本文主要的目的在於爬梳社會科學方法論中因果機制分析的發展和演進，並進一步評估政治學研究中如何運用因果機制來進行解釋以及討論相關的解釋效力的問題。本文將具體評析政治學國際關係領域中民主和平論之論點，以此來衡量政治學運用因果機制解釋的優勢和侷限。因果機制研究層面上，本文聚焦在機制的定義和類型、機制的觀察性、因果機制與因果關係、法則和中介變數的差異、機制的層次、機制的運作和測量、機制的路徑圖。因果機制運用層面上，本文側重於民主和平論的源起和演進、 民主和平論的重要論述、對於民主和平論的挑戰以及現實主義因果機制的補充解釋。最後，本文針對民主和平論的相關論辯提出因果機制的補充解釋。
The main purpose of this paper is to parse out the development and evolution of causal mechanism and to further evaluate how political research adopts the method of causal mechanism to explain and discuss the explanatory effect in the field of qualitative methods. Our focus is to shed light on the causal mechanism of democratic peace theory in the field of international relations and to gauge its advantages and restraints. On the dimension of causal mechanism, this paper focuses on the definition of mechanism, observation of causal mechanism, the difference between causal mechanism, causality, laws and intervening variables, level of analysis, operationalization and measurement of causal mechanism, and roadmap of causal mechanism. This paper applies the analysis of causal mechanism to the origin and evolution of democratic peace theory, the challenges of realism over democratic peace theory, and the responses from democratic peace theory. Finally, we offer an alternative explanation to the debate between democratic peace theory and realism.
本文主張新古典現實主義不宜再度檢視國內層次的眾多因素與變項，而應從實然的角度來思考國家如何評估威脅、國家如何選擇外交政策的類型。本文說明新古典現實主義並非為解決異例(anomaly)誕生，而是將非體系與理念因素納入體系理論的邏輯之中，也就是將國內層次因素解讀為決策者對壓力的反應類型，亦即決策者會評估並判斷應採取何種類型之外交政策。而根據決策者對國際壓力的知覺(perception)，以及對於國內政治的評估 (calculation)，本文整理出國家具有制衡、..
This article criticizes the inappropriateness of neoclassical realism in evaluating factors and variables at the domestic level. Instead, the manner of which states assess threats and choose types of foreign policy should be based on empirical methods. The authors explain that neoclassical realism is not a result of solving anomaly but that it combines non-structural and ideational factors into the logic of the system theory. Factors at the domestic level are supposed to be systematically categorized and simplified by types o..
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.