國際關係建構主義學者內部不同知識論的爭論或焦慮，尤其是現代建構主義與後現代建構主義的知識論爭議，因為後者根本反對有共同知識論與方法論的存在，影響了建構主義內部的建橋計畫，乃至整個國際關係理論建橋計畫的可能性，更明確地說，國際關係理論的綜合是否可能呢?遂有必要更為細緻與詳細的探討不同建構主義學者個別的觀點，藉以呈現國際關係理論研究的複雜性、多元性。本文以 Alexander Wendt、Jeffrey Checkel、Emanuel Adler 和 David Campbell 等建構主義學者作為範例探討建構主義內部的知識論與方法論爭議，Wendt 與 Checkel 是科學實存論的現代建構主義，Adler 是 務實實存論的現代建構主義，Campbell 是反實存論後現代建構主義，四人在知識論與方法論上的主張，正可以呈現出建構主義內部的知識論爭論，並簡介建構主義常用的研究方法，以說明建構主義的多元方法論，作為觀察國際關係理論綜合的基準與評論基礎。
The different epistemological assumptions or anxieties among constructivists, particularly, the epistemological debate between modernistic constructivists and postmodernistic constructivists, and it may not only have a profound impact on the bridge building project within constructivism but also on the bridge building projects in the International Relations Theory (IRT). Clearly and namely, can it be possible for the synthesis of IRT? It is necessary to conduct a more sophisticated and detailed research on constructivism’s epistemological assumptions to demonstrate the complexities and diversities in IRT.
This paper takes some leading constructivists - Alexander Wendt, Jeffrey T. Checkel, Emanuel Adler, and David Campbell - as examples to study the epistemological debates within constructivism. Wendt and Checkel both are modernistic constructivists, Campbell is a postmodernistic constructivist, and Adler is in the middle. I will use their different epistemological assumptions as an observation and evaluation to check the synthesis of IRT.
有關於層次分析(levels-of-analysis)的研究早於第二次世界大戰以來即受到西方學者相當之注重，但國內相關之研究仍未重視層次分析之研究途徑，亦很少有研究著作涉及層次分析之研究架構。近年來隨著「建構主義」 在國際關係理論上愈受重視，開展相互主觀、研究「結構/體系」與「單元 /能動者」之動態互動關係，並提及跨層分析的重要性，可惜建構主義學者亦未能將層次分析之相關理論做系統性之整理或推導成分析模型。針對此，本文將傳統國際關係理論及建構主義涉及層次分析的..
Levels-of-analysis has been one of most important IR theory in the West since World War II, but still waiting to be explored in Taiwan. With the rises of constructivism emphasizing the concept of intersubjectivity, exploring the relations between structure and agency, and reverting the significance of cross-levels analysis, researchers are forced to recall levels-of-analysis approach. However, there is still a pity that constructivism did not offer a modeling analytical framework for the studies of levels-of-analysis. Therefo..
長久以來，質性研究遭受過於主觀與不夠嚴謹的批評。紮根理論因應這樣的氛圍而生，紮根理論之研究途徑企圖藉由發展系統性的分析模式以理解「過程」、「情境」及「行動」等概念，並對上述批判作出反駁。然而，因為 Strauss 與 Corbin 兩位原作者在論述上的衝突，開啟了一連串對於概念性與方法論上的爭辯與困惑。因此，本文企圖重新審視紮根理論的不同途徑以便釐清其認識論上的矛盾。同時，本文建議以不同「情境」作為驅動個人行動的主要論述，以便對「譯碼典範」作出修正。最後，我..
Qualitative research has been criticized for the lack of objectivity and scientific rigor. In response to such criticism, grounded theory emerged as a philosophical and analytical approach to studying the process, action, and context of social phenomena. Nevertheless, the controversy between Strauss and Corbin, the founders of grounded theory, has provoked never-ending academic debates. Confusions are inevitably derived respectively from both theoretical foundations and methodological applications. This research is to clarify..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.