米尔健·达马斯卡学术观点的功用性和真确性  

Utility and Truth in the Scholarship of Mirjan Damaka

作　　者： 乔治亚·N·阿雷克萨科斯 胡之芳(译)[2] 郑飞(校)[3] 

机构地区：[1]美国西北大学法学院 [2]湘潭大学法学院 [3]中国政法大学

出　　处：《证据科学》2013年第6期686-700,共15页Evidence Science

摘　　要：在《司法和国家权力的多种面孔》一书中,达马斯卡教授关于制度性安排的两组概念模型的提出[科层型权力组织与协作型权力组织;政策实施型程序与纠纷解决型程序]将那些涉及司法制度和政府治理的变量化约为一套便于掌握的范式,彰显出概念性研究的首要价值——功用性。而在《漂移的证据法》中,达马斯卡超越概念性研究转而专注于实证研究。其研究志趣从功用性转移到了真确性,然而研究方法却并没有改变。对概念性研究路径的依赖导致《漂移的证据法》之核心命题的构建失去了客观性。尽管如此,《漂移的证据法》依旧具有重要的指引意义,它提醒学术界应当注意概念性研究与实证研究之间的差别以及忽略这种差别所导致的诸多问题。In The Faces of Justice and State Authority, Professor Dama^ka constructed a two-by-two conceptual model of institutional arrangements （hierarchical versus co-ordinate authority; policy implementing versus conflict resolving state） which made the stupendous diversity concerning systems of justice and governance reduced to a manageable set of patterns so that utility was demonstrated as the primary objective in his conceptual work. However, in the book Evidence Law Adrift, Darnaska moved beyond conceptual work and focused instead on empirical work. Although Damaska＇s aspirations evolved from utility to truth, his methodology did not change. Over dependence on the methodology of conceptual work made Evidence Law Adrift falls short of its objective of establishing the truth of its central proposition. Nevertheless it provides important guidance and a cautionary tale to the academy of the differences between conceptual and empirical work and how the neglect of those differences can lead to difficulties.

关 键 词：概念性研究 实证研究 功用性 真确性 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]