论文部分内容阅读
在概念构建(concept formation)的广阔异质的工作里,概念功效(conceptual utility)并没有得到很好的定义。我认为判断是否成为好的概念的条件,不能简化为“清晰”、实证或者理论相关,简化为一组规则,或者针对特定研究的方法论。我认为概念恰当(conceptual adequacy)应该被认为是一种对一组标准规则的尝试回应。这组规则应该适用于所有社会科学概念的创造与使用:(1)熟悉(familiarity),(2)音韵(resonance),(3)简约(parsimony),(4)一致(coherence),(5)差异(differentiation),(6)深度(depth),(7)理论功效(theoretical utility),(8)现实功效(field utility)。这个研究不仅仅需要回答这个重要的问题,而且需要提供一个完整的且适度简洁的框架,用于解释社会科学领域概念构建的过程。将概念构建视作一种有一组固定规则与确定产出的方法并不合适,我将其看作是这八个规则的动态折衷(trade-offs)过程。
In the vast heterogeneous work of concept formation, the conceptual utility is not well defined. I do not think the conditions for judging whether or not to become a good concept can not be reduced to being “clear,” empirical or theoretical, reduced to a set of rules, or to methodologies specific to a particular research. I think that conceptual adequacy should be considered as an attempt to respond to a set of standard rules. This set of rules should apply to the creation and use of all concepts of social science: (1) familiarity, (2) resonance, (3) parsimony, (4) coherence, (5) Differentiation, (6) depth, (7) theoretical utility, and (8) field utility. This research needs more than just answering this important question, but also needs to provide a complete and reasonably concise framework for explaining the process of conceptual construction in the social sciences. It is not appropriate to think of concept building as a way to have a fixed set of rules and determine output, which I see as the trade-offs of these eight rules.