中美高教研究方法之比较和反思——从不结“果实”的“花”与“树”谈起

A Comparative Study of Methodological Characteristics of HE Research in China and America:Reflections on "Flowers" and "Trees" Without "Fruit"

大约20年前,中美高教研究因滥用思辨性与经验性研究方法而被讥为不结"果实"的"花"与"树"。运用内容分析法,对中美两种高教核心期刊最近三年刊发论文的研究方法进行的调查发现,上述情况并未有根本改变:国内仍然偏重思辨性高教研究,美国则仍然偏重经验性高教研究。中美高教研究方法的不同与两国迥异的文化传统、科研条件、教育体制以及高教研究的发展背景有关。高教研究需要恰当地整合思辨性与经验性研究方法的互补优势,才能结出服务于高教实践的累累"果实"。

About two decades ago,higher education(HE)research in China and America,due to abuse of speculative and empirical methodologies,were regarded as disappointing as 'flowers' and 'trees' without 'fruit'.That situation hasn't changed much.The present study uses content analysis to identify the types of research methodology utilized in articles published in two leading HE journals in China and America during 3 recent years.Results indicate that the Chinese articles evidence a much stronger emphasis on speculative methodology,while the American articles are still more likely to be empirical.Possible reasons for such divergent patterns may be different cultural traditions,academic facilities,educational systems as well as historical background of HE research in these two countries.To produce fruitful suggestion for HE practice,researchers should properly integrate speculative and empirical methodologies,which actually complement each other in solving practical problems.