1、2010考研英语英语知识运用部分原文以及译文万学海文2010年的考研英语英语知识运用部分，使用了2009年6月6日 Economist 经济学人杂志上的一篇文章，文章主要内容，是对社会学上一个经典的理论：霍桑效应的批判和反思。文章难度适中。命题专家在出题的时候也进行了一定程度的改写。下面是题源的原文及译文。质疑霍桑效应照明的作用Questioning the Hawthorne effect原文：WHEN Americas National Research Council sent two engineers to supervise a series of industrial exper
2、iments at a large telephone-parts factory called the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago in 1924, it hoped they would learn how shop-floor lighting affected workers productivity. Instead, the studies ended up giving their name to the “Hawthorne effect”, the extremely influential idea that the very act of b
3、eing experimented upon changes subjects behaviour.The idea arose because of the perplexing behaviour of the women who assembled relays and wound coils of wire in the Hawthorne plant. According to accounts of the experiments, their hourly output rose when lighting was increased, but also when it was
4、dimmed. It did not matter what was done; so long as something was changed, productivity rose. An awareness that they were being experimented upon seemed to be enough to alter workers behaviour by itself.The data from the illumination experiments had never been rigorously analysed and were believed l
5、ost. But Steven Levitt and John List, two economists at the University of Chicago, discovered that the data had survived the decades in two archives in Milwaukee and Boston, and decided to subject them to econometric analysis. The Hawthorne experiments had another surprise in store for them. Contrar
6、y to the descriptions in the literature, they found no systematic evidence that levels of productivity in the factory rose whenever changes in lighting were implemented.It turns out that idiosyncrasies in the way the experiments were conducted may have led to misleading interpretations of what happe
7、ned. For example, lighting was always changed on a Sunday, when the plant was closed. When it reopened on Monday, output duly rose compared with Saturday, the last working day before the change, and continued to rise for the next couple of days. But a comparison with data for weeks when there was no
8、 experimentation showed that output always went up on Mondays. Workers tended to beaver away for the first few days of the working week in any case, before hitting a plateau and then slackening off.Another of the original observations was that output fell when the trials ceased, suggesting that the
9、act of experimentation caused increased productivity. But experimentation stopped in the summer, and it turns out from the records of production after the experiments that output tended to fall in the summer anyway. Perhaps workers were just hot.There is a suggestion in the data that productivity wa
10、s more responsive to changes in artificial than natural light. This could be interpreted as a subtler version of the Hawthorne effect, if you believe that workers were aware that changes in artificial light were induced by the experimenters, whereas natural light was changing on its own. But even th
11、is evidence is weak. For something so influentialand intuitively appealing, it turns out that the Hawthorne effect is remarkably hard to pin down.译文：在1924年，当派出两名工程师到一个芝加哥附近的大型电话机部件生产厂商Hawthorne工厂来指导一系列产业试验时，美国国家研究委员会(NRC)(注一)曾希望他们能够搞清楚工厂照明是如何对工人生产力产生影响的。但遗憾的是，这些研究以一个被他们命名为Hawthorne效应的结论草草收场，这个十分具有影响
12、力的结论告诉我们，仅仅是被实验就足以使实验客体的行为发生改变。此结论是从那些组装继电器和盘绕电线圈的产业妇女令人疑惑的行为中得出的。根据实验的记录，无论是加强还是减少照明，她们的每小时产出都会提高。无论做了什么;只要产生了变化，工人们的生产力就会提高。于是他们便得出：仅仅是被他人实验本身似乎就足以改变工人的行为。这些从照明实验中得到的数据从没经过严谨地分析，并且被认为已经遗失了。但是来自芝加哥大学的两位经济学家Steven Levitt和John List发现这些数据在密尔沃基和波士顿的两个存档中留存了几十年，于是他们决定重新以经济学的分析方式来研究它们。在Hawthorne实验中还有别的“惊
13、喜”等着他们。他们发现没有系统的证据来说明只要对光照施以改变，工厂的生产力水品就有所提高，这与该实验的论文相矛盾。这说明也许是实验所采取的古怪方式造成了人们对所发生的事情得出了错误的结论。比如说，每周日工厂关闭时照明都会有变化。所以当星期一复工时，产出按时比光照改变前的最后一个工作日来得高，并会持续上升一些日子。但是当对没有进行实验的周进行数据对比时，他们发现产出也经常在周一时上升。无论情况如何，工人们一般都会在每周停滞和放松之前努力工作个几天。另一原始观测得出每当实验一停止，产出就会减少，这被认为是所进行的实验造成了生产力的提高。但是实验是在夏天停止的，而实验结束后的关于生产的记录说明产出在夏天都会下降。也许(这只是)因为工人们太热了。实验数据反映，相比自然光，生产力的波动对人工照明更敏感。如果你相信工人们知道是实验者们在调整人工照明，同时自然光自发地改变，那么这种意见就可以被认为是Hawthorne效应的一个更隐晦的版本。但是就算是这条证据也十分无力。由于论述过于牵强和直观，Hawthorne效应显得异常难以证实。
