發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-25 08:40

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 國家建構(gòu)理論 方法論 比較研究　出處：《蘇州大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：比較是政治學(xué)理論發(fā)展的重要?jiǎng)恿χ�。美國政治學(xué)對(duì)國家和國家建構(gòu)理論的研究誕生于19世紀(jì)末20世紀(jì)初伍德羅威爾遜對(duì)國家理論的探索。此后,國家及相關(guān)的話題并沒有成為美國政治學(xué)的中心熱點(diǎn)問題,直到20世紀(jì)80年代開始興起的“回歸國家”浪潮,美國政治學(xué)對(duì)國家的研究和探索正式地邁入了“國家建構(gòu)理論”的時(shí)代。從這一時(shí)期開始,美國國家建構(gòu)理論研究的代表人物諸如查爾斯蒂利和弗朗西斯福山等對(duì)現(xiàn)代民族國家、國家職能和國家能力等方面進(jìn)行了深入地探討。同時(shí),早期中國學(xué)者也開始了對(duì)現(xiàn)代國家問題的探討,但是20世紀(jì)初的中國研究大多數(shù)是對(duì)西方理論的引入和總結(jié),而對(duì)本土化的理論研究不足。相比美國,中國的國家建構(gòu)理論研究始于上世紀(jì)90年代學(xué)者王紹光等對(duì)國家建構(gòu)理論或者國家政權(quán)建設(shè)的引入。此后,中國學(xué)者也開始了一些本土化的研究。新時(shí)期,中國和美國的政治學(xué)研究進(jìn)入了不同的發(fā)展軌道。方法論是人們認(rèn)識(shí)世界和改造世界的重要手段和總結(jié)。中美學(xué)者研究國家和國家建構(gòu)理論的過程和歷史是截然不同的,這一定程度上是由方法論的流變而決定的。簡而言之,美國的方法論經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)從定性研究霸權(quán)到定量研究霸權(quán)的過程,直到今天某種程度上兩種研究方法能夠在國家建構(gòu)理論的研究框架和范式下共存。然而,中國的方法論很大程度上還是在一條腿走路,定性研究和定量研究在中國國家建構(gòu)理論的理論范式下極其不平衡地發(fā)展,一定程度地妨礙了國家建構(gòu)理論理論本身的發(fā)展。本文擬從歷史規(guī)范主義和量化實(shí)證主義兩個(gè)方面去比較和分析中國和美國在研究國家建構(gòu)理論問題的方法論變遷,最終的結(jié)論是相比美國的理論發(fā)展,中國在研究和發(fā)展本土的國家建構(gòu)理論理論研究應(yīng)該重視對(duì)定量研究的培養(yǎng)和發(fā)展,這一方面是擴(kuò)大了研究本身的視閾;另一方面也為增強(qiáng)本土國家建構(gòu)理論理論的說服力。最后,從意義上講,針對(duì)國家建構(gòu)理論理論范式下的方法論比較研究為本國的國家建構(gòu)理論理論研究和政治學(xué)研究提供一個(gè)借鑒和參考,也為新時(shí)期我國實(shí)現(xiàn)國家治理體系和治理能力的現(xiàn)代化提供一定的理論和智力支持。
[Abstract]:Comparison is one of the important driving forces in the development of political theory. The study of the theory of state and state construction in American politics was born in the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century Woodrow Wilson explored the theory of state. The country and related topics did not become a central hot issue in American politics until 1980s, when the wave of "return to the country" began to rise. The study and exploration of the state in American political science has entered the era of "the theory of national construction". The representative figures of American national construction theory, such as Charles Tilly and Francis Fushan, have deeply discussed the modern nation-state, the function of the state and the national capacity, etc. At the same time. Early Chinese scholars also began to explore the problems of modern countries, but in 20th century, most of the Chinese studies were the introduction and summary of western theories, but the localization of the theoretical research is insufficient. Compared with the United States. In -10s, Wang Shaoguang and other scholars introduced the theory of national construction or the construction of state power. Since then, Chinese scholars have also begun some research on localization. The study of political science in China and the United States has entered into different development tracks. Methodology is an important means and summary for people to understand and transform the world. The process and history of Chinese and American scholars studying the theory of national and national construction is very clear. Different. To some extent, this is determined by the evolution of methodology. In short, the methodology of the United States has experienced a process from qualitative research hegemony to quantitative research hegemony. To some extent today, the two methods of research can coexist in the framework and paradigm of the theory of national construction. However, China's methodology is still largely walking on one leg. The qualitative and quantitative studies have developed unevenly under the theoretical paradigm of Chinese national construction theory. To a certain extent, it hinders the development of the theory of national construction. This paper intends to compare and analyze the methodological changes in the study of national construction theory between China and the United States from the two aspects of historical normalism and quantitative positivism. Move. The final conclusion is that compared with the development of the American theory, China should pay attention to the cultivation and development of quantitative research in the research and development of the native theory of national construction, which on the one hand expands the perspective of the research itself; On the other hand, it is also to strengthen the persuasion of the theory of the construction of native countries. Finally, in the sense. The comparative study of methodology under the theoretical paradigm of national construction theory provides a reference for the theoretical research of national construction theory and political science. It also provides some theoretical and intellectual support for the modernization of national governance system and governance ability in the new period.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D630;D771.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 徐勇;;“回歸國家”與現(xiàn)代國家的建構(gòu)[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);2006年04期

2 郁建興;;治理與國家建構(gòu)的張力[J];馬克思主義與現(xiàn)實(shí);2008年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1462481