合法性的测量:急于论断?

The Measurement of Legitimacy:A Rush to Judgment?

杰克逊和布拉德福德(Jackson and Bradford)在一篇讨论测量警察合法性的方法论的重要文章中警告不要使用验证性因子分析作为警察合法性的可能来源和组成部分的一种判断工具。然而,该文在对孙懿贤(Ivan Sun)等人的文章的观点合理性提出质疑的过程中,无意间关注到另一个更为根本的问题,即科学家应如何在多元文化中进行研究和理论检验。此外,该文反对以其他方式测量警察合法性的论点也阐明了犯罪学面临的一个普遍存在的问题,因而引起了对犯罪学中关键假设操作化的质疑。我们认为,杰克逊和布拉德福德对孙懿贤等人的模型的批评以及对中国警察合法性的后续检验都被夸大了。此外,我们认为跨文化的(警察合法性)理论检验应该自上而下和自下而上同时进行,因为这两者不一定矛盾。我们主张读者成为最终的法庭之友(Amicus curiae),因为此问题没有绝对的正确或错误。

In an important article on the methodological issues surrounding measuring of police legitimacy,Jackson and Bradford adequately warn against the use of confirmatory factor analysis as an adjudication tool for differentiating the possible sources and constituent components of police legitimacy.However,in the process of arguing against the Sun et al.’s measure of legitimacy,they inadvertently bring attention to a more foundational issue—How should scientists conduct research and test theories in various cultures?Furthermore,their argument against the alternative measuring of police legitimacy elucidates an extensive problem facing criminology—they have brought attention paid to the interrogation of operationalizing key constructs within criminology.We argue that Jackson and Bradford’s critiques of Sun et al.’s modeling and subsequent testing of police legitimacy in China are a bit overstated.Additionally,we contend that testing theories,such as police legitimacy,across cultures should be conducted both top-down and bottom-up—neither are necessarily contradictory.We urge readers to be the ultimate amicus curiae because this issue is not a concretely right-or wrong type issue.