Generalisation and Phronesis: Rethinking the Methodology of Social Policy
Generalisation and Phronesis: Rethinking the Methodology of Social Policy
复制标题
概括与实践：重新思考社会政策方法论
作者：
P. Spicker
摘要 社会政策研究常常依赖于社会科学概括的应用。像“什么有效？”这样的问题假设一般原则可以从具体示例转化为其他上下文。波森和蒂利认为，有效的政策研究必须依赖于“生成机制”或因果关系的概念。然而，用原因来解释问题是有问题的。社会现象往往是多方面的，即使是相对简单的现象也可能受到一系列不同因素的影响；因果分析必须通过解释来发展，而分析常常是错误的。因果解释常常声称其作用超出了其所能提供的范围：即使有令人信服的因果解释，它也不一定意味着任何政策处方。然而，有一些不依赖于因果分析的概括方法。 Phronesis 根据经验制定原则，将其与经验证据进行比较，并且不需要考虑有效的潜在机制。实践为批评技术官僚方法提供了基础，为行动提供了理由，并为开发替代方法和方法提供了重点。对实践的依赖无法避免与概括相关的所有陷阱，但它比因果方法更灵活，也更不自以为是。
Abstract Social policy research often depends on the application of generalisations from social science. Questions like ‘what works?’ assume that general principles can be translated from specific examples into other contexts. Pawson and Tilley argue that effective policy research has to depend on the idea of a ‘generative mechanism’, or relationships of cause and effect. Explaining issues in terms of causes, however, is problematic. Social phenomena tend to be multifaceted, and even relatively simple phenomena are likely to be influenced by a range of different factors; causal analyses have to be developed by interpretation, and the analyses are frequently wrong. Causal explanations often claim to do more than they can deliver: even if there is a convincing causal explanation, it does not necessarily imply any prescription for policy. There are ways of generalising, however, that do not depend on causal analysis. Phronesis develops principles experientially, setting them against empirical evidence, and it does not need to consider underlying mechanisms to be effective. Phronesis provides the basis for a critique of technocratic approaches, a rationale for action and a focus for the development of alternative methods and approaches. A dependence on phronesis cannot avoid all of the pitfalls associated with generalisation, but it is more flexible, and less presumptuous, than a causal approach.