Reframing incrementalism: A constructive response to the critics
Reframing incrementalism: A constructive response to the critics
复制标题
重构渐进主义：对批评者的建设性回应
DOI：
10.1007/bf00138785
复制
发表时间：
1992
期刊：
影响因子：
5.3
通讯作者：
E. Woodhouse
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andrew Weiss;E. Woodhouse
在过去的三十年里，渐进主义的概念被广泛引用，但它并没有成为一系列累积发展的经验和理论探究的基础。因此，前景看好的渐进主义框架对提高我们对决策过程如何更好地适应人类认知局限的理解几乎没有贡献，这令人惊讶。缺乏进展的一个迹象是，政策学者从未持续尝试解释从业者如何才能成为更好的渐进主义者。为了看看这个概念的原始提法是否会遮蔽进一步发展的道路，我们总结和评价了对渐进主义的四个持久的批评：所谓的缺乏目标导向、保守主义、适用范围有限以及对分析的负面立场。在质疑批评者的说法的有效性的同时，我们仍然提出了一种重新构建渐进主义努力的方法，目的是激励其批评者和捍卫者继续学习更多关于个人、组织和社会如何相对明智地前进的任务，尽管事实上人类很少对复杂的社会问题和政策选择有很好的理解。
The concept of incrementalism has been widely cited over the past three decades, yet it has not served as the basis for a cumulatively developing line of empirical and theoretical inquiry. As a result, the highly promising incrementalist framework has contributed surprisingly little to improving our understanding of how decision-making processes can better adapt to humans' cognitive limitations. One indicator of the lack of progress is that policy scholars have never made a sustained attempt to explain how practitioners can become better incrementalists. To see whether the concept's original formulation may be obscuring the way to further progress, we summarize and appraise four enduring criticisms of incrementalism: its alleged lack of goal orientation, conservatism, limited range of applicability, and negative stance toward analysis. While questioning the validity of the critics' claims, we nevertheless propose a way to reframe the incrementalist endeavor, with the intention of stimulating both its critics and defenders to get on with the task of learning more about how individuals, organizations, and societies can proceed relatively intelligently despite the fact that humans rarely have a good understanding of complex social problems and policy options.