摘要
中国行政学的方法论之争,主要围绕三个焦点展开:一般性还是特殊性、实证主义还是后实证主义、定性研究还是定量研究。从哲学史视域来看,中国行政学的一般性和特殊性之争的哲学框架,可以转换为基于"相似性"的理论框架;后实证主义对实证主义、定性研究对定量研究的批判,均存在重要误解。后实证主义社群认为:实证主义持社会决定论、忽略行为动机、祛除一切价值判断;定性研究的支持者(同许多定量研究的支持者一样)认为,定量研究是精确而严格的,由此导致公共行政学的许多无谓长久的争论。通过追溯逻辑实证主义和数学哲学文献,在消释上述误解的过程中,进一步得出,公共行政学的实证主义和后实证主义可以构成方法论的连续统一体,定量研究也需要与定性研究相配合,才可能显示出相对的合理性。
The disputes over methodology of Chinese Public Administration are mainly focused on three aspects as following, generality or specificity, positivism or post - positivism, qualitative research or quantitative research. From the perspective of the history of philosophy, the philosophical framework of the dispute between generality and specificity of Chinese Public Administration can be converted into the framework of "similarity". There exists a serious misconception in the critique of positivism by post - positivism and that of quantitative research by qualitative research. For example, post - positivists hold that positivism supports social determinism, which neglects behavioral motives and rejects all value judgments. In addition, believers in qualitative research also argue that quantitative research is accurate and rigid. These misconceptions have triggered long, unnecessary disputes in the academic circle of Public Administration. By reviewing the literature of logical positivism and philosophy of mathematics, this paper tries to dispel the above - mentioned misconceptions. Finally,it gives further concludes that positivism and post - positivism can form a continuum of methodology. In addition, the qualitative research needs to combine with qualitative research, which may show relative rationality.
出处
《湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第1期74-79,共6页
Journal of Xiangtan University:Philosophy And Social Sciences
基金
安徽大学博士科研启动项目"公共行政学的语言哲学研究"(编号:02303319)
青年骨干教师培养项目(编号:12333010315)
教学项目"儒学原理传承视野下的行政伦理教学内容设计研究"(编号:J10118457061)阶段性成果
关键词
行政学方法论
实证主义
后实证主义
定性研究
定量研究
methodology of public administration
positivism
post - positivism
qualitative research
quantitative research