洞見之中必有修辭——作為方法的論辯

摘要： 針對目前管理學(xué)研究中過分強(qiáng)調(diào)科學(xué)形式而忽略研究洞見的現(xiàn)象,韓巍指出《管理學(xué)中的偉大思想》中很多思想觀點(diǎn)的提出并沒有遵循嚴(yán)格的科學(xué)形式,甚至認(rèn)為過分強(qiáng)調(diào)科學(xué)形式反而會阻礙研究洞見的產(chǎn)生,因此"洞見以下皆為修辭"。本文對科學(xué)形式主義同樣持批判態(tài)度,但批判思路有所不同,主要回答了兩個問題:一是遵循科學(xué)形式的研究,其研究結(jié)論是否一定科學(xué)、合理;二是論辯作為一種研究方法,如何系統(tǒng)地開展以最大可能地獲得科學(xué)合理的研究結(jié)論。對第一個問題的回答,一方面指出研究洞見的缺乏不能完全歸咎于科學(xué)形式;另一方面指出,根據(jù)不充分決定性論題,科學(xué)形式并不是研究結(jié)論科學(xué)合理的充分條件。對第二個問題的回答則給出了解決之道,即通過系統(tǒng)性的論辯最大可能地獲得科學(xué)合理的研究結(jié)論。
HAN Wei(2017) in his recent article, Insight Is Much More Important than Rhetoric, he criticized the management academy's preference for scientific formalism. He argued that insights should be valued higher than scientific forms. We agree with professor HAN on this point. What we do not agree is the line of reasoning through which this conclusion is obtained. We should pay more attention to the problem of lack of insight in current management research. However, it is not all scientific formalism's fault, because there is no fixed rule to gain insights. We criticize scientific formalism from a different perspective, the underdetermination thesis. According to the underdetermination thesis, although a piece of research has a good scientific form, it cannot guarantee the research conclusion is reasonable. We further argue that to make a research conclusion as reasonable as possible, systematic argumentation is highly needed and it should be viewed as a fundamental research method.