- 期刊
行動與實踐：從行動研究來談研究行動的幾個問題
Action and Praxis: A Note Concerning Research Act
摘要
行動研究本意指身處於問題情境中以行動來實踐問題的解決。因此這個問題情境相關的實踐行動應換用理論與知識合一的“praxis＂，而不能只用強調實務工作的“practice＂，來稱呼。本文在此前提之下，對於目前風行於國內的「行動研究」採取了一種批判詮釋的重新理解。從最為根底（基進）的層面開始談起：教育理想中所忽視的意識衝突，在意識中包含著許多不可用概念言說的細微體驗，但每一個細微體驗都是具體而微地反映了文化中的意識（或「意識形態」）全貌。當我們在意識與體驗中進行「研究」（即本文所針對的「行動研究」）時，這種研究行動已經包含著一些研究傳統所遺留的方法論盲點，譬如美名為客觀實則為控制而服務的方法論，以及合法化了隱含在此方法背後的潛在控制者。我們必須採用「後教育學」的轉向，來揭露這些方法論對於教育目的所造成的危機。值得跟教育作平行對比的研究議題是宗教。由於筆者曾有長期的宗教研究經驗，故在本文中，以再詮釋的方式呈現兩個不同議題的宗教研究，說明研究行動如何達到批判詮釋的目的：（一）某一宗教法會道場的「教育」行動中充滿了潛在控制甚至洗腦暗示的意圖，藉此敘述提出研究行動必須成為一種「在衝突之中進行辯證實踐過程」的主張，亦即必須將隱藏在背後的控制者予以揭露。（二）卜卦起乩的行動中，看來平凡無奇的求問過程，實則包含著「莫名的他者」（即「仙」或「鬼」），在這種信仰敘述的包裝下，人很容易淪為知識誤表（misrepresentation）的奴隸。以上兩則研究使用了各種角度的敘事法，包括當事人所作的敘說，因為主要的問題是要描述人的「意識」過程。通過這些描述，才能進行下一步的研究反思，亦即研究者與研究對象之間有「關聯位置」的問題，也是個認識論的再出發。這段反思同時也是一種批判的對話，是在筆者與力推行動研究的同事學者夏林清之間，就實質的問題來進行研究行動與關聯位置的對話。這段對話曾以夏林清論文的回應文形式出現於《應用心理研究》期刊，經改寫而編入本文，主要是針對敘事法問題再作一輪深入的探討：社會運動的批判論述有時還是不夠澈底（基進），以致在敘事中淪入不自覺的自我矛盾—強化被批判的問題，而不是擊破問題的核心結構—在敘事中缺乏「語意革新」的意圖，因此會反覆在主體與客體之間呈現同一語意的混淆現象。總而言之，行動研究與研究行動，在意識過程的問題中，必須透過敘事法的分析與批判反思才得以澄清其中的混淆。而這種敘事法必不可免的行動就是層層的對話。包括研究者與被研究者的對話，以及研究與行動的對話。
並列摘要
Action research is intended to mean solving problems in action in a problematic situation. Therefore, the practical actions related to this problem situation should be replaced by the word ＂praxis＂ which combines theory and knowledge into action, and not just the ＂practice＂ that emphasizes practical work. Under this premise, this paper is a critical interpretation of the current ＂action research＂ which is popular in our academic world. Starting from the level of the most basic (radical), the conflict of consciousness neglected in educational ideals contains many subtle experiences of unusable conceptual expressions in consciousness, but each subtle experience reflects concretely and manifestly the whole picture of consciousness (or ＂ideology＂ exactly). When we conduct ＂research＂ in consciousness and experience (the ＂action research＂ that this article refers to), this kind of research action already contains some methodological blind spots left by the research tradition, such as the name of the objective reality and the service of control. The methodology, as well as legitimizing the potential controllers behind this approach. We must adopt the ＂post-pedagogy＂ approach to expose the crisis caused by these methodologies for educational purposes. The research topic worthy of parallel comparison with education is religion. Since the author has long-term experience in religious studies, two different topics of religious studies are presented in this article, illustrating how the research action achieves the purpose of critical interpretation: (a) In a religious place of sermon, the ＂educational＂ action in it is full of potential control and even brainwashing intentions. From this narrative, the research action must be a kind of ＂dialectical practice within conflicts.＂ That is, the controller hidden behind must be exposed. (b) In the action of divination, it seems that the ordinary questioning process actually contains the ＂inexplicable other＂ (i.e., ＂Xian＂ or ＂Ghost＂). Under the packaging of this belief statement, it is quite likely that a person becomes a blind follower of this misrepresentation. The above two studies use narrative methods from various angles, including the narratives made by the parties, because the main problem is to describe the ＂consciousness＂ process of people. Through these descriptions, the next step of research reflection can be carried out, that is, the problem of ＂relevance position＂ between the researcher and the research object is also seen as a re-start of epistemology. This reflection is a kind of critical dialogue per se. It is a dialogue between the author and his colleague Lin-Ching Hsia, who is pursuing the action research on many substantive issues. This dialogue appeared once in the Research in Applied Psychology in the form of the response to Lin-Ching Hsia's thesis. It was rewritten and insert into this article, mainly for a new round of in-depth discussion on the issue of narrative: the critical discussion of social movement is sometimes not thorough enough. Into the narrative, the unconscious self-contradictions are intensified: the problem of being criticized is strengthened, rather than breaking the core structure of the problem-due to the lack of ＂semantic innovation＂ in the narrative, so it will be repeated in the subject, and the object is confused as well, by the same semantics. All in all, action research and research actions, in the process of the consciousness process, must be clarified through the analysis and critical reflection of the narrative. The inevitable action of this narrative is layers and layers of dialogue. This includes a dialogue between the researcher and the researched, as well as a dialogue between research and action.