实践研究与论理逻辑

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 社会工作中有关理论与实践的关系，已经越来越趋向于“心理治疗”，再加上大家惯常采用“笛卡儿”式知识观，总是倾向于相信人的行为在很大程度上由个人的理性思维所决定，因此，社会工作教育者的思维集中于个人层面上的理性思考。这种思考框架将知识视为一种可以系统地处理及建构的文本和命题，只要有条不紊地整理好命题，就可以满足实践及教学上的需要；特别在实践上而言，实践者可以根据完整的理论和充满指引性的“介入流程”指导实践工作。这一点也正是“理论指导实践”的思维基础。由此可知，这种思维太过集中于发展“理论论理”而忽略“实践论理”，单单相信前者可以带来实践的有效性，而不认识其局限性，必会对其缺乏批判。因此，要强调“实践论理”在实践中的重要性，特别是“实践论理”要求实践者对“第一人视角”的重视，对“目的论”因果关系的认识，以及发现“实践论理”与价值实践的重要关联。

关键词: 理论与实践, 知识类型, 理论论理, 实践论理, 价值知识

Abstract: The relationship between theory and practice in social work has increasingly shown a trend toward “psychotherapy”. Coupled with the commonly used “Cartesian” epistemology, the scholars always tend to believe that human behavior is largely determined by the rational thinking of individuals. So the thinking of social work educators focuses on rational thinking at the individual level. This framework of thinking treats knowledge as a text or proposition that can be systematically processed and constructed. As long as the proposition is sorted out methodically, it can meet the needs of practice and teaching. Especially for practice, practitioners can guide their own practical work according to an integral theory and guided “intervention processes”, which is the basis of thinking for the thought that “theory guides practice”. Accordingly, this kind of thinking is too much focused on developing “theory-based reasoning” and neglects “practice-based reasoning”, which leads people only to believe that the former can bring practical effectiveness, but lack criticism of it and understanding of its limitations. Therefore, this paper emphasizes the importance of “practice-based reasoning” in practice, especially the three important requirements of “practice-based reasoning” that practitioners should attach importance to: the “first-person perspective”, the understanding of causality as embodied in “teleology”, and the important connection between “practice-reasoning” and value practice.

Key words: theory and practice, types of knowledge, theory-based reasoning, practice-based reasoning, knowledge of value

中图分类号:

C916

何国良. 实践研究与论理逻辑[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2023, 23(1): 5-25.

HE Guoliang. Practice Research and the Logic of Reasoning[J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2023, 23(1): 5-25.

参考文献

[1] GAMBRILL E. Evidence-based practice and policy: choices ahead[J]. Research on social work practice, 2006, 16(3): 338-357
[2] KONDRAT M E. Reclaiming the practical: formal and substantive rationality[J]. Social service review, 1992, 66(2): 237-255
[3] STRINGER E T, ARAGÓN A O. Action research[M]. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2020: 4-42.
[4] KEMMIS S, MCTAGGART R, NIXON R. The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research[M]. Singapore: Springer, 2014.
[5] WICK P G, REASON P. Initiating action research: challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space[J]. Action research, 2009, 7(3): 243-262
[6] COGHLAN D, BRANNICK T. Doing actlion research in your own organization[M]. 2nd ed. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2005: 270.
[7] CARR W, KEMMIS S. Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research[M]. London, Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 1986: 129-154.
[8] FOX M, GREEN G, MARTIN P. Doing practitioner research[M]. London: Sage, 2007: 25-4.
[9] VAN DETH J. Measuring social capital: orthodoxies and continuing controversies[J]. International journal of social research methodology, 2003, 6(1): 79-92
[10] ORLIKOWSKI W. Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing[J]. Organization science, 2002, 13(3): 249-273
[11] SHEPPARD M, NEWSTEAD S, DI CACCAVO A, et al. Reflexivity and the development of process knowledge in social work: a classification and empirical study[J]. The British journal of social work, 2000, 30(4): 465-488
[12] ERAUT M. Developing professional knowledge and competency[M]. London and New York: Falmer Press, 1994: 40-158.
[13] SHEPPARD M. Practice validity, reflexivity and knowledge for social work[J]. The British journal of social work, 1998, 28(5): 763-781
[14] SHEPPARD M. Social work and social exclusion: the idea of practice[M]. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006: 197-218.
[15] WENGER E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998: 43-50.
[16] MCDONALD J, CATER-STEEL A. Communities of practice[M]. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2017: 3-152.
[17] WAKEFIELD J C. When an irresistible epistemology meets an immovable ontology[J]. Social work research, 1995, 19(1): 9-17
[18] SCOTT D. Practice wisdom: the neglected source of practice research[J]. Social work, 1990, 35(6): 564-568
[19] MAYERS-SCHULZ B, SCHWITZGEBEL E. Knowing that P without believing that P[J]. Nous, 2013, 47(2): 371-384
[20] RUSSELL B. Human knowledge: its scope and value[M]. London: Routledge, 1948: 171.
[21] 曹剑波. 日常知识归赋的语境敏感性——实验知识论的新成果[J]. 自然辩证法通讯, 2016(4): 33-39
[22] MULLER A. Constructing practical reasons[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020: 6-109.
[23] RAZ J. Practical reason and norms[M]. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999: 15-48.
[24] FINLAY S. Reasons for action: internal vs. external[EB/OL]. [2018-08-18]. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-internal-external/.
[25] BRUNERO J. Practical reasons, theoretical reasons, and permissive and prohibitive balancing[J]. Synthese, 2022, 200(92): 1-23
[26] WALLACE R JAY. Practical Reason[EB/OL]. [2022-01-06]. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/practical-reason/.
[27] 王炳书. 实践理性问题研究[J]. 哲学动态, 1999(1): 25-28
[28] VELLEMAN J D. The possibility of practical reason[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000: 12.
[29] ENGSTROM S. The form of practical knowledge: a study of the categorical imperative[M]. London: Harvard University Press, 2009: xi.
[30] 王炳书. 实践理性论[M]. 武汉: 武汉大学出版社, 2002: 14.
[31] DOOB L. Slightly beyond skepticism: social science and the search for morality[M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987: 3-23.
[32] MARSHALL J, MEAD G. Editorial: self-reflective practice and first person[J]. Action research, 2005, 3(3): 235-244
[33] BURGESS J. Participatory action research: first-person perspectives of a graduate student[J]. Action research, 2006, 4(4): 419-437
[34] PARK P. Knowledge and participatory research[M]//P REASON, H BRADBURY, P REASON, et al. Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage, 2001: 81-90.
[35] FINLAY L. “Outing” the research: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity[J]. Qualitative health research, 2002, 12(4): 531-545
[36] PINK T. Free will: a very short introduction[M]. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[37] HOBBES T. Leviatha[M]. London: Penguin, 1968: 261-263.
[38] IXER G. There’s no such thing as reflection[J]. The British journal of social work, 1999, 29(4): 513-527
[39] BENGTSSON J. What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teaching education[J]. Teacher and teaching, 1995, 1(1): 23-32
[40] BOLTON G, DELDERFIELD R. Reflective practice: writing and professional development[M]. 5th ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2018: 13.
[41] BLACKER F. Knowledge, knowledge work and organization: an overview and interpretation[J]. Organization Studies, 1995, 16(6): 1021-1046
[42] BENGTSSON J. Possibilities and limits of self-reflection in the teaching profession[J]. Studies in philosophy and education, 2003, 22: 295-316
[43] KENNEDY H, KENNEDY J. “It’s real, it’s much more real”: an exploration of values based reflective practice as a reflective tool[J]. Health and social care chaplaincy, 2021, 10(1): 78-92
[44] LARMORE C. The practices of the self [M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2010.
[45] LYNCH M, BOGEN D. Spectacle of history: speech, text & memory at the Iran-contra hearings[M]. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996: 265.
[46] GARFINKEL H. Studies in ethnomethodology[M]. Cambridge: Polity, 1967: 1-103.
[47] VELLEMAN J D. Practical reflection[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989: 4.
[48] LEWIN K. The conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian Modes of thought in contemporary psychology[J]. The journal of general psychology, 1931, 5(2): 141-177
[49] NICOLINI D. Practice theory, work, and organization: an introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013: 171.
[50] CORNELISSEN J. Teleological reasoning and knowledge generation in marketing theory: observations and recommendations[M]//Manchester Metropolitan University Business School working paper series. London: the Graduate Business School of the Manchester Metropolitan University, 2001: 1-18.
[51] MILLER S. Social action: a teleological account [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001: 18-52.
[52] CSIBRA G, GERGELY G. “Obsessed with goals”: functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 2007, 124(1): 60–78.
[53] GOLSORKHI D, ROULEAU L, SEIDL D, et al. Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice[M]. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015: 1-32.
[54] HABERMAS J. Knowledge and human interest[M]. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971: 113-160.
[55] KOLB D. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development[M]. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Peason Education, 2014: 164-172.
[56] SHEPPARD M N. Comparative hypothesis assessment and quasi triangulation as process knowledge[J]. British journal of social work, 2001, 31(6): 863-885
[57] LICATA G. Aristotle’s doctrine of causes and the manipulative theory of causality[J]. Axiomathes, 2019, 29(6): 653-666
[58] TUOZZO T. How dynamic is Aristotle’s efficient cause?[J]. Epoché: a journal for the history of philosophy, 2011, 15(2): 447-464
[59] CRESPO R F. Causality, teleology and explanation in social sciences[C]// Working paper. Durham: Centre for Humanities Engaging Science and Society (CHESS), 2016: 1-21.
[60] LEUNISSEN M. The structure of teleological explanations in Aristotle: theory and practice[J]. Oxford studies in ancient philosophy, 2007, 33: 145-178
[61] GIFFORE R J, PHENICE L. Proximal processes and causality in human development[J]. European journal of educational and development psychology, 2016, 4(1): 10-16
[62] JOHNSON M R. Aristotle on teleology [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005: 40-93.
[63] PINK T. Agents, objects, and their powers in Suarez and Hobbes[M]// C SANDIS. Philosophy of action from Suarez to Anscombe. London and New York: Routledge, 2019.
[64] MIETTINEN R, PAAVOLA S, POHJOLA P. From habituality to change: contribution of activity theory and pragmatism to practice theories[J]. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 2012, 42(3): 345-360
[65] MIETTINEN R, VIRKKUNEN J. Epistemic objects, artifacts and organizational change[J]. Organization, 2005, 12(3): 437-456
[66] MIETTINEN R, PAAVOLA S. Reconceptualizing object construction: the dynamics of building information modelling in construction design[J]. Information systems Journal, 2018, 28: 516-531
[67] CARLILE P R, NICOLINI D, LANGLEY A, et al. How matter matters: objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies [M]. London: Oxford University Press, 2013: 1-15.
[68] ATHANASSOULIS N. Virtue ethics[M]. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2012: 11-21.
[69] MEIJER M. Charles Taylor’s doctrine of strong evaluation: ethics and ontology in a scientific age[M]. London and New York: Rowman and Littlefield International Ltd. 2018: 117-206.
[70] PETTIT P. Rules, reasons, and norms: selected essays[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002: 3-47.
[71] STUEBER K R. How to think about rules and rule following[J]. Philosophy of social sciences, 2005, 35(3): 307-323
[72] HOLTZMAN S, LEICH C. Wittgenstein: to follow a rule[M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1981: 1-98.
[73] ENGSTROM S. Bringing practical knowledge into view: response to Bagnoli, Hill, and Reath[J]. Analytic philosophy, 2012, 53(1): 89-97
[74] BAGNOLI C. Ethical constructivism: elements in ethics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022: 1-15.
[75] BAGNOLI C. Constructivism in metaethics[EB/OL]. [2021-03-18]. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/constructivism-metaethics/.
[76] KORSGAARD C M. The constitution of agency: essays on practical reason and moral psychology[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[77] FITZPATRICK W J. The practical turn in ethical theory: Korgaard’s constructivism, realism, and the nature of normativity[J]. Ethics, 2005, 115(4): 651-691

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed