田野视角下的实证主义批判

• 영문명: Empiricism Criticism from the Perspective of Field: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Postmodern Anthropology
• 발행기관: YIXIN 출판사
• 저자명: 白雪(Xue Bai) 李志浩(Zhihao Li)
• 간행물 정보: 『Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences』제2권 제3호, 95~101쪽, 전체 7쪽
• 주제분류: 사회과학 > 교육학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2024.06.30

국문 초록

This study delves into the criticism of positivist research methods by postmodern anthropology, emphasizing the subjectivity of researchers in the research process and the impact of subjectivity on research results. This study first discusses the origin and development of postmodern anthropology, pointing out its criticism of traditional positivist methods and emphasizing the need for researchers to reflect on their personal positions and historical background to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of research. Secondly, a detailed introduction was given to the research cases of Marinovsky and Margaret Mead, demonstrating the issue of individual subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork and the potential impact of individual subjectivity on research results. Finally, based on the author’s own field investigation experience, reflections and suggestions on the methodology of anthropological fieldwork are proposed, aiming to enhance the objectivity and depth of fieldwork through personal experience and professional training. The above discussion not only reflects the complexity of anthropological research, but also provides important reflection and guidance on modern anthropological research methods.

영문 초록

本研究深入探讨了后现代人类学对实证主义研究方法的批判，强调了研究者在研究过程中的主观性以及主观性对研究结果的影响。本研究首先论述了后现代人类学的起源和发展，指出其对传统实证主义方法的批判，强调了研究者需反思个人立场与时代背景，确保研究的客观性与公正性。其次，详细介绍了马林诺夫斯基和玛格丽特·米德等人的研究案例，展示了人类学田野工作中的个人主观性问题，以及个人主观性对研究结果的潜在影响。最后，结合作者自身的田野调查经验，提出了对人类学田野工作方法论的反思与建议，旨在通过个人经验与专业训练，提升田野工作的客观性和深度。上述讨论不仅反映了人类学研究的复杂性，也对现代人类学研究方法提供了重要的反思与指导。

목차

Ⅰ.引言

Ⅱ.西方后现代人类学研究的反思

Ⅲ.实证主义研究方法论的反思

Ⅳ.田野调查与研究实践的反思

Ⅴ.结语

키워드

Postmodern anthropology Positivism criticism Fieldwork method Subjectivity and objectivity 后现代人类学 实证主义批判 田野调查方法 主观性与客观性