立於實踐－我對自我敘說研究方法的辨識與選擇

My Knowledge Generation through Self-Narrative Inquiry in Praxis

10.3966/156092512015120063006

林香君(Hsiang-Chun Lin)

反身性探究 ； 反映性敘說 ； 自我敘說研究 ； 參與典範 ； 實踐取向 ； self-narrative inquiry ； praxis orientation ； reflective narrative ； reflexive inquiry ； participatory paradigm

應用心理研究

63期（2015 / 12 / 01）

189 - 238

繁體中文

我對自我敘說研究的認識是透過實踐而來，本文藉敘說我三段「實踐—認識」的脈絡以分享我對這個方法的辨識與方法論取向位置的選擇。第一循環是1996博論創作期間初次使用自我敘說研究而意外經歷了反身重構，從而從實證主義的唯一固定真實假設轉向多重真實與知識的社會建構特性的認識。第二循環是1999投身田野協作的行動經驗後再返回學術場域進行回觀，發現1.「實踐取向」與「詮釋現象取向」在「置身處境」與使用敘說方法上的重大差異；以及2.敘說服務於行動反思與敘說服務於意義建構在目的與作用上的差異性。第三循環是從2005年開始與社群發展協作後，發現自我敘說研究之於社會實踐的重要價值在於轉化一個人自發性地啟動個我覺解、行動發聲、組織學習與社群協作的四種社會實踐學習進程，並辨識反映性敘說在參與典範的實踐性方法哲學定位。最後，對照Lincoln & Guba五典範分類對台灣出現的四種自我敘說研究型態，從典範從屬、分析程序、目的／作用的立場提出討論，以說明我將自我敘說定位於實踐取向的思辨與選擇。

The present essay is a methodological reflection on self-narrative inquiry through the view of Praxis, following three dialectical circulations within the time line of the author’s self-narrative inquiry. The first circulation starts with a reflexive inquiry using self-narrative during the writing of the author’s doctoral dissertation, resulting in an impact on self-reframing and realization toward multiple truth and knowledge social construction. The second circulation is participation in educational reform action experiences in a high school, during which the author identified the differences between praxis and hermeneutic phenomenology, as well as the differences between critical-ethnographical self-narrative and reflexive self-narrative inquiry in praxis orientation. The third circulation details, through collaborations with the action research community and participation in the praxis of collective narrative society learning, deeper understanding of the four kinds of social praxis that construct the important social value of self-narrative: self-conscientization, autonomous action, organization learning and cooperative community participation, all of which aid personal development. In closing, this essay discusses the four types of self-narrative research in Taiwan over the past decade and compares them to the five paradigm categories proposed by Lincoln and Guba to further justify the choice of placing this self-narrative research within a practical, participatory paradigm.

1. Berkowitz, L.(Ed.)(1988).Advances in experimental social psychology.New York, NY:Academic Press.
2. Bruner, J. S.(1992).The narrative construction of reality.Piaget's theory: Prospects and possibilities,Hillsdale, NJ:
3. Charmaz, K.(1999).Stories of suffering: Subjective tales and research narratives.Qualitative Health Research,9(3),362-382.
4. Charmaz, K.(1990).Discovering' chronic illness: Using grounded theory.Social Science and Medicine,30(11),1161-1171.
5. Denzin, N. K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(2012).The landscape of qualitative research.London, UK:Sage.
6. Denzin, N. K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(1994).Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
7. Denzin, N.K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(2011).The Sage handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
8. Denzin, N.K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(1994).Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
9. Gergen, K. J.(1999).An invitation to social constructionism.London, UK:Sage.
10. Gergen, K. J.(1991).The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life.New York, NY:Basic Books.
11. Gergen, K. J.(1994).Exploring the postmodern: Perils or potentials?.American Psychologist,49(5),412-416.
12. Gergen, K. J.(1985).The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.American Psychologist,40(3),266-275.
13. Guba, E.G.(Ed.)(1990).The paradigm dialog.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
14. Habermas, J.,Shapiro, J. J.(Trans.)(1971).Knowledge and human interests.Boston:Beacon Press.
15. Hannush, M. J.(1985).The methodology of phenomenological psychobiography: The case of Richard Wright's black boy revisited.Journal of Phenonomemological Psychology,16(1),39-68.
16. Heron, J.,Reason, P.(1997).A participatory inquiry paradigm.Qualitative Inquiry,3(3),274-294.
17. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
18. Lather, P.(1986).Research as praxis.Harvard Educational Review,56(3),257-277.
19. Lieblich, A.,Tuval-Mashiach, R.,Zilber, T.(1998).Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
20. Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(2000).The handbook of qualitative research.London:Sage.
21. Reason, P.(Ed.),Bradbury, H.(Ed.)(2008).The Sage handbook of action research.London:Sage.
22. Sarbin, J. R.(1986).Narrative psychology: The stories nature of human conduct.New York, NY:Pager Special Studies.
23. Spence, D. P.(1982).Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psychoanalysis.New York, NY:Norton.
24. 史密斯編、丁興祥譯、張慈宜譯、曾寶瑩譯(2007)。質性心理學。台北=Taipei City:遠流=Yuan Liu。
25. 弗雷勒、方永泉譯(2003)。受壓迫者教育學。台北=Taipei City:巨流=Chu Liu。
26. 吳鄭重(2010)。廚房之舞：身體和空間的日常生活地理學考察。台北=Taipei City:聯經=Linking Publishing。
27. 林義斌(2002)。臺北市私立高中職校之現況、困境與因應策略。技職教育雙月刊，70，20-26。
28. 范信賢(2005)。期待一種帶有敘說性質的敘說方法論。應用心理研究，26，19-22。
29. 夏林清(2002)。對話前行甚於位置的找尋。應用心理研究，16，168-171。
30. 夏林清(2011)。斗室星空：家的社會田野。台北=Taipei City:導航=Navigator。

1. 蔡昕璋(2019)。社區照顧關懷據點青銀共學藝術實踐方案「回家的記憶－微型音樂劇」的敘說探究。服務學習與社會連結學刊，2，1-34。
2. 溫錦真、林美珠(2018)。臺灣心理與諮商敘事研究之回顧與展望。中華輔導與諮商學報，53，81-116。