頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 報告書寫的困境與可能性--寫給愛好質化研究的朋友=Limits and Possibilities in Report-Writing: To Those Who Care for Interpretive Inquiry |
---|---|
作者 | 成虹飛; | 書刊名 | 新竹師院學報 |
卷期 | 12 1999.02[民88.02] |
頁次 | 頁27-42 |
分類號 | 818.4 |
關鍵詞 | 質化研究方法論; 研究報告書寫; 後現代主義; 批判理論; 新實用主義; 詮釋學; 文化研究; Qualitative research; Interpretive inquiry methodology writing; Critical theory hermeneutics postmodernism; Neo-pragmatism cultural studies; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 這是一篇有別於一般學術報告體裁的論述,主題在於反省質化研究的寫作限制與可能性。整篇論述分為兩個表達層次,第一個層次是以一封信的敘事體裁(narrative)來呈現,也是本文的主體;第二個層次是有關學理的引用與討論,以註腳方式寫在每頁的下方。這篇文章因此包含兩種“語言-遊戲”的並行使用,一種是信的敘事語言,一種是專業化的學術語言。 這篇文章的雛形,是先以歌唱與口頭分享的方式,在八十七年六月屏師的一場別開生面的“眾聲喧譁:質化研究經驗的省思與對話”研討會上發表。 文字的初稿則收錄於該次研討會後來出版的論文集中。這篇文章是經由初稿修改而成,主要的變動是在註腳的部分。初稿是以信的敘述形式佔絕大部份篇幅,只有零星的註腳。後來主要是為了在學術期刊上發表,所以在文中以註腳的方式大量增加了學理的討論和引用。 這篇文章的主體是一封信的內容,寫給愛好質化研究的朋友,在文中我把信和質化研究報告當作兩種溝通形式作比較,藉以凸顯質化研究寫作的困境與可能性。由於是採取信的敘述體裁,我夾雜了相當非正式的淺白語言,抒發自己的觀感,希望與讀者進行親近的、個人化的經驗交流。在註腳中,我則採取了較為嚴肅的的學術語言形式,從批判的、後現代的、實用主義的觀點,針對我在信中提到的相關議題加以援引呼應。讀者可以去比較,在讀信和讀註腳時,所產生的不同的內在心理過程,同時也可以比較這兩種不同的 " 語言 -- 遊戲 " 所帶來的溝通效果。 |
英文摘要 | I use letter-writing as a contrasting form of communication to highlight the limitations and possibilities of writing interpretive inquiry. My discussion is presented deliberately in a letter form. I argue that the letter has the potential for crossing boundaries, whereas the academic paper has the tendency toward boundary-preserving. The purpose of letter is to pass through the distance between two persons apart from each other, so that both parties are reconnected in a certain way. The distance could be geographic, social, cultural, racial, gender-related, political, and economic. Because we are free to decide what we want to say and whom we want to write with our letter, a possibility of crossing boundaries is always open to us. Yet, although the academic paper is a form of communication, it is circulated only within a particular self-contained academic community-with clear-cut boundaries, which distinguish itself from other academic and nonacademic communities. In this letter I attempt to point out that what I am against is the separation between theory and practice and that between the public sphere and private matters. I contend that we do not have to sacrifice our private integrity and inter-subjectivity for publishing papers and preserving boundaries. Finally, I call for the rethinking of what it means to write the interpretive inquiry paper. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。