当代教育行动研究的多范式特征：有前途的观点还是潜在的威胁？,Educational Action Research

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Educational Action Research › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

当代教育行动研究的多范式特征：有前途的观点还是潜在的威胁？
Educational Action Research ( IF 0.8 ) Pub Date : 2016-10-19 , DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2016.1241184
Eleni Katsarou ₁

Affiliation

摘要行动研究从一开始就开始在社会研究领域中使用，至今呈现出巨大的变化。行动研究看起来像是理论和方法论方法的结合体，时不时地和/或在各地之间取不同的名称：例如，从业者探究，从业者研究，教师研究，参与式行动研究等等。本文的基本目的是找到造成这种情况的原因并讨论这种现象的含义。从第一个问题开始，我们可以自问：为什么今天我们在文献中的行动研究方法中发现如此多而可观的变化？显而易见的原因是，行动研究借鉴了许多理论范式，在某些情况下，它们不仅是不同的，而且彼此矛盾。哈默斯利（Hammersley）特别指出，行动研究借鉴了实证主义，实用主义，诠释学，批判理论和后现代主义！在提出这样的主张之后，我们很容易想到：这样的多范式方法如何构成具有凝聚力的方法论建议？我们还可以提出另一个关键问题：尽管我们可以很容易地理解，这种多范式的本质是使行动研究具有多元本质的真正优势，但这是否真的是“行动研究根据地方进行自我改造的力量的有力指标”需求”（如Somekh所说），还是同时掩盖了严重的风险？这样的多范式方法如何构成具有凝聚力的方法论建议？我们还可以提出另一个关键问题：尽管我们可以很容易地理解，这种多范式的本质是使行动研究具有多元本质的真正优势，但这是否真的是“行动研究根据地方进行自我改造的力量的有力指标”需求”（如Somekh所说），还是同时掩盖了严重的风险？这样的多范式方法如何构成具有凝聚力的方法论建议？我们还可以提出另一个关键问题：尽管我们可以很容易地理解，这种多范式的本质是使行动研究具有多元本质的真正优势，但这是否真的是“行动研究根据地方进行自我改造的力量的有力指标”需求”（如Somekh所说），还是同时掩盖了严重的风险？

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

The multi-paradigmatic character of contemporary educational action research: a promising perspective or an underlying threat?

Abstract From the very first moment action research started to be used in the social research field until now, it has presented significant variations. Action research looks like a mosaic of theoretical and methodological approaches, named differently from time to time and/or from place to place: for example, practitioner inquiry, practitioner research, teacher research, participatory action research, and so forth. The basic aims of this article are to find the reasons for this and to discuss the implications of the phenomenon. Starting with the first issue, we could ask ourselves: why do we today find so many and considerable variations in action research approaches in the literature? The evident reason is because action research draws upon many theoretical paradigms that – in some circumstances – are not only different, but also contradict each other. Hammersley states characteristically that action research draws upon positivism, pragmatism, hermeneutics, critical theory and postmodernism! After such claims, we can easily wonder: how can such a multi-paradigmatic approach compose cohesive methodological proposals? We can also pose another crucial question: although we can easily understand that this multi-paradigmatic nature is a real advantage which gives action research a pluralistic essence, is it really ‘a strong indicator of the power of action research to reinvent itself according to local needs’ as Somekh stated, or might it at the same time conceal serious risks?

更新日期：2016-10-19

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊新发论文