寻求均衡:比较政治学研究中的案例、理论与方法  

Approximating Equilibria:Cases,Theories,and Methods in Comparative Political Studies

作　　者：王丽萍[1,2,3] Wang Liping

机构地区：[1]北京大学,北京100871 [2]北京大学政府管理学院,北京100871 [3]北京大学区域与国别研究院,北京100871

出　　处：《南开学报（哲学社会科学版）》2024年第5期147-162,共16页Journal of Nankai university Philosophy,Literature and Social Science Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大委托项目(19@ZH046)。

摘　　要：社会科学研究是理论与经验材料之间进行对话的过程,并在此过程中寻求评估和发展理论。不同理论代表着不同的知识视角。比较政治学本质上是本体论的,却常常因其方法(论)特征而被当作一个认识论和方法论的知识领域。充分和有效的经验知识积累是比较政治学学科认知效力的基础,而严谨的知识生产需要严谨的科学方法。在“方法至上”的研究氛围中,理论概括的普遍性和方法的持续改进日益受到重视,而“满足经验分析的要求”这一学科基本标准却被忽略了,进而导致经验信息的稀释和现实政治相关性的削弱。作为一门折中的学科,比较政治学研究需要关注案例(描述性与非描述性的经验信息)、理论与方法的均衡。在学科科学化与学科人文传统的持续张力中,比较政治学的魅力就是让人们看见森林,也看见树木。Social science research is a dialogue between theories and empirical materials,and theories are evaluated and developed in the process.Different theories offer different knowledge perspectives.Comparative politics is fundamentally ontological but usually treated as an epistemological and methodological field due to its methodological characteristics.A comprehensive and effective accumulation of empirical knowledge is the foundation of the cognitive efficacy of comparative politics,which necessitates rigorous scientific methods.In the current"methods first"research environment,the universality of theoretical generalization and the continuous improvement of methods attract more and more attention,and the basic standard of"meeting the requirements of empirical analysis"is often overlooked,leading to a dilution of substantive information and a weakening of its relevance to real-world politics.As an eclectic field of research,the study of comparative politics should build on equilibria among empirical information(both descriptive and nondescriptive),theories,and methods.In the lasting tension between the trend to become more scientific and the humanistic traditions of the discipline,the appeal of comparative politics lies in its potentiality to"see both the forest and the trees."

关 键 词：比较政治学 经验信息 研究方法 “方法至上” 

分 类 号：D0[政治法律—政治学]