一位学者看理论多元论

武夷山

Systemic Practice and Action Research（系统实践与行动研究）杂志2011年第1期发表新西兰环境科学与研究学会的Gerald Midgley（他也在澳大利亚、英国和新西兰的多所大学任教）发表论文，Theoretical Pluralism in Systemic Action Research （系统性行动研究中的理论多元论）。文章说，从系统视角对理论多元论进行考察后，得出五点看法：

1．不可以把知识看成是放之四海而皆准的和积累性的，因为知识总是相对于特定情境和特定社区而言的。在不同学科里，语言（从而理论）的演化方式是不同的。（博主：请看看中医学和所谓现代医学的差异）。

2．理论多多少少是有用的，取决于正打算推行的干预之目的。

3．在批评性反思的过程中，我们可以对研究者的能动性（agency）和选择持多元的看法，探讨其从不同理论背景导出的不同意义。

4．尽管无法建立关于理论之间的抉择的普适标准，但是仍可以针对具体情境建立相关性（或意义性，relevance）标准。这些情境可以定义得很窄（比如，只对某一地方性的项目有意义），也可以定义得很宽（比如在试图建立关于人权的国际协定的时候）。

5．考虑到不同理论对于不同方法论和不同方法的启示作用，方法多元论（从不同范式下的不同方法汲取营养）就成为理论多元论的得力伙伴。方法多元论既鼓励采用各式各样的方法，也鼓励跨越方法论边界的相互学习，因此对行动研究实践大有帮助。

该文摘要如下：

Abstract:

It is now largely accepted as uncontroversial amongst systemic action researchers that there is practical value in theoretical pluralism: seeing through multiple theoretical `lenses' that bring different (sometimes contradictory) assumptions into play. However, the practice of theoretical pluralism is paradoxically often justified with recourse to a single foundational epistemological theory: i.e., a theory of the nature of knowledge, accepted as universally true, which explains how it is that human beings can accept multiple theoretical perspectives. Justifying theoretical pluralism through the use of a foundational theory carries two risks. First, because the foundational theory is viewed as such a basic truth, it can become hard to accept other theories that may contradict it. Therefore, researchers may slip from an initial, strong commitment to theoretical pluralism to a more limited version that eliminates the use of theories that contradict the foundational one. The second risk is that the researcher's understanding of his or her practice may come to be both constructed and evaluated using a single theoretical lens, so disconfirming evidence of the utility of that lens is never seen. Following an explanation of these risks, an alternative systemic approach to the philosophical justification of theoretical pluralism is advanced, and it is argued that this is less likely to introduce unwitting theoretical restrictions into action research practice than establishing a foundational epistemology. Finally, five consequences of this systemic perspective on theoretical pluralism are proposed: (i) knowledge cannot be regarded as universal and cumulative; (ii) theories are more or less useful depending on the purposes of intervention that are being pursued; (iii) we can think pluralistically about the agency and choices of the researcher; (iv) while it is impossible to produce universal standards for choice between theories, it is nevertheless still possible to generate standards of relevance to particular contexts; and (v) given that different theories inform different methodologies and methods, methodological pluralism (drawing upon methods from different paradigms) becomes a useful partner to theoretical pluralism.