摘要
宋子千的《旅游研究方法论的实证主义与现象学之争》(简称《之争》)一文将申葆嘉先生的"旅游是市场经济的产物"和谢彦君教授的"旅游的本质是体验"分别作为旅游学研究中实证主义和现象学方法的代表性观点而对立起来。实际上,不管是在当代旅游学界,还是在申、谢两位学者之间,都不存在关于研究方法论的"主义"之争一说。《之争》在未考虑科学研究中不同类型的问题需要不同的方法的情况下对两位学者的立场做出了武断的批评,如果不予以澄清,很可能会引起学术界在此类问题上的无谓甚至错误的争论,误导学术研究的方向。同时,《之争》在现象学的分析和技术理性等概念的使用上还有诸多值得商榷之处,另有若干细节问题亦需要进一步澄清。鉴于旅游学在我国的发展还处于较为初步的阶段,对旅游学基础理论的讨论必须秉持客观、严谨和科学的态度,该文旨在与《之争》中的若干观点做一些商榷性的讨论。
Ziqian Song’s article The Argument between Positivism and Phenomenology in Tourism Research, published in Tourism Tribune （2013, Vol. 28, 18-24） examines two viewpoints. One is from Baojia Shen who states that “tourism is a product of the development of the market economy” and the other is from Prof. Yanjun Xie who states that “the essence of tourism is experience”. The views of Mr. Shen and Prof. Xie do not represent opposing schools of thought. Mr. Shen and Prof. Xie have neither expressed disagreements nor objections toward each other, nor have they claimed that their own theories are the only correct ones. On the contrary, they both have showed an attitude of academic generosity and openness in applying different methodologies during their research and this is clearly seen in their expressed views. The Argument between Positivism and Phenomenology in Tourism Research draws false conclusions from Mr. Shen’s and Prof. Xie’s propositions because it fails to consider that different types of academic topics call for different research methods. Mr. Shen and Prof. Xie investigate different aspects of tourism and hence have used different approaches; their views have also evolved from different historical backgrounds. Both Mr. Shen and Prof. Xie highlight the importance of applying different research methods in tourism studies. Prof. Xie has comprehensively analyzed different approaches to a variety of research questions. He grouped questions into four categories, that is, what; why; how; and what to do. Based on these categories both empirical and phenomenological approaches can be chosen. We believe that the conclusions drawn by Ziqian Song in The Argument between Positivism and Phenomenology in Tourism Research are scientifically flawed. If these incorrect conclusions are not clarified, they will lead to unnecessary and even false debates in tourism academia and this will mislead the direction of academic research. The analysis of phenomenological methodology in Song’s article exposes several defects in the use of some basic concepts and the understanding of phenomenology’s academic status. The blunt division of the use of qualitative vs quantitative methodologies in phenomenology studies and the superficial interpretation in Song’s article should be corrected. The use of the notion of “technical rationality” in Song’s article should also be amended. Shen equates technical rationality to instrumental rationality. Although these terms are closely related they are not interchangeable. Furthermore, there are some other specific questions raised in Song’s article toward Mr. Shen’s and Prof. Xie’s research that require clarification. Song questions whether the tour of poets and aristocrats in the Tang and Song Dynasty should be counted as tourism. This question has already been addressed in Mr. Shen’s book. Tourism research is in a relatively early stage of development in China, and hence it is of utmost importance that we set down good protocols. The development of basic theories and methodologies must be conducted with an objective and strict attitude as well as with the right scientific spirit, so that further research in this area is fruitful. Our article attempts to clarify the core propositions in the works of Mr. Shen and Prof. Xie. We also aim to rectify the inappropriate statements in The Argument between Positivism and Phenomenology in Tourism Research, and we propose several opinions, which are, of course, open to discussion.
出处
《旅游学刊》
CSSCI
2013年第12期15-23,共9页
Tourism Tribune
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目子课题(10ZD&051)资助~~
关键词
旅游学
研究方法论
实证主义
现象学
技术理性
tourism
research methodology
positivism
phenomenology
technical rationality
