After Access: Inclusion, Development, and a More Mobile Internet
After Access: Inclusion, Development, and a More Mobile Internet
复制标题
接入后：包容、发展和更加移动的互联网
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Marco J. Haenssgen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marco J. Haenssgen
他的民族志方法的性质，在他的种姓，阶级和教育的研究在南印度村庄。他的引文似乎来自一个人，尽管他的研究重点是交叉性的重要概念，这突出了从许多不同的社会地点收集经验的重要性。本书中的其他问题源于一些文章对能力方法的肤浅接触。文卡塔拉曼的文章提到了“人类能动性的能力形成”，但没有解释这意味着什么（第110页）。他的基于能力的代理思想是否排除了功能？他对能动性的看法是如努斯鲍姆所设想的那样与幸福相联系，还是如森所主张的那样与幸福相区别？文卡塔拉曼的概念模糊是研究者采纳本书编者观点时出现的诸多问题之一：社会科学研究是否借鉴森、努斯鲍姆或两者，当以“工具性的方式使用他们的方法以丰富社会科学中的实证研究项目”（第8页）时，并不重要。我同意研究人员选择森或努斯鲍姆是合适的，根据哪个概念最适合他们的项目。然而，我强烈反对这样一种暗示，即实证研究者可以自由地将哲学工具化，置身于哲学辩论的争论之外，以便继续进行社会科学研究。这样的论点导致了困扰本书的概念混乱。社会科学家，特别是那些对丰富人类发展等规范方法的概念感兴趣的人，不应该简单地忽视哲学辩论。我强烈建议读者在这本书中寻找能力方法和批判方法之间的创新合作，这些方法通常位于经济学和哲学之外。然而，他们应该保持警惕，不要使用这种脱离了森、努斯鲍姆和克罗克、德赖迪克、阿尔基雷和鲁宾斯等人长期以来寻求建立的哲学基础的方法。
nature of his ethnographic methods, in his study of caste, class, and education in a South Indian village. His quotations appear to come from a single individual, despite the fact that his research focuses on the important concept of intersectionality, which highlights the importance of gathering experiences from many different social locations. Other problems in this volume stem from some of the essays’ superficial engagements with the capability approach. Venkataraman’s essay refers to the “capability formation of human agency” without explaining what that means (p. 110). Does his idea of agency based upon capabilities exclude functionings? Is his version of agency tied to wellbeing, as Nussbaum conceives of it, or distinct from it, as Sen argues? Venkataraman’s conceptual fuzziness is one of many examples of the problems that arise when researchers adopt the view of this volume’s editors: it does not matter whether social science research draws from Sen, Nussbaum, or both, when using their approaches in an “instrumental way in order to enrich empirical research projects embedded in the social sciences” (p. 8). I agree that it is appropriate for researchers to choose either Sen or Nussbaum, according to which conception best fits their project. However, I strongly disagree with the implication that empirical researchers are free to instrumentalise philosophy, staying above the fray of philosophical debates in order to get on with social science research. Such an argument leads to the conceptual disarray which plagues this volume. Social scientists, and particularly those who are interested in enriching the concepts of a normative approach like human development, should not simply ignore philosophical debates. I urge readers to look to this volume for innovative collaborations between the capabilities approach and critical methods which typically lie outside of economics and philosophy. They should remain wary, however, of using such methods divorced from the philosophical foundations which Sen, Nussbaum, and others like Crocker, Drydyk, Alkire, and Robeyns have long sought to build.