方法为本、理论驱动与机制分析——社会工作服务效果评估的三种策略

社会工作与管理 ›› 2021, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (6): 5-13.

• 社会工作 • 下一篇

方法为本、理论驱动与机制分析——社会工作服务效果评估的三种策略

刘江¹, 顾东辉²

1. 南京理工大学公共事务学院，江苏南京，210094;
2. 复旦大学社会发展与公共政策学院，上海，200433

收稿日期:2021-06-08 出版日期:2021-11-15 发布日期:2021-12-14
作者简介:刘江(1988—)，男，汉族，讲师，博士；主要研究方向：社会工作理论，社会工作评估，社会工作量化分析。
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金重大项目“中国特色社会工作制度体系研究”(19ZDA144)；国家社会科学基金青年项目“新时代社会工作服务的赋权评估实践体系研究”(21CSH065)；江苏省社会科学基金一般项目“江苏省基层社区能力与居民生活质量关系研究”(18SHD002)。

Method-Based, Theory-Driven and Mechanism Analysis: Three Approaches for Social Work Service Effect Evaluation

LIU Jiang¹, GU Donghui²

1. School of Public Affairs, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China;
2. School of Social Development and Public Policy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China

Received:2021-06-08 Online:2021-11-15 Published:2021-12-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 社会工作服务效果评估内嵌了因果律。受因果律本体论假定的影响，社会工作服务效果评估通常有两种方法，一种用社会科学研究方法探索经验层次服务与结果之间的规则性联系，另一种用理论来解释经验层次规则性联系。前者属于统计学解释，后者属于机制性解释。为整合统计学解释与机制性解释，文章以实用主义的机制内涵和过程追踪法为指导，提出“经验—方法—理论”和“理论—方法—经验”两种不同的社会工作服务效果评估策略。

关键词: 社会工作评估, 因果机制, 方法为本, 理论驱动

Abstract: Causality is embedded in the effectsevaluation of social work services. Influenced by the ontology of causality, there are two approaches to evaluate the effects of social work services. One is to explore the regular relationship between services and results based on social science research methods, and the other is to explain the regular relationship between services and results based on theory. The former belongs to statistical interpretation, while the latter belongs to mechanism interpretation. In order to integrate the statistical interpretation and the mechanism interpretation, under the guidance of pragmatism mechanism and process tracing, this paper puts forward two different methods of social work service effect evaluation: “experience-method-theory” and “theory-method-experience”.

Key words: social work evaluation, causal mechanism, method-based, theory-driven

中图分类号:

C916

刘江, 顾东辉. 方法为本、理论驱动与机制分析——社会工作服务效果评估的三种策略[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2021, 21(6): 5-13.

LIU Jiang, GU Donghui. Method-Based, Theory-Driven and Mechanism Analysis: Three Approaches for Social Work Service Effect Evaluation[J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2021, 21(6): 5-13.

参考文献

[1] 罗希, 弗里曼, 李普希. 项目评估: 方法与技术[M]. 邱泽奇, 等, 译. 北京: 华夏出版社, 2002: 20
[2] 刘江. 社会工作服务效果评估: 基于定性与定量方法的混合评估法[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2016(6): 36-43,83
[3] KHANDDER S R, KOOLWAL G B, SAMAD H A. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and pracitces[M]. Washington DC: The World Bank Publication, 2010: 3.
[4] BRADY H E. Causation and explanation in social science[C]//JANET M BOX-STREFFENSMEIER, HENRY E BRADY, DAVID COLLIER. The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 217-270.
[5] MARINI M M, SINGER B. Causality in the social sciences[J]. Sociological methodology, 1988, 18: 347-409. Doi:10.2307/271053.
[6] BEACH D, PEDERSEN R B. Process-tracing methods: foundations and guidelines[M]. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2013.
[7] BENNETT, ANDREW. Process-tracing: a bayesian perspective[C]//JANET M BOX-STEFFENSMEIER, HENRY E BRADY, DAVID COLLIER. The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 702-721.
[8] BOGEN J. Regularities and causality: generalizations and causal explanations[J]. Studies in history & philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 2005, 36(2): 397-420
[9] 古贝, 林肯. 第四代评估[M]. 秦霖, 等, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2008: 5.
[10] 胡安宁. 社会科学因果推断的理论基础[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2015.
[11] ENGEL RAFAEL J , SCHUTT RUSSELL K. The practice of research in social work.[M]. 3rd ed. Clifornia: SAGE Publication, 2013.
[12] 刘江. 自由目标评估: 一种可行的社会服务项目效果评估法——兼论社会服务项目效果评估的新转向[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2019(4): 57-64
[13] FITZPATRICK J L, SANDERS J R, WORTHEN B R. Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines[M]. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2004: 41.
[14] YOUKER B W. Goal-free evaluation: a potential model for the evaluation of social work programs[J]. Social work research, 2013, 37(4): 432-438
[15] 马克斯·韦伯. 社会学的基本概念[M]. 顾忠华, 译. 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社, 2010: 36
[16] WEISS C. Theory-based evaluation: past, present and future[C]//ROG D J, FOURNIER D. Progress and future directions in evaluation: perspectives on theory, practice and methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
[17] CHEN H-T, ROSSI P H. The Theory-driven approach to validity[J]. Evaluation and program planning, 1987, 10(1): 95-103
[18] 王海萍, 许秀娴. 我国社会工作干预项目评估流程与方法回顾[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2018(5): 15-20
[19] 彼得·赫斯特洛姆. 解析社会: 分析社会学原理[M]. 陈云松, 等, 译. 南京: 南京大学出版社, 2010.
[20] ASTBURY B, LEEUW F L. Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation[J]. American journal of evaluation, 2010, 31(3): 363-381
[21] GEORGE A L, BENNETT A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005: 137.
[22] BUNGE M. Mechanism and explanation[J]. Philosophy of the social sciences, 1997, 27(4): 410-465
[23] PAWSON R. Invisible mechanisms[J]. Evaluation journal of Australasia, 2008, 8(2): 3-13
[24] BHASKAR R. A realist theory of science[M]. Sussex, Brighton: Harvest Press, 1975: 13.
[25] SAYER R K. The mechanisms of emergence[J]. Philosophy of the social sciences, 2004, 34(2): 260-282

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

方法为本、理论驱动与机制分析——社会工作服务效果评估的三种策略

Method-Based, Theory-Driven and Mechanism Analysis: Three Approaches for Social Work Service Effect Evaluation

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 2

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	刘海桃. 中国社会工作评估的研究进程与趋势——基于CNKI数据库234篇文献的研究[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2021, 21(6): 34-43.
[2]	刘江. 社会工作服务评估：一个整合的评估模型[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2015, 15(3): 51-56.