thorough scientific explication of the mechanisms involved and the ensuing understanding thereof. Without loosing sight of the former, it was precisely the latter which Lind tried to reach. A reinterpretation of the case study in terms of causal understanding will further clarify my point of view.
4. Theoretical framework on causal understanding
In section 5, I reinterpret Lind’s work in comparison with Bachstrom’s in terms of causal understanding and its relation to causal mechanisms. In this section, I first introduce the reader to my view on the ‘dual nature’ of causal mechanisms and their somewhat special place in the list of ‘causal indicators’2. Since none of the accounts of causation has been proved to be the obviously correct univocal account, I regard different theories of causation as complementary rather than competing. Different accounts seem to have different strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, I focus on the strength and weakness of causal mechanisms. While their strength is well-known, their weakness is underexposed in the literature.
2 These indicators can be counterfactual (in)dependencies, correlations, mechanisms, regularities, etc. I borrow the term ‘causal indicators’ from Williamson (2006), because it nicely captures the idea that all these approaches to causation can be accepted as tools that can form an indication of the presence of a causal relation, without needing to select one of them as the single appropriate approach.
4.1. What are causal mechanisms?
Le me first explain what exactly I mean by the word ‘mechanism’. Various scholars have recently proposed diverse definitions of ‘causal mechanism’ (a.o. Glennan, 1996; Bunge, 1997; Thagard, 1999; Machamer et al., 2000; Ahn, 2000; Glennan, 2002; Woodward, 2002; Tabery, 2004; Steel, 2004; Bogen, 2005). The preferred definition is often heavily dependent on the domain one is reasoning from. Nonetheless, in these definitions some properties recur in varying combinations.
First, most writers emphasize in one way or another that a mechanism is situated at an organizational level underlying the level at which cause and effect occur. I agree that this is an important defining property. Hence, the elements referred to in the explaining mechanism must form components in the complex organization of the systems referred to in cause and effect. Carl Craver (2001; 2002) talks about
‘mechanistic levels’ in this context. Another way to explain this is to refer to the hierarchical organization of mechanisms, in that mechanisms refer to the organizational parts of a more complex system whose changes and activities they explain. Secondly, the definition of a ‘mechanism’ is often based on the analogy with the working of machines. Although this analogy can be clarifying, this kind of definition is often heavily influenced by the original concept of mechanism of e.g. Descartes. Adhering too closely to this analogy results in too narrow a view of what a causal mechanism can consist of, especially in the social and behavioral sciences, where it does not always tally. Another property often referred to in definitions of
‘causal mechanism’ is the regularity of the process described by the mechanism. However, since a mechanism is a very local description of what happens between cause and effect, it is not necessary to presuppose that the chain of events incorporated occurs with any particular regularity. Even though it is in fact often possible to generalize the mechanism to similar cause-effect chains, it can also function as an explanation of a single case or explain a deviance from an expected causal process. Hence, the presupposition of regularity is not a general characteristic of causal mechanisms. Furthermore, for those mechanisms which do operate with great regularity, this property has no bearing on the insights provided by the content of the mechanism itself. All this is clearly argued for in Bogen (2005). Consequently, it is also unnecessary to refer to causal laws in a definition of ‘mechanism’, as Glennan (1996) did in his first definition, though not in his second (Glennan, 2002).
Some of the properties ascribed to causal mechanisms can be characteristic of the kind of mechanisms sought for in certain domains of science, but may not be in others. As Bogen further argues, “principled decisions about what qualifies as a causally productive activity which can contribute to the production of the effect of interest depend largely on local, historically variable constraints which rest upon contingent, empirically testable beliefs which develop historically (Bogen, forthcoming, pp. 24-25)”.
Since I wish to cover all possible kinds of mechanisms, I define a causal mechanism very broadly as: ‘the process at an organizational level underlying cause and effect, by means of which the cause brings about the effect’. The term ‘process’ in this definition can refer to any kind of natural development, chain of interactions, or chain of actions and reactions, leading to the effect. The definition is in keeping with the recent literature on causal mechanisms, but, on the other hand, it attempts to be as
general as possible in order not to make the mistake of narrowing down the definition to just one kind of mechanism typical of some limited domain of application.
4.2. Causal mechanisms as special indicator
Now, what makes causal mechanisms differ from the other causal indicators? I discern three properties of causal mechanisms which entitle them to their special status.
4.2.1. Side effects versus inside/insight information
First of all, the other indicators are like side effects or consequences of the presence of the causal relationship and are only indicating the fact that something is happening “in there”. They just point to the causes of an effect to explain it, but tell nothing more about the cause-effect relation itself. Because of this, I will call them “outer causal indicators”. Mechanisms, on the other hand, complete the explanation, precisely by indicating what is going on between the cause and the effect, or in other words, wherein the causal relation ‘consists’. A mechanism is hence an “inner causal indicator”. It is further the only causal indicator which can provide deeper insight into the workings of the causal relation. This is recognized by most authors writing on causal mechanisms. Some further conclude from this that outer causal indicators simply can’t give a causal explanation (e.g. Bogen, 2005). I would rather claim that they provide another kind of causal explanation, which gives us some, but not deep, insight into the causal relation involved. Hence when available, mechanisms provide another kind of causal explanation resulting in a deeper kind of understanding. Because of this property, the importance of mechanisms for causal reasoning, causal explanation and causal understanding is stressed by psychologists as well (Ahn et al., 1995; Koslowski, 1996; Ahn & Kalish, 2000). Belief in a mechanism results in understanding the causal relation. This can concern the belief of a single person or of a whole scientific community.
4.2.2. Complementarity with all versus complementarity with mechanisms only
Mechanisms are in a special way complementary with all the outer indicators, and it is useful to combine different strategies. Furthermore, psychologists have carried out experiments that prove the major heuristic role of mechanisms in people’s actual search for causes (Ahn et al., 1995; Koslowski, 1996). Mechanisms can complement the information from the outer indicators in three ways.
First, they can confirm the existence of possible causal relations supposed to be present on the basis of an outer indicator. Hence a mechanism can help as a confirmative tool with respect to the outer indicators. Secondly, when a causal connection between two variables is supposed, but no plausible mechanism can be found that elucidates this connection, we may be confronted with a spurious or a coincidental relation. In this case the mechanism works as a disconfirming tool with respect to the evidence from other indicators. Thirdly, a hypothetical mechanism points to possible causes that can be (dis)confirmed by other indicators. In this case, mechanisms work as a heuristic tool for the generation of hypotheses which are then further testable on the basis of the outer indicators. As Thagard points out, these characteristics constitute three ways in which mechanisms can enhance the
explanatory coherence of causal explanations. (Thagard, 1999; Ahn & Kalish, 2000)
It may be clear by now that causal mechanisms can in a systematic way complete the knowledge resulting from the application of other causal theories. This potential does not hold for the other indicators. There is no outer indicator that systematically and in a clear way completes the information of all other indicators. This is of course related to the former point: mechanisms complete the story by adding inside/insight information to the naked information of cause and effect delivered by the outer indicators, while the outer indicators are diverse ways to try to capture the same kind of naked cause-effect relations. This complementarity can further explain why the idea of causal mechanisms is often spontaneously linked to regularities. But as pointed out above, the idea of a causal regularity forms no essential part of the idea of a causal mechanism (Bogen, 2005).
4.2.3. Form versus content
This last point of difference is also connected to the former two. We can say that, while the other indicators point to the “form” of the causal relation and are therefore immune to changes in causal background knowledge, causal mechanisms are the only indicators which are content dependent, and hence intimately bound to background knowledge. This feature is on the one hand related to the advantage of providing deeper insight, as generally recognized and explained above, but on the other hand, it brings with it the risk of causal mis understanding. The latter is much less recognized in the philosophical literature on causal mechanisms. Only Machamer et al. explicitly claimed that:
Mechanism descriptions show how possibly, how plausibly, or how actually
things work. Intelligibility arises not from an explanation’s correctness, but
rather from an elucidative relation between the explanans … and the
explanandum … Protein synthesis can be elucidated by reference to Gamow
holes. The ability of nerves to conduct signals can be rendered intelligible by
reference to their internal vibrations. Neither of these explanations is correct;
yet each provides intelligibility by showing how the phenomena might
possibly be produced. (Machamer et al., 2000, pp. 21).
I maintain that generally accepted background knowledge forms the framework for the provision of scientific understanding. It defines the knowledge space within which scientists search for an explanatory mechanism. The ideas of someone reasoning outside such a conviction-giving framework and hence developing his own understanding on the basis of deviating mechanisms will not be easily accepted. Giving up such a coherent framework in which scientists strongly believe means giving up a lot of certainties. One will not be easily convinced to make this step when no clear alternative is available, which is reasonable pragmatic behavior.
4.3. Causal mechanisms as double-edged tool: explanatory coherence versus overconfidence
As a tentative conclusion, I can state that causal mechanisms form a double-edged tool. On the one hand, they are the only causal indicators that can provide us with inside information of the causal relation. They are thus a useful tool for providing
confirmatory information for causal relations conjectured on the basis of outer causal indicators. They strengthen confidence in causal judgments by enhancing explanatory coherence and they lead to deeper causal understanding. On the other hand, we risk biases that result from overconfidence in certain mechanisms fitting in our background knowledge but nonetheless wrongly conjectured to underpin the causal relation under consideration. This other side of the coin is often forgotten or underestimated by philosophers of science defending the importance and privilege of causal mechanisms for causality and causal reasoning.
I discern two ways in which mechanisms can lead to causal misunderstanding. First, a causal relation can be conjectured on the basis of a wrongly identified causal mechanism, but not supported by outer causal indicators. In this case it seems quite easy for a good researcher to find out that his conjecture is wrong. This demonstrates again the usefulness of complementary approaches. Secondly, a causal relation can previously be established by an outer indicator, and afterwards seem to be confirmed by a causal mechanism which is nonetheless not at work. In this case a researcher operating within a fixed scientific community, and holding on to a certain background knowledge where the hypothesized mechanism seems to fit in, will not so easily be convinced of the contrary. This results from the confidence offered by the, for him, plausible mechanism. Koslowski (1996) has demonstrated that people are indeed not easily convinced of the disconfirmation of a mechanism believed in - even when there is underpinning covariational evidence that the causal relation does not hold - as long as no plausible alternatives are at their disposal. This is of course no justification for similar behavior in a scientific context. Available disconfirming evidence is supposed to be taken seriously. But it nonetheless shows the confirmative power of a mechanism in which there is strong belief. It is clear that this confirmative power can form a stumbling block in science as well, viz. when a wrongly identified explanatory mechanism fitting in the general accepted knowledge of a scientific community - possibly incorrect as well - seems to confirm a rightly conjectured causal relation. It shows a clear drawback of reasoning with mechanisms, namely that they can enhance explanatory coherence in an improper way by confirming a causal relation by means of a wrongly identified, but within the (erroneous) dominant background knowledge fitting, mechanism.
After discussing the ways out of these kinds of misunderstanding, we will return to the case of Bachstrom and Lind to illustrate the two sides of the coin of understanding providing causal mechanisms.
4.4. Finding out about causal misunderstanding
Of course there are some ways to find out about our misunderstanding, even in the latter case. But this is often a matter of scientific developments over longer time periods. First, in the course of time, one can find a clear and convincing inconsistency with (a) new (kind of) data. Secondly, empirical research into the supposed underlying mechanism, if possible, can reject the hypothesis. Thirdly, the development of new background knowledge can overthrow the analysis conducted in terms of the older background knowledge. Fourthly, as Schurz and Lambert (1994) point out: causal mechanisms provide in the first place local understanding of a causal relation. If this seems to conflict afterwards with some more globally unified relevant background knowledge, there is a thorough reason to question the deviant mechanism
proposed. But as the four of these demonstrate, it is not easy to prevent causal misunderstanding in a systematic way. It is above all a matter of development over time.
5.Reinterpretation of the historical example in terms of causal understanding
In this section, I re-examine the case of Lind and Bachstrom from within the theoretical framework proposed above. Contrary to Dock (2003 [1953]) and Bartholomew (2002), I think Lind had very good reasons to be unwilling or reluctant to regard his experimental findings with respect to citrus fruit as proof that Bachstrom was correct and thus that the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables was the cause of scurvy. In my view, Lind did not accept this explanation precisely because he was so willing to acquire deep understanding of the mechanisms involved in the development of the disease - much more than Bachstrom was. And I even claim that Lind, from a historical point of view, actually achieved a much better understanding of the disease than Bachstrom, although we know now that Bachstrom was right and Lind wrong.
5.1. Lind’s search for deep understanding
Given the following facts, it was rational for Lind not to accept Bachstrom’s explanation and hence to be reluctant to accept a faulty diet as the cause of scurvy.
On the one hand, Lind had evidence undermining the causal relation between the lack of fresh greens and scurvy. Firstly, Lind had some counterexamples to the regularity discerned by Bachstrom. There is his historical counterexample that scurvy was not described by the ancients, despite the fact that they frequently besieged towns with long-lasting blockades. If the disease was due to a lack of fresh vegetable food, one would expect to find some testimonies to the occurrence of the disease at such times.
A more convincing counterexample to the regularity conjectured by Bachstrom came from Lind’s own experience. On a voyage in which he took part, and which sailed through dry areas, nobody developed scurvy, even when none of the seamen had eaten any fresh vegetable food for 3 months. Secondly, as will be further explained in the following section, there was no plausible mechanism on hand to explain how the lack of fruit and vegetables could positively cause the development of scurvy. Hence both the belief in the regularity and in a plausible confirming mechanism for Lind to accept Bachstrom’s explanation was missing.
On the other hand, Lind had several arguments confirming a causal relation between humidity and scurvy which could, furthermore, explain the beneficial influence of fresh fruit and vegetables. Firstly, Lind had confirming evidence of the correlation between humidity and scurvy, partly from his own experience on board the Salisbury. As explained in section 2.2., he was also able to provide some confirming mechanisms which could explain both the influence of humidity on the development of scurvy and the positive influence of consuming fresh vegetable food in preventing and curing the disease. Lastly, the causal mechanisms which he proposed not only provided local causal understanding of the disease but also fitted in a global unifying theory used to explain, amongst others, cholera and numerous fevers, namely the blocked perspiration theory. As argued by Schurz and Lambert (1994), the latter
feature is an important means of yielding understanding. All this convinces us that Lind gained much deeper understanding of the development of the disease from his own explanation than he could ever have gained from Bachstrom’s.
Although Bachstrom saw a clear regularity between the absence of fruit and vegetables in the diet and the development of scurvy, he could not offer any confirmatory causal mechanism underlying this causal relation: the theoretical underpinning for Bachstrom’s explanation that the absence of fresh vegetable food is the direct cause of the disease was not yet available in those days. There was a lack of explanatory coherence with the generally accepted background knowledge of the time and hence he could not provide causal understanding of this causal explanation to his contemporaries, which made his explanation unconvincing.
A thorough understanding of the disease seems to be precisely what Lind was aiming at. Contrary to Bachstrom, Lind tried really hard to incorporate the evidence he received on the basis of his experiment into the knowledge of his time. Since Lind’s mechanisms were perfectly fitting with both the background knowledge and the regularities he had perceived, it is perfectly understandable that Lind was confident with regard to his own explanation. From a historical point of view, Lind was justified to prefer his own explanation, which yielded thorough understanding within the accepted background knowledge, to Bachstrom’s explanation, which merely pointed to a possible cause without providing any scientific understanding at all of how this cause could bring about the effect. Only the subsequent rejection of the background knowledge or the subsequent perception of contradictory regularities could undermine Lind’s point of view. Both were a matter of development over time. Hence, Lind offers us a nice historical example of how causal mechanisms can enhance explanatory coherence in an erroneous way.
5.2. Dock’s and Bartholomew’s anachronistic reading
Given everything we know today, it is of course very easy to castigate Lind for having been unable or reluctant to accept the results of his experiment. The way Lind makes a distinction between the cures and the causes of scurvy is indeed quite strange to us. But we have to try to look at the case from within the knowledge of those earlier days. As Ramberg argues:
despite the fact that over 500 years ago certain foods - particularly citrus fruits - were known to cure scurvy, the disease continued to kill millions. Why? In
part, the efficacy of citrus fruits as a cure was repeatedly questioned when
stored or processed fruit became ineffectual. In addition, people were not
ready to accept the idea that, while citrus fruits might cure scurvy, a lack of
citrus fruits could cause the disease. That is, the concept of a nutritional
deficiency was unknown - not surprising when one remembers the prevalence of Hippocrates’ single-nutrient theory! Consequently, over the 500 years that
scurvy was recognized but not understood, a fascinating array of explanations was proposed… (Ramberg, 2003, pp. 2)
People had not the slightest idea about different nutrients in their food, let alone the idea of a nutritional deficiency disease. As mentioned before, ancient ideas dating back to Hippocrates continued to dominate nutritional thinking until the mid-
nineteenth century. In the following quotation, Hughes describes how George Budd - probably the first author in history to describe scurvy as a nutritional deficiency disease - was strongly opposing mainstream nutritional thought with his ideas in 1842 (almost a century after Lind had been writing about the disease):
Perhaps the most striking feature of Budd’s nutritional thought was the way in which he succeeded in formulating his ideas in an essentially unfavourable –
and possibly an alien – conceptual environment. His concept of accessory
dietary principles and of associated deficiency diseases, stood in almost
complete isolation from the mainstream of mid-nineteenth-century nutritional thought. Many contemporary writers on diet and nutrition still subscribed to
the ‘humoral’ doctrine … Supporters of this theory held that dietary
adjustments were a necessary method for redressing humoral imbalances
within the body. Within this loose conceptual framework it was possible to
think in terms of dietary-engendered diseases and their cure – as in the claim
that ‘veal is not of a heating nature, and may therefore be allowed to febrile
patients in a very weak state.’
But this was a far cry, and qualitatively, involved quite a different approach,
from the concept of deficiency diseases within a framework of rational
physiology. (Hughes, 1973, pp. 13)
Hippocrates and his successors clearly accepted some influence of diet on health, but this was understood in terms of balances and imbalances in the different humors. These ideas on the role of diet as a cure, cannot be interpreted along the lines of our modern notion of a diet, the more since Hippocrates further believed that all foods contained only one nutrient, as Ramberg (2003) indicates. His convictions created a conceptual framework which is obviously totally different from our contemporary nutritional insights. Those naive ideas were nonetheless still accepted during the first half of the nineteenth century. For example, the American surgeon William Beaumont still defended a single-nutrient theory in 1832 (Murray, 2000). However, during this period nutritional thinking made a major advance following the acceptance of William Prout’s discovery in 1827 that food consisted of three major constituents, viz. carbohydrates, fats and proteins (Murray, 2000). For the acceptance of the concept of vitamins, one has to wait till the beginning of the twentieth century. George Budd was a pioneer in these matters, but his ideas were some fifty years ahead of his time, as a result of which his thoughts were not given any serious attention (Hughes, 1973). Thus the English biochemist Frederick Hopkins is regarded as the pioneer in the formulation of the concept of vitamins in 1906, although he did not term them vitamins. He claimed that, next to carbohydrates, fats, proteins and minerals, some other minor substances must be provided through the diet in order to maintain good health, and that a lack of these substances could lead to diseases such as scurvy (Murray, 2000). The world had to wait until 1932 before it was discovered that it was a lack of the vitamin called vitamin C which caused scurvy (Carpenter, 1986; Murray, 2000).
Although Lind was clearly convinced of the beneficial effects of fresh fruit and vegetables in preventing and curing scurvy, there is no reason to believe that he regarded, and even that he could have regarded, scurvy as a nutritional deficiency disease: the conceptual framework which could have provided him understanding of the real mechanisms leading from such a nutritional deficiency to the development of
the disease was entirely lacking, and was only elaborated during the following two centuries. As mentioned in the previous section, he even did not believe in the regularity between the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables and the development of scurvy, as discerned by Bachstrom, and was hence not convinced that fresh fruit and vegetables formed an obligatory part of the diet.
Consequently, it is totally anachronistic to suppose that it should in fact have been a straightforward step for Lind to accept Bachstrom’s explanation just because of the confirming results of his own experiment, as Bartholomew does. According to Carpenter, it would not even have been the main aim of Lind to find the best cure for scurvy by means of the Salisbury experiment, let alone its cause. Rather, he was attempting to demonstrate the inactivity of some officially recommended treatments such as vinegar and sulfuric acid (Carpenter, 1986, pp. 54). Bartholomew’s conclusion that “Lind’s Treatise of the scurvy did not inaugurate an epoch in the understanding of scurvy” (Bartholomew, 2002, pp. 7) is right. But his argument in support of this statement is clearly wrong: he asserts that Lind himself did not gain any understanding of the disease because he gave insufficient attention to his experiment. From our current point of view, in which we have access to contemporary nutritional insights, Lind indeed causally misunderstood the disease. But from the historical point of view, he had deeper understanding of the disease than Bachstrom had. For both of them, the appropriate background knowledge to gain real causal understanding of the disease was missing. Part of the problem of anachronistic readings of Lind is that authors focus their attention on the controlled trial because of the general historical significance ascribed to it in the literature, thereby forgetting the historical setting within which this experiment was carried out. As Baxby (1997) indicates, there was no reason why the controlled trial should be given particular significance at the time it was published. The description of the experiment was short, the trial was small, and the relevant passage could easily be overlooked or ignored by its readers. And above all, it focused on an earlier proposed cure.
Another important historical restriction that we have to keep in mind is that Lind and Bachstrom had no statistical methods at their disposal. It was for them impossible to execute a thorough controlled statistical experiment incorporating multiple variables, of which the resulting causal patterns possess a high degree of probability. They could only base their hypotheses on regularities they thought to discern. Thus Lind founded his rejection of Bachstrom’s hypothesis partly on his own observations, in which he did not perceive supporting regularities for Bachstrom’s thesis. Although better than Bachstrom, who only leant on regularities in anecdotal and historical data, Lind’s explanation as well was based on superficial observations. There was clearly a big risk of bias. It is for that reason that mechanisms were highly important in those days as a tool to confirm hypotheses made on the basis of outer causal indicators.
William Dock overlooks these historical differences. This makes both his point of view with regard to Lind as well as his comparison with research into atherosclerosis anachronistic. Because of a lack of statistical methods, it was a reasonable strategy for Lind to prefer an explanation which could be underpinned by mechanisms providing thorough understanding of how scurvy developed. Statistics had been developed when Dock wrote the editorial article on atherosclerosis. That a lot of physicians were hesitant to accept the relation between excessive dietary cholesterol and atherosclerosis despite a lot of correlative evidence might be inappropriate from a
scientific point of view. Nevertheless, it demonstrates once again the confirmative power of causal mechanisms.
In the end, Lind re-adjusted his convictions in the third edition of the Treatise after being confronted with contradictive regularities. He did not, however, immediately reject the whole theory, which is a comprehensible pragmatic attitude, given that his theory provided him with a good understanding of the disease and no alternative way to understand it was yet available.
6. Conclusions
Causal understanding is not just something we reach at the end of our explanation seeking process. As is clear from the case of Lind, the search for understanding often plays a prominent role in the formation of causal explanations as well, especially when the data from outer causal indicators are rather superficial and hypothetical. As I have argued, searching for mechanisms can not only be very helpful in achieving causal understanding, but can, on the other hand, also be very misleading. The case study presented forms a nice historical illustration of this possible misleading role of understanding providing mechanisms. Notwithstanding the fact that Bachstrom’s explanation is the only acceptable one given our contemporary knowledge, one cannot reproach Lind for having been irrational and incoherent. Given the background knowledge available in his time, Lind’s explanation provided much more explanatory coherence - and provided him consequently with a deeper understanding of the disease - than the explanation of Bachstrom. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this explanatory coherence was achieved in the wrong way, which makes it clear to us, today, that Lind was misled by his search for understanding providing causal mechanisms, and that what Lind consequently achieved was in fact deep causal mis understanding.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was supported by subventions from the Research Fund of the Ghent University through research project BOF2001/GOA/008. I like to thank Erik Weber and an anonymous referee for their useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
References
Ahn, W.-k., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Kiel, & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and Cognition (pp. 199–225). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ahn, W.-k., Kalish, C.W., Medin, D. L., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
Bardolph, E. M., & Taylor, R. H. (1997). Sailors, scurvy, science and authority. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90, 238.
Bartholomew, M. (2002). James Lind and scurvy: a revaluation. Journal for Maritime Research, January 2002, 1-7.
Baxby, D. (1997). Lind’s clinical trial and the control of scurvy.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90, 526.
Bogen, J. (2005). Regularities and causality; generalizations and causal explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 397-420.
Bogen, J. (Forthcoming). Causally productive activities. 1-30.
Bunge, M. (1997). Mechanisms and explanation. Philosophy of the social sciences, 27, 410-465.
Carpenter, K. J. (1986). The history of scurvy and vitamin C. Cambridge: University Press.
Corruble, V., & Ganascia, J.-C. (1997). Induction and the discovery of the causes of scurvy: a computational reconstruction. Artificial Intelligence, 91, 205-223. Craver, C. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53-74.
Craver, C. (2002). Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science, 69, S83-S97.
Dock, W. (2003). The reluctance of physicians to admit that chronic disease may be due to faulty diet. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 77, 1345-1347. (First published 1953).
Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49-71.
Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342-S353.
Hughes, R. E. (1973). George Budd (1808-1882) and nutritional deficiency diseases. Medical History, 17, 127-135.
Hughes, R. E. (1975). James Lind and the cure of scurvy: an experimental approach. Medical History, 19, 342-351.
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and Evidence. The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1-25.
Mellinkoff, S. M. (1995). James Lind’s legacy to clinical medicine. Western Journal of Medicine, 162, 367-369.
Murray R. K. (2000). Ten major advances in nutrition. Glycoscience & Nutrition, 1 (28), 1-6.
Ramberg, J., Le, L., McAnalley, S., Koepke, C. M., Vennum, E., & McAnalley, B. (2003). Why are whole-food dietary supplements better than single-nutrient supplements? A review based on the vitamin C literature. Glycoscience & Nutrition, 4 (4), 1-8.
Renbourn, E. T. (1960). The natural history of insensible perspiration: a forgotten doctrine of health and disease. Medical History, 4, 135-152.
Schurz, G., & Lambert, K. (1994). Outline of a theory of scientific understanding. Synthese, 101, 65-120.
Steel, D. (2004). Social Mechanisms and Causal Inference. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34 (1), 55-78.
Stewart, C. P., & Guthrie, D. (Eds.). (1953). Lind’s treatise on scurvy; a bicentenary volume containing a reprint of the first edition of A treatise of the scurvy by James Lind. Edinburgh: University Press.
Tabery, J. G. (2004). Synthesizing activities and interactions in the concept of a mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1-15.
Thagard, P. (1999). How scientists explain disease. Princeton: Princeton university press.
Thomas, D. P. (1969). Experiment versus authority: James Lind and Benjamin Rush. The New England Journal of Medicine, 281, 932-933.
Thomas, D. P. (1997). Sailors, scurvy and science. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90, 50-54.
Watt, J. (1985). Some forgotten contributions of naval surgeons. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 78, 753-762.
Weber, E., & De Vreese, L. (2005). The causes of scurvy. On the similarities and differences between contemporary and historical experimental practices. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 14, 55-67.
Williamson, J. (2006). Causality. To appear in D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 14. Springer.
Woodward, J. (2002). What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of Science, 69, S366-S377.
Wyatt, H. V. (1976). James Lind and the prevention of scurvy. Medical History, 20,
433-438.
学校教育信息化建设十三五发展规划 为了贯彻落实《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要（xxxx-2020年）》、《省政府办公厅关于推进智慧教育的实施意见》（苏政办发〔xxxx〕24号）文件精神和《盐城市中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要（xxxx—2020）》（盐发〔xxxx〕20号）要求，全面加强信息技术支撑教育改革发展的能力，以先进教育技术改造传统教育教学，以信息化促进教育现代化，围绕学校信息化建设工作，积极稳妥地推进信息化进程，促进学校教育管理和教学手段的现代化，特制定学校信息化建设五年规划。 一、现状分析 我校信息化建设起步较早，老校区校园网始建于1999年，学校网站于xxxx年开通。xxxx年学校整体搬迁至新校区，新校区在校园数字化方面投入不惜重金，按照《江苏省“校校通”工程建设指南》高标准严要求进行装备。十多年来，学校的信息化建设一直稳步发展，在学校科学发展中的推动作用越来越明显。具体表现在：从硬件建设来看，学校建成“主干千兆百兆到桌面”局域网，学校目前拥有多媒体教室90间（所有教室均为多媒体教室）、计算机教室6间，全自动录播教室1间、数字化实验室1间，多功能阶梯教室4间，1000人学术报告厅1间，500人报告厅1间，并建有广播中心、监控中心、网络中心、校园电视台；教师人手一台笔记本电脑；校园网使用100 M电信光纤接入因特网，并高速连入市县城域网，实现办公楼、教学
楼、实验楼、图书馆等场所全覆盖。从软件环境来看，我校近几年在对外宣传、人事管理、图书管理、财务管理、资产管理、家校联系等方面已实现数字化办公。从教职工信息素养来看，教师基本能熟练应用多媒体开展教学活动，绝大部分教师能制作质量较高的多媒体课件。管理人员能熟练办公应用软件。 我校目前信息化建设的问题主要是：整体规划和推进机制缺乏，基础设施严重老化不能满足发展需求，信息化管理体制亟待完善，信息技术专业人员短缺，校本信息资源建设滞后，基于互联网、大数据、物联网、云计算、智慧教学等方面应用不足，网上教学、网上评课、信息技术与课程整合能力不强等。这些都与学校的社会定位和发展目标相距甚远。 二、指导思想 未来五年，阜宁中学全面贯彻落实《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要（xxxx-2020年）》、《省政府办公厅关于推进智慧教育的实施意见》、《盐城市中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要（xxxx—2020）》、《盐城市中小学“智慧校园”创建工作方案》，从“建成以物联网为基础的生态型智慧校园”的高度出发，以“统筹规划，分步实施；整体推进，突出重点；优化应用，资源共享；立足高端，跨越发展”为原则，高标准推进学校信息化建设，通过打造数字化校园、智慧校园，创设良好的信息化氛围，引领教师发展、促进学生成长，提高学校教育教学质量，提升学校的信息化管理水平。 统筹规划，分步实施。坚持从学校全局高度统一标准，统一规划，整
信息系统建设管理制度 一章总则 第一条为加快公司信息系统建设步伐，规范信息系统工程项目建设安全管理，提升信息系统建设和管理水平，保障信息系统工程项目建设安全，特制定本规范。 第二条本规范主要对XX公司（以下简称“公司”）信息系统建设过程提出安全管理规范。保证安全运行必须依靠强有力的安全技术，同时更要有全面动态的安全策略和良好的内部管理机制，本规范包括五个部分： 1）项目建设安全管理的总体要求：明确项目建设安全管理的目标和原则； 2）项目规划安全管理：对信息化项目建设各个环节的规划提出安全管理要求，确定各个环节的安全需求、目标和建设方案； 3）方案论证和审批安全管理：由安全管理部门组织行内外专家对项目建设安全方案进行论证，确保安全方案的合理性、有效性和可行性。标明参加项目建设的安全管理和技术人员及责任，并按规定安全内容和审批程序进行审批； 4）项目实施方案和实施过程安全管理：包括确定项目实施的阶段的安全管理目标和实施办法，并完成项目安全专用产品的确定、非安全产品安全性的确定等； 5）项目投产与验收安全管理：制定项目安全测评与验收方法、项目投产的安全管理规范，以及相关依据。 第三条规范性引用文件 下列文件中的条款通过本规范的引用而成为本规范的条款。凡是注日期的引用文件，其随后所有的修改单（不包括勘误的内容）或修订版均不适用于本规范，但鼓励研究是否可使用这些文件的最新版本。凡是不注日期的引用文件，其最新版本适用于本规范。 GB/T 5271.8－2001信息技术词汇第8部分安全 第四条术语和定义 本规范引用GB/T 5271.8－2001中的术语和定义，还采用了以下术语和定义：
校园管理信息系统 校园信息管理系统的产生 计算机和通信技术的密切结合推动了网络技术迅速发展，同时，也推动了越来越多的学校，包括各级中小学，都纷纷投资建设校园网络，以求带动学校教学、科研和管理水平迈上一个新台阶，“网络文化”已经成为学校文化的一部分。 校园网是一个整体的系统，包括硬件建设和软件建设两部分。硬件建设主要是指各种计算机设备及网络设备的配置，而软件系统是指运行在硬件平台上的各种教育和管理应用，主要包括以下几个方面： 1、校内、外通信服务，多媒体信息发布与查询； 2、计算机辅助教学（CAI）系统和远程教学； 3、学校行政管理信息系统（ＭＩＳ）和学校办公自动化（OA）网络系 统； 4、图书资料检索系统； 5、网络资源共享。 我们所要讲的学校管理信息系统就是这其中一个重要的运用，包括上面的MIS和OA两部分。具体的讲，它一个以计算机为工具，对学校管理信息进行处理的人—机系统，它能准确、及时地反映学校各项工作的当前状态，能利用过去的数据统计分析，能从全局出发辅助学校各职能部门以及校长管理学校。可见，学校信息管理系统具有强大的电子数据处理功能，能大大提高学校管理人员的工作效率，减轻劳动强度，同时，该系统还可以采用管理模型，将仿真、优化等现
代决策手段结合起来，为学校管理层的决策提供有效信息。 由于，计算机在教育中的运用，尤其是在教育管理中的运用的时间还不长，因此校园管理信息系统还是一个新生事物，但通过短短几年的运用，已经发现它给学校管理带来的巨大好处，因此越来越多的学校开始建设自己的校园管理信息系统。 学校管理与校园信息管理系统的结合点 学校管理，是一种组织学校教育工作为主要对象的社会活动，它是学校管理者在学校范围内，通过一定的领导机制和组织结构，采用一定的措施，带领和引导师生员工充分利用校内外的办学资源条件，整体优化教育工作，有效实现学校工作目标的过程。 从上面的定义可以看出，管理工作的一个重要部分就是充分利用校内外的一切资源，这些资源应该包括以下几个方面： 教师，教师时实施教学活动的主题，是完成教学工作的主要实行者。 学生，学生是教育的对象，是完成教学工作的重要因素。 设备和设施，设备和设施时学校教学和日常管理的辅助工具。 资金，是开展管理工作的条件之一。 同时，我们也很清楚，利用资源的前提是了解资源各个方面的信息，同时，还要了解这些资源的统计信息。这些工作正是计算机参与管理的结合点。计算机在以下方面可以很好地辅助学校领导进行管理： 1．各种信息的收集与整理，这些信息领导进行管理的必要条件。计算机是收集信息的最好工具，各种信息都可以以不同的方式保存在计算集中，如数字，文字，图片，声音，影片等，而且这些信息的收集是一次保存，永远可用的。在
工程建设项目综合管理信息 系统设计方案 概述 1.1项目背景 工程项目建设历来是一项复杂的课题，做为政府主导投资的大型工程，项目普遍具有投资大、建设周期长、参建单位多、地域分散，交通不便、并且受地域与气候因素影响较大等显著特征。这些项目特征及其包含的复杂业务流程、繁琐的工程数据给政府主管部门、项目业主、监理和承包商等项目参与方之间的信息传递、管理行为的落实和及时正确的决策指令的发布造成客观制约。随着我国对国家大型工程的精细化管理的要求，对工程建设的参与方的管理水平提出了更高的要求，做为建设项目的政府主管部门、业主或承包商来说如何有效的管理项目让工程效益最大化已经是摆在管理人员面前的一个重要问题。 1.2工程项目管理的基本原理 根据PMI项目管理知识体系（PMBOK）的规划，项目管理可划分成围管理、时间管理、成本管理、质量管理、采购管理、人员管理、沟通管理、风险管理、综合管理等九个领域；项目管理工作可归纳为5大过程组（启动、规划、执行、监控和收尾）及44个管理子过程，成功的项目管理就是科学的将这些管理过程和管理领域交互、重叠地应用于项目全生命周期。 从普遍意义上我们可以将以上管理容概括为四流、四控制、两管理、一协调；四流指资金流、信息流、物资流、资料流；四控制指成本控制、进度控制、质量控制、围控制；两管理指合同管理、信息管理；一协调指项目管理组织协调。 工程项目管理是在工程项目建设过程中，按照工程项目自身的运行规律和管理程序，对项目建设进行全过程、全方位的计划、组织、指挥、控制与协调，在有限的资源条件下，按照预期的预算目标、工期目标和质量目标，高效率地实现项目的预期目标，最大程度实现项目的实际效益。它涉及以下几个特征： 1)项目管理是项目建设过程和项目管理过程相结合的产物，具体组织的 项目管理要结合其所从事项目的过程特点及组织管理结构来进行； 2)从项目的角度看项目管理和从组织的高度看项目管理的结果是不同 的。从项目的角度看是如何管理好项目。从组织的角度看是如何管理 好一批项目，即是应该如何建立一个项目管理体系；
国家教育管理信息系统 建设总体方案 (印发稿) 中华人民共和国教育部 2013年7月
目录 序言 (1) 第一章建设意义与发展现状 (3) （一）建设意义 (3) （二）发展现状 (4) 第二章指导思想与建设目标 (7) （一）指导思想 (7) （二）建设目标 (8) 第三章建设任务 (10) （一）教育基础数据库 (10) （二）教育管理信息系统 (11) （三）教育管理服务平台 (15) （四）部省两级数据中心 (16) （五）数据交换平台 (16) （六）支撑保障体系 (17) 第四章总体架构与技术路线 (20) （一）总体架构 (20) （二）技术路线 (23) 第五章两级建设与五级应用体系 (26) （一）国家级系统建设与应用 (26) （二）省级系统建设与应用 (28) （三）地市级系统应用 (29) （四）县级系统应用 (30) （五）学校级系统应用 (31) 第六章组织与实施 (33) （一）组织与推进 (33) （二）部署与实施 (33)
序言 党的十八大明确提出“坚持走中国特色新型工业化、信息化、城镇化、农业现代化道路”，并把“信息化水平大幅提升”纳入全面建成小康社会的总体目标之中，将信息化提高到前所未有的战略高度。教育信息化是国家信息化的重要组成部分和战略重点，是教育改革发展的重要支撑和创新动力，对于促进教育公平、提高人才培养质量、构建国家终身学习体系和实现教育现代化具有重大意义。 教育管理信息化是《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要（2010-2020年）》和《教育信息化十年发展规划（2011—2020年）》所确定的教育信息化建设核心任务之一，对支持教育宏观决策、加强教育监管、提高各级教育行政部门和学校的管理水平、全面提升教育公共服务能力具有不可或缺的重要作用。2012年召开的全国教育信息化工作电视电话会议和《教育部等九部门关于加快推进教育信息化当前几项重点工作的通知》对教育管理信息化提出了明确的建设目标和要求。全面加快推进教育管理信息化面临着难得的发展机遇和艰巨繁重的任务。 国家教育管理信息系统建设是教育管理信息化的基础与核心。“十二五”期间教育管理信息系统建设的核心任务是国家教育管理公共服务平台。经过多年的探索与实践，我国教育管理信息系统建设取得了一定的成效，但尚未建成完整统一的教育基础
1.学校人员信息管理系统 #include
学校的信息化管理系统 教育信息化：学校管理系统包含的几个方面 关键词：教育信息化,学校管理系统,数字化校园,教育云 教育信息化不仅仅改变了教学方式，还改变了教学管理方式。学校管理系统就是教育信息化的“产物”，那么学校管理系统包含哪几方面的应用呢？ 学校教育信息化建设的内涵极其丰富，几乎涵盖了学校各项活动的每一个角落，就环境建设与资源建设方面，应包括以下几个具体方面。一是网络基础乎白;二是应用支撑平台;三是应用处理系统。基础平台包括校园网络、服务器等硬件环境建设;应用支撑平台包括统一身份认证平台、统一信息门户、统一公共数据库、统一信息标准;应用处理系统包括环境建设和资源建设的各种处理系统。具体的系统主要是下面的几个方面的内容。 1.教务管理系统 教务管理系统强化教务管理的职能，涵盖了教务管理的方方面面。主要包括教师系统、学生系统课表系统、自动排课、成绩管理、教案管理、考试系统等。 2.教学与学习系统 教学与学习系统可以帮助教师的教学和学生的学习实现全面的信息自动化。主要包括信息点播系统.视频广播系统、远程教学系统、多媒体课件制作系统等等。 3.办公自动化及管理信息系统 系统能够全面提高办公与管理的效率和质量，使繁琐而枯燥的日常工作变得简单、轻松而快捷。主要包括文件管理、会议管理、档案管理、财务管理、人事管理等等。 4.校园一卡通系统 校园一卡通系统是利用IC卡作为电子身份的载体，使师生员工在校园中能够自动完成一系列与其身份桕关的活动。校园一卡通系统是高校教育信息化的牵头环节，主要包括用户注册系统、图书馆管理系统、食堂管理系统、机房自动化管理系统、宿舍和办公室门禁系统、电子钱包和校园电话系统等。
彭阳县第一小学信息化建设发展规划一、基本情况 我校现有教学班34个，在校学生2218名学生，教职工96名。由于城镇化建设的发展，学校三年内办学规模预计将达到36个教学班，学生将达到2700人以上。 学校已接入50兆光纤，现有计算机教室1个，装备了61台电脑。交互式电子白板多媒体电教室10（一年级5个班，二年级2个班，专用教室3个）还有2个班安装的是触摸液晶屏。 学校各年级办公室、各行政办公室都配备了计算机，共计48台，虽然没有达到人手一台，但这些教学设备对我校信息化资源应用起到了很大的作用，提高了教育教学水平。 二、学校信息化建设指导思想、基本原则及总体目标 （一）校园信息化建设指导思想 以科学发展观为指导，按照学校的总体部署和要求，以“区级教育资源试点学校”和“101”网校联合为契机，建立学校网站，紧密围绕提高教育质量和均衡发展这一主题，通过现代教育理念和现代教学手段，以资源应用为核心，以应用促发展，建立以应用为导向的评价机制，以信息化作为我校教育质量提高的突破口和重要手段，努力实现加快我校教育发展的战略目标。 （二）校园信息化建设基本原则 1、统筹规划。要制定学校信息化建设和管理的规划，各部门、各阶段按照总体规划进行细化，并结合总规和细化的方案进行实施。 2、突出重点，分步实施。按建设目标的内容，重点突出“建网、建队、建库、建制”的同时，分步实施，具体落实。
3、突出应用，讲求实效。根据学校的实际情况，着眼信息化建设的功能与作用，突出应用，本着够用、实用、用好的思想原则，实现总规的总体目标或具体目标。 三、阶段安排 第一阶段（2013.2-2014.7） 1、制定学校三年信息化建设发展规划； 2、完成校园网的组建工作，充分利用网络优势，把学校的电教资源充分利用起来。学校的各种管理资料通过网络上传校园网，建成教师和班级教育博客，把自己的学习心得、教育故事等上传自己博客，从而达到共享、交流、共同提高的目的，教师能自如的上传下载正常教学的课件。通过局域网的建立，达到教师的网上办公、学生的网上评价、学校各部门的网上发布通知、教导处的成绩发布，师生之间的交流与沟通等等。 3、聘请专业人士完善学校网站，利用网站加强学校与家长及社会各界的联系。 4、以学生信息技术教育为抓手。信息技术课程以信息素养的形成为主线，以全面提高学生的信息素养为根本目标。通过信息技术课程的学习，学生应该能够：具备收集、鉴别、筛选、整理、处理、传输、表达等的知识、技能和能力；具有利用信息技术发展思维、学会学习、自主探索和合作交流的能力；具有应用信息技术过程中的个人自律能力和明确所承担的社会责任。 5、加强师生信息技术能力培训。 （1）教师培训。以加强师资的教育信息化培训为切入。学校创造条件，采用“走出去”、“请进来”、分散与集中相结合的方法，根据需要，分别举办“信息技术基础理论”、“计算机基本操作”、“多媒体课件制
N R的管理信息系统建 设 公司内部编号：（GOOD-TMMT-MMUT-UUPTY-UUYY-DTTI-
NRC公司的管理信息系统建设 1999年7月的一天，NRC公司信息部肖经理接到公司主管销售副总裁的电话，让他立刻到副总裁的办公室。到了副总裁的办公室，肖经理才发现经管部杨经理、运输部曾经理、财务部万经理都已在副总裁的办公室里了。 副总裁望着打开的计算机屏幕说：“你们看看，到底是哪里出的问题。昨天杨经理向我汇报公司今年的销售情况，说今年上半年的销售情况不好，达不到全年目标的50％，但今天我从系统的日报上看，累计销售额已超过全年目标的50％。下午我要向总裁汇报上半年的销售情况，到底该用哪个数字，这两个数字究竟差在哪儿” 杨经理说：“我们的数字是从每个销售部门直接统计上来的，他们反映的都是实实在在的销售情况，一定不会错，而且今年的销售情况不是很好，他们也不会迟报或瞒报的。计算机里的数据我们一直没有用，也没有经过我们的审核，问题出在哪里我不太清楚。”言外之意是计算机系统的数据有问题，责任不在自己。 肖经理对数字的情况的确不很清楚，他不布置任务，销售数字只知道大概。他看看计算机屏幕，又看看杨经理，向副总裁解释道：“目前系统里的数字是根据运输部门录入到系统里的商业发票直接计算出来的，系统也是经过测试的，逻辑关系没有问题，如果统计结果有问题，只可能是运输部门商业发票录入有误，要不就是其他什么原因。” 曾经理想了半天：“我记得年初因为去年销售任务完成较好，销售部门一直没有及时把去年12月的销售单据送到运输部，一直到今年1月底才拿来，又赶
上过年，好像到了2月中旬才录入到系统中。但是这部分销售应当算在去年，而不是今年，这可以问一下财务部的万经理。” 肖经理接话道：“我看，这主要是目前财务总账系统和销售系统有些对不上号，财务系统已经老化落后了，有些数字不准确。” 万经理说：“本来销售情况就应当以财务报表为准，运输部门录入的发票有许多情况都很滞后，有的时候也不准确，这些数字如果以运输数字为依据，准确性当然差很多，领导要了解销售情况应当看财务报表。” 副总裁摇摇头：“你们财务报表一月才出一次，我需要每天都能了解到销售情况的数字，为此我才要求信息中心开发了总裁查询系统里的每日销售日报，但现在数字上是质的差别，有没有完成半年目标卡在这里，今天才七号，你的财务报表要每月十号才能出来，下午我怎么向董事会汇报” 万经理说道：“要不我让会计先给您出一份大概的报表，数字不会有太大的出入。” 副总裁无可奈何：“也只好如此了。但为什么我们信息系统的数字总是不可信，怎样才能让计算机系统真正具备决策支持的能力还有，现在电子商务在业内声势很大，对我们目前的商务形式会有什么样的冲击今天你们几个主管贸易、财务、信息的经理都在，把这个课题布置给你们，我也向总裁汇报一下。现在竞争如此激烈，如果我们一旦在某个方面失去了竞争优势，很有可能陷入被动的境地。” 1.NRC公司概貌 NRC公司是一家国有大型外贸公司，年营业额100亿元以上，在行业中占有相当地位。公司成立于70年代末期，是中国第一次经济体制改革的产物。公司
摘要 随着信息技术在管理上越来越深入而广泛的应用，信息管理系统的实施在技术上已逐步成熟。信息管理系统是一个不断发展的新型学科，任何一个单位要生存要发展，要高效率地把部活动有机地组织起来，就必须建立与自身特点相适应的信息管理系统。本文采用UC为开发语言环境，以Linux为开发平台，设计出一个学校管理系统，对学生、员工的信息、学生的课程以及成绩进行统一管理，便于查询、修改和打印。主要实现的功能模块有系统管理子系统、学生信息管理子系统、员工信息管理子系统、班级信息管理子系统、课程信息管理子系统、成绩信息管理子系统、综合测评子系统、毕业管理子系统、图书馆管理子系统等。 系统分析 一、需求分析 一个功能齐全、简单易用的信息管理系统不但能有效地减轻学校各类工作人员的工作负担，它的容对于学校的决策者和管理者来说都至关重要。所以学校管理系统应该能够为用户提供充足的信息和快捷的查询手段。但一直以来人们使用传统人工的方式管理文件档案、统计和查询数据，这种管理方式存在着许多缺点,如:效率低、性差,人工的大量浪费；另外时间一长,将产生大量的文件和数据,这对于查找、更新和维护都带来了不少困难。随着科学技术的不断提高,计算机科学日渐成熟,其强大的功能已为人们深刻认识,它已进入人类社会的各个领域并发挥着来越重要的作用。 作为计算机应用的一部分,使用计算机对学校的各类信息进行管理,具有手工管理所无法比拟的优点.例如:检索迅速、查询方便、效率高、可靠性好、存储量大、性好、寿命长、成本低等。这些优点能够极提高学校信息管理的效率,也是一个单位科学化、正规化管理,与世界接轨的重要条件。 因此，开发这样一套管理软件成为很有必要的事情，我们通过自己的知识和大量书籍的翻阅、的查阅，一起合作开发了一个学校管理系统。 该项目开发的软件为学校管理系统软件,是鉴于目前学校学生、员工人数和图书馆信息剧增,信息呈爆炸性增长的前提下,学校对信息管理的自动化与准确化的要求日益强烈的背景下构思出来的,该软件设计完成后可用于所有教育单位(包括学校,学院等等)的信息的管理.目前社会上信息管理系统发展飞快,各个企事业单位都引入了信息管理软件来管理自己日益增长的各种信息,学校管理系统也是有了很大的发展,商业化的信息管理软件也不少.但本系统完全独立开发,力求使系统功能简洁明了,但功能齐全且易于操作. 学校管理信息系统是一个以计算机为工具，对学校管理信息进行处理的人—机系统，它能准确统计出学生的考试分数，能从全局出发辅助学校各职能部门以及校长管理学校。可见，学校管理系统首先必须具有强大的电子数据处理功能，能大大提高学校管理人员的工作效率，减轻劳动强度，同时，该系统应当采用管理
学校信息化建设发展规划 信息化的学校，是以学校为对象的信息化、网络化、可视化和智能化的信息集成与应用系统，它将学校各部门、各学科、各领域的信息通过信息化和计算机处理，并最大水准地集成和利用各类信息资源，快速、完整、便捷地提供各种信息服务，实现学校教学和管理的信息化。让学生掌握现代信息技术手段和充分利用现代信息技术所蕴含的丰富信息资源充实、丰富学生知识面，是培养学生创新精神和实践水平的重要途径。在当前新形势下，将传统校园逐步转换为数字校园已成为迫切需要。为适合这个需求，也为了使我校信息化建设与应用更进一步，我们本着“整体规划、分步实施、突出应用、逐步完善”的原则，以满足教育教学需要为基本出发点，根据我校的实际情况，总体规划，分段实施。 一、指导思想 学校信息化的一个重要领域是信息技术与课程整合，即使课堂教学存有着一些与生俱来的不足与缺陷。但是，就当前来说，课堂教学，或者说有意义的接受学习仍然是学校教学活动的主要方式，学生通过学校的正规课程的学习获得必要的知识和水平是学生发展的主渠道，所以我们将积极探索学校正规课程与信息技术有效整合的作用，同时也将研究学生活动与信息技术整合的新领域。 二、现状分析 我们通过各种措施努力推动学校信息化建设，持续提升师生的信
息素养，提升信息技术在学校教育和管理中的应用水平，取得了一定的成绩。学校的年轻教师们都通过了信息技术基本操作水平考试，绝大部分教师通过了因特尔未来教育培训，教师们在教学中开始逐渐习惯于使用现代教育技术。通过区级规划和支持，学校逐步配备了各种信息技术设备，学校内所有教室和功能室安装了班班通设备，开通了校园网。满足了教育信息化需要的物质条件。 三、总体目标 以信息化校园建设为核心，完成教育信息化基础设施建设；建立科学、丰富的教育教学资源库；培养造就一支掌握现代教育理论和教育信息技术的师资队伍；推广信息化学校管理平台，建立较为完善的教育信息化管理和服务体系；高水平、高质量普及信息技术教育。扎实实施学校教育现代化，促动学校教育观点、教育模式的现代化。 四、工作措施 1、进一步改善校园信息化环境，重点在局域网的优化配置。采用适用的网络管理软硬件，提升学校网络安全和管理效率，改善内网运行速度。在部分楼层、办公室构建无线网接入设备，逐步提升校园信息化环境。 2、通过健全、完善学校现有的校园网络、信息技术设备管理等管理办法和制度，形成学校齐全、规范的信息化实验规章制度。 3、建立学校的教育资源平台，把现网站的教育、教学、科研资源重建整理，逐步充实教学资源。形成师生共建，具备校本特色，为广大师生青睐的资源网站。发展图书馆信息化资源库藏，优化组合学
学生信息管理系统（总体设计） 1、管理系统功能模块设计 本系统需要完成的功能主要有： （1）、输入学生基本信息、所在班级、所学课程和成绩等。 （2）、学生信息的查询，包括查询学生基本信息、所在班级、已学课程和成绩等。（3）、学生信息的修改。 （4）、班级信息的输入，包括输入班级设置、年级信息等。 （5）、班级信息的查询。 （6）、班级信息的修改。 （7）、班级课程信息的输入。 （8）、班级课程信息的修改。 （9）、学生课程添加和修改。 （10）、学生成绩信息的输入。 （11）、学生成绩信息的修改。 （12）、学生成绩信息的查询。 （13）、学生成绩信息的统计。 2、功能模块设计：
3、数据库设计：
学生信息管理系统（需求分析）
1.系统开发背景分析 系统的功能取决开用户的需求。随着科技进步和信息时代的到来，教育的普及程度起来起高，学校的人数也在迅速的增长，怎样的管理好成千上万的学生，已经成为一个学校的管理者必须面对的问题。编写本报告的目的就是用最少的代价，尽可能短的时间内确定问题是否能够解决，通过对学校的一些管理软件的调研分析，发现了一些不足，所以拟做此系统，使学生信息的管理更加准确,安全和快捷。 在本次试验中包括的模块有学生信息管理、课程信息管理、成绩信息管理和班级信息管理等几项，各项管理工作涉及到的内容用下面的关系模式表示。a)学生（学号，姓名，性别，年龄，班级，电话，备注，出生日期，入学时间， 班级编号，家庭地址） b)课程（课程编号，课程名称，课程类别，学分，学时） c)班级（系，班级号，指导老师） 2.系统分析 1.抽象出当前系统的逻辑模型 画出反映当前系统工作的数据流程图。数据流程图是逻辑模型的图形表示，即使不是专业的计算机技术人员也能非常容易理解，它是一种很好的系统构造的表示方法。画数据流程图是应该从已获得的人工处理流程中去掉物理因素，只保留数据、信息处理部分。 2．系统功能分析 系统主要用于学校学生信息管理，主要任务是用计算机对学生各种信息进行日常管理，如：查询、修改、增加、删除。 3.系统目标设计 根据本校的实际情况，利用校园网而设计一套针对性和功能都比较强的学生信息管理系统，对学生信息管理系统进行科学的分类、录入、查询． 4.开发设计思想 尽量采用学校现有的软硬件环境及先进的管理系统开发方案，从而达到充分利用资源，提高系统开发的水平和应用效果的目的。系统应该符合学校学生信息管理的规定，满足学校学生日常管理的需要，达到操作过程中的直观、方便、实用、安全等要求。强调多部门合作，学生工作设计面广泛，应该考虑各部门各
厦门实验中学信息化建设整体规划 此整体规划是两年前（2013年）我在进入厦门实验中学之前做的整体规划，目前正在一步步实施推进！后一篇是我现在根据自己学校信息化建设发展的现状做的一个中长期发展的具体规划。欢迎各位领导专家同行指导！ 初步设计：阮静 一.前言----校园信息化建设的思想概念 学校的信息化建设，是以学校为对象的信息化、网络化、可视化和智能化的信息集成与应用系统，它将学校各部门、各学科、各领域的信息通过信息化和计算机处理，并最大程度地集成和利用各类信息资源，快速、完整、便捷地提供各种信息服务，实现学校教学和管理的信息化。 在当前新形势下，校园的信息化建设是指将传统校园逐步转换为数字校园。为适应这一需求，为了校园的信息化建设，我们需要以满足教育教学需要为基本出发点，根据校园的实际情况，总体规划，分段实施。 二.需求分析-----校园信息化建设思路与规划目标 校园信息化建设思路：校园信息网络是学校信息化建设的一项基础设施，其规划建设应与学校的其它基础设施建设同步进行。校园信息化系统的设计、实施，除了根据学校资金的实际情况，还需要遵循一定的原则，信息化建设应应考虑以下几点： 1、校园信息化具有怎样的功能： （1）满足教学科研、行政办公需要，提供各种教学、办公工具和支撑平台，并提供丰富的教学资源。
（2）具有完善的办公事务处理能力，包括电子公文传递、电子公文管理、电子邮件、等无纸办公自动化功能。 （3）满足信息情报交流的需要，方便学校各级领导和教学科研人员对各种信息资料、教学情况的检索和查阅，包括Ｗeb 查询、电子公告等。 （4）具有远程通信能力，借助internet等通信手段，方便地实现远程互联，跨越地域限制，满足学校要求，加强各组各单位之间的业务联系和信息资源共享。（5）具有收集、处理、查询、统计各类信息资源的能力，充分利用原有数据资源，为学校领导提供准确、快捷的数字信息，实现数据化管理和智能化决策。（6）校园网络系统要确保整个网络系统的可靠性、安全性，容错能力强，还应该有后备保障系统，确保信息处理安全保密。 （7）校园信息化系统要保证技术先进和操作简单实用，便于非计算机专业人员使用，并能不断满足学校未来业务发展的需要，具有很强的扩展能力。 2、校园信息化建设所需要的应用系统的建设 校园的信息化建设目的主是为了应用，从而提高学校的办事效率、教学效率，所以要特别注重应用系统的建设，应用系统的覆盖范围相当广泛，功能需求应该包括以下几个方面： ●行政办公系统 包括网络会议、网络文件管理、通知公告、网上审批、申请购物、申请用车、网上报修、专用教室（场馆）预定、网上工资签单、各种信息的网上传输等； ●教学支持系统 包括学生成绩网上管理、网上作业、网上备课、网上教案课件管理与浏览、网上课程管理、网上试卷管理、网上课表管理、网上调课、网上考评等等； ●德育管理系统 包括网上心理健康教育、安全纪律管理、生活指导、网上心理咨询、学生素质综合评价等。 ●科研管理系统 包括教育科研活动安排管理、课题管理等，学校教科研管理通过网络，更大程度上实现了自动化，而且从“管”更多地转向协调服务，及时准确地提供各
管理信息系统建设过程中存在的问题以及解决方案 1.管理信息系统的概念 1.1管理信息系统的发展 管理信息系统从 20 世纪 50 年代中期计算机用于管理领域以来，经历了从简单到复杂，从单机到网络，从功能单一到功能集成、从传统到现代的演化。根据 mis 发展的时序和特点，可将 mis 的发展历程大致分为电子数据处理系统（ edps ）、管理信息系统（ mis ）、决策支持系统（ dss ）三个阶段。1 面向业务的edps 是利用计算机处理代替人操作的计算机系统，特点是面向操作层，以单项应用为主，数据资源不能共享，以批处理方式为主。2 面向管理的 mis。 20 世纪 70 年代初，随着数据库技术、网络通信技术和科学管理方法的发展，mis 逐渐成熟起来。mis 由 edps 发展而来，与 edps 相比， mis 更强调信息处理的系统性、综合性，除要求在事务处理上的高效率外，还强调对组织内部的各部门以及各部门之间的管理活动的支持。早期的 mis 是指面向中层管理控制的信息系统，主要应用于解决结构化问题。3 面向决策的 dss 以帮助高层次管理人员制定决策为目标，强调系统的灵活性、适应性。决策者和决策分析人员可以充分利用系统的引导，详细了解和分析其决策过程中的各主要因素及其影响，激发其思维创造力，从而在 dss 系统的帮助和引导下逐步深入地透视问题，最终有效地作出决策，即通过人机互助完成最终决策。 管理信息系统是一个不断发展的概念，它将朝着智能、集成和网络等方向的趋势不断发展。 1.2管理信息系统的特点 管理信息系统(MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM)简称MIS，根据其功能和复杂程度，可分为不同的级别。 最基础的是面向某项业务如生产、财务、经营、物资供应、人事等处理的系统，称为事务处理系统。用计算机代替人工进行数据处理，帮助业务人员提高工作效率，从繁琐、重复的劳动中解脱出来。 MIS是一种较复杂的信息系统。它是在业务信息系统基础上发展起来的。它能收集、传输、存储、加工、输出、维护信息。MIS与业务信息系统的主要区别在于：不仅能进行数据处理，而且还将数据处理与优化的经济管理模型、仿真等结合起来，能向各级领导提供决策用的信息。MIS可以按照企业业务处理的功能划分为若干子系统，如市场营销、产品质量、生产作业、劳动人事、成本财务等。
学校管理信息系统
目录 1.什么是学校管理信息系统 (2) 2.学校管理信息系统的组成 (2) 3.学校管理信息系统的功能构架 (2) 4.学校管理信息系统涉及的技术 (4) 5.学校管理信息系统的发展趋势 (4) 6.学校管理信息系统的开发步骤和计划 (5) 6.1建立系统的基本条件 (5) 6.2系统开发步骤 (5) 6.3学校管理信息系统的规划 (6)
1.什么是学校管理信息系统 学校管理信息系统（SMIS）是校园网络中一个重要的应用系统，它大大了改善学校教学、科研与管理的基础环境，在一定程度上反映出学校管理现代化的水平。 学校管理信息系统是运行在快速校园网上的现代化信息管理手段。是多年开发、研究、实践、完善的先进管理规划思想，可以将所有的数据电子化，完全实现学校管理办公信息化。 2.学校管理信息系统的组成 按照学校职能部门及其工作任务，通常可将学校管理信息系统划分为若干个相应的分系统，它们同时又是功能相对独立的职能管理系统。各个分系统共享下述五类综合性数据库：学生数据库、教职工数据库、图书资料数据库、财产(?包括仪器设备和其它固定资产) 数据库以及财务数据库。此外，在每个分系统中还分别设有各自的专用数据库。 3.学校管理信息系统的功能构架
（一）学校教务管理系统 通常包括编班、课程表调度、学籍管理、教学档案管理等功能模块或子系统。 编班是按照年龄、性别、入学成绩等情况，并按照某些给定的原则把新生分配到各个平行班级。编班处理的原始数据来自学生管理系统中的招生管理子系统。 课程表是教学工作的时间、空间和人力的总调度。课表调度要涉及学生、教师、教室和设备等多方面因素，因而它是教务管理系统中一个十分重要也是比较复杂的子系统。 学籍管理是教务行政管理工作的重要容，主要包括学生在校期间各科学习成绩的登录，统计处理，各种成绩表册及成绩报告单打印和保存，提供各种查询功能以便及时了解各科教学情况和各班学习质量。 教学档案管理包括各系、专业和各课程的教学计划、教师教学情况、有关统计报表及教学文件的登录、整理、查询与存贮。 （二）学生管理系统 这里的学生管理指的是对学生工作的综合性管理。由于招生、培养、分配是学校教育的三个基本环节，因而该系统通常包括招生管理，学生操行及奖惩管理、毕业分配管理等。 （三）教职工人事管理系统 该系统由教职工基本人事档案管理和教师业务档案管理两个子系统组成，主要完成上述档案的登录、分类、检索查询和各种统计报表输出等。人事档案包括教职工本人的基本情况及其家庭简要情况，教师业务档案则记载教师的专业方向、外语能力、教学情况、科研成果和业务进修情况等项容。 （四）图书资料管理系统 该系统通常由采编管理、流通管理和报刊杂志管理三个子系统组成，用以辅助学校图书馆及资料室的日常管理业务。其中采编管理子系统主要实现图书订购、查重和订单备案等功能;流通管理子系统可实现书库快速检索、登录、编制日、月、年报表等功能;报刊杂志管理子系统则主要完成各种报刊、杂志的征订、统计汇总和检索。 （五）财务管理系统 财务管理系统通常包括以下四个子系统:计划、预算管理子系统，根据事业计划需要，对未来年度的资金进行筹集与分配处理。会计核算子系统，主要进行各种财务凭证和账务的处理、核算，打印科目汇总表和汇总平衡表等各类报表，实现预算和计划执行情况的统计和跟踪。工资核算子系统，实现工资结算、分部门汇总、打印工资发放表册、钱币面值统计等功能。财务分析子系统，对财务计划和预算的执行状况进行分析并作出决算，以此总结和考核学校各方面经济活动的效果与存在的问题。
新疆财经大学本科毕业论文题目：学校教室管理信息系统 学生姓名： 学号： 院部： 专业： 班级： 指导教师 姓名及职称： 完成日期：2011年3月21日
在今天这样信息化的时代，课堂教学也应该跟上时代的步伐。随着学校办学的正规化和功能完整化，传统的人工教室管理方法已经渐渐难以满足需求。所以需要使用现代化信息管理方式来解决这一问题，随着我们对计算机技术的学习，这样的问题已经可以被我们解决。由此学校教室信息管理系统应运而生。 本论文中介绍了系统开发工具及技术，系统的可行性分析，系统结构设计，数据库等。这里着重论述了系统功能与实现。数据库的设计和创建、该系统的分析过程、设计思路、和实现结果，也将在本论文中清晰展现。 学校教室管理信息系统以Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0软件开发的程序，采用Microsoft Office Access2003作为开发工具，对数据进行增加、保存、修改、删除等管理。其功能主要包括教室管理、教室类别管理、可使用查询、使用情况查询。该系统基本上满足了用户在学校教室使用方面的需求，用户界面简洁、使用方便，是一个比较实用的VB系统。 关键词：VB、ACCESS 、教室管理
第1章绪论 (1) 1.1课题背景 (1) 1.2课题设计步骤 (1) 第2章开发工具和平台 (2) 2.1开发工具 (2) 2.2运行环境 (2) 第3章总体设计 (3) 3.1系统功能设计 (3) 3.2系统流程 (3) 3.3数据库概念结构设计 (4) 3.4数据库逻辑结构设计 (6) 第4章系统详细设计与实现 (8) 4.1功能模块简介 (8) 4.2设计用户登录窗体 (8) 4.3设计系统主界面 (10) 4.4设计系统管理模块 (11) 4.4.1 添加管理员 (11) 4.4.2修改密码 (12) 4.4.3设计学生管理窗体 (13) 结束语 (19) 参考文献 (20) 致谢 (21)
学生信息管理系统需求分析 第一章绪论 1.1 前言 随着学校的规模不断过大，学生数量急剧增加，有关学生的各种信息量也成倍增加。面对庞大的信息量需要有学生信息管理系统来提高学生管理工作的效率。通过这样的系统可以做到信息的规化管理、科学性统计和快速查询、修改、增加、删除等，从而减少管理方面的工作量。 学生信息管理是学校管理的重要组成部分，对于学校和政府教育单位来说都至关重要，所以学生信息管理系统应该能够为用户提供充足的信息和快捷的查询手段。传统的人工方式管理方式效率低、性差，不利于查找、更新和维护。使用计算机对学生信息进行管理，能够极提高学生管理的效率，节约教育经费，这也是适应学校信息化建设发展趋势的重要因素。 作为计算机应用的一部分，使用计算机对学生信息进行管理，具有手工管理所无法比拟的优点。例如：检索迅速、查找方便、可靠性高、存储量大、性好、寿命长、成本低等。这些优点能够极提高学生信息管理的效率，也是企业的科学化、正规化管理，与世界接轨的重要条件。因此，开发这样的管理软件成为很有必要的事情。 学生信息管理系统其开发主要包括后台数据库的建立和维护以及前端应用程序的开发两个方面，对于前者要求建立起数据库一致性和完整性、安全性好的数据库。而对于后者则要求应用程序功能完备，易使用的特点。 学生信息管理系统要实现的目标是为学校提供学生管理解决方案，具体目标如下： 1) 提高学生信息管理效率，节约管理成本，增强学生管理的安全性。 2) 满足学校学生管理的人员、老师和学生的不同层次和不同方面的需要。 3) 为学校将来的信息化建设提供必要的支持。 总之，通过该系统的建设来提高学校的学生信息管理效率，使得学校的发展能够适应当前的教育信息化建设的中体发展趋势。 1.2 现有学生信息管理系统的分析
大学比赛管理信息系统建设方案 一、建设目标 大学比赛管理信息系统的开发目标是通过对学校学生参与比赛的规划和管理，提升个人的学习效率，实现自身价值与目标。大学比赛管理系统是学校教育的重要组成部分，而比赛的资源管理工作是其中的重要环节，需要做到在公平，公正，公开原则上，保证学校比赛的质量，严控比赛资源信息对个人的适配性，能够极大的帮助到个人。 大学比赛管理信息系统服务对象为所有大学生，比赛举办期间可以一直提供服务，此系统仅作公示比赛相关信息的用途，无年限限制。 此管理系统能够支持学生的学习规划，工作安排，比赛资源管理等。此管理系统服务于学生，能够稳定地为个人提供比赛资源管理、学习比赛安排、参与比赛建议等。能够提供一些信息资源支持，更好地进行学校比赛控制。 （说明该管理信息系统的开发目标，具有的功能，服务的围和质量，年限） 二、约束条件 在学校，有许多的比赛要参加，不知道如何安排自己的比赛时间，和做好比赛前的准备。 对于有比较多比赛的人群有所帮助。这样也能有效地管理自己赛前和赛后的时间，和安排自己的时间。个人比赛安排管理系统主要面向在校学生，通过利用信息技术来提高学生的比赛参加兴趣，鼓励学生多参加比赛，来提高个人能力。 每个人的生活工作习惯不同，对信息技术的认识和使用情况不同，现在每个人普遍都至少有一部智能手机。因为智能手机发展也比较快，学校的各类的比赛也比较多，可能会模糊一些比赛的规则，时间，个人的安排等原因，导致一些比赛无法按时完成，而错过比赛。每个比赛都需要做许多的准备，也会常常出现比赛准备不充分等原因，协调和安排比赛时间的准备工作，也需要精力和时间的。在校学生，也在处于人生的发展与规划，如何更好地实现人生价值，做好规划和取舍，也是需要考虑的事情。 我国大学校园的比赛资源供需矛盾表现既有总量上的不足，也有结构上的失衡，完全没有达到所倡导的比赛资源的高效利用的效果，稀缺的比赛资源阻碍了大学生获得更好的比赛、学习条件，也不利于学术交流。建立大学比赛资源共享系统，旨在利用信息技术提高比赛资源的高效利用的效果，改善比赛资源分配不足以及资源闲置浪费的情况。 现阶段，各级工作人员的比赛资源共享是通过网络形式，由于资源定期开启，给广大大学生带来诸多不便，资源共享的不及时。大学生可以通过大学比赛管理信息系统了解比赛、学习、教务在线、交友等最新动态。 一般大学生日常所需的所有的比赛资源都可以分门别类的上传到系统之中，以提供资源的共享。所有数据都必须在指定地点连续输入并供给信息系统使用，同一个模板准许多人操作，但必须统一按标准执行，对系统的使用、管理、质量评估也需要按照统一标准执行，系统设计必须根据相应的标准，在设计和使用中如发现有新标准应补充完善标准，一切标准和规都必须符合法律、法规。 大学比赛管理信息系统尚未收取任何费用，是共享性的公益性的，是为全国大学生量身