析論組織俗民誌的意義、概念、方法與實例

Institutional Ethnography: Meanings, Concepts, Methods, and Instances

10.6255/JWGS.2005.20.223

楊正誠(Cheng-Cheng Yang)

Dorothy E smith ； 女性主義社會學 ； 組織俗民誌 ； Dorothy E. Smith ； feminist sociology ； institutional ethnography

女學學誌：婦女與性別研究

20期（2005 / 12 / 01）

223 - 254

繁體中文

組織俗民誌是加拿大女性社會學家Dorothy E smith所發展的一種研究方法，試圖從個人的每日生活世界與經驗出發，分析、理解並說明人類世界中的社會現象，廣受社會科學界的認可與運用，有其重要性。因此，本文首先介紹smith女性主義社會學的意義與貢獻；其次，針對組織俗民誌的意義、概念與方法進行介紹；最後，以Mothering for schooling（母職與學校教育）一書，作為分析組織俗民誌的研究實例。

The concept of institutional ethnography was developed by Dorothy E. Smith, a well-known feminist sociologist, who established that institutional ethnographic inquiry begins from a personal everyday experience and attempts to analyze, understand, and explain social phenomena in the everyday world. As an important research method, institutional ethnography has become widely applied and recognized in different spheres of social science. The goals of this paper are threefold. The first is to discuss the meanings and contributions of feminist sociological perspectives introduced by Smith. Second, we specifically aim to illustrate the meanings, concepts, and methods of institutional ethnography. Finally, searching for instances of institutional ethnography, we examine Griffith and Smith's study Mothering Jar schooling.

1. Baktm, M. M.(1986).Speech genres and other late essays.TX:University of Texas Press.
2. Brewer, J. D.(2000).Ethnography.Buckingham:Open University Press.
3. Campbell, M.(1998).Institutional ethnography and experience as data.Qualitative sociology,21(1),55-73.
4. Campbell, M.,Gregor, F.(2004).Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography.New York:AltaMira Press.
5. Collins, P. H.(1992).Transforming the inner circle: Dorothy Smith's challenge to sociological theory.Sociological theory,10(1),73-80.
6. De Vault, M.,McCoy, L.(2002).Handbook of interview research: Context and method.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
7. Foucault, M.(1972).The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language.New York:Pantheon Books.
8. Foucault, M.(1984).Power I knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.New York:Pantheon Books.
9. Foucault, M.(1981).Untying the text: A poststructuralist reader.London:Routledge.
10. Griffith, A. I.,Smith, D. E.(2005).Mothering for schooling.London and New York:Falmer.
11. Laslett, B.,Thorne, B.(1992).Considering Dorothy Smith's social theory: Introduction.Sociological theory,10(1),60-62.
12. Marcus, G. E.,Fischer, M. M. J.(1986).Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
13. Mykhalovskiy, E.,McCoy, L.(2002).Troubling ruling discourses of health: Using institutional ethnography in community-based research.Critical public health,12(1),17-37.
14. Smith, D. E.(1990).Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling.New York:Routledge.
15. Smith, D. E.(1990).The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge.Boston:Northeastern University Press.
16. Smith, D. E.(2002).Qualitative research in action.London:Sage.
17. Smith, D. E.(1999).Writing the social: Critique, theory and investigations.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
18. Smith, D. E.(1987).The everyday world as problematic.Boston:Northeastern University Press.

1. 劉心瑜(2022)。台灣教育改革浪潮下，國小英師路難行：教師脆弱性。教育學誌，48，111-144。
2. 沈桂枝(2014)。誰來主導學校？現代家長與學校互動關係及啟示。嘉大教育研究學刊，33，55-80。
3. 王詩雲(2017)。發現「高關懷學生」：文本治理與文本敘事型態的演變。應用心理研究，67，81-117。
4. (2010)。「類能力分班」體制下教師工作經驗之探究。臺灣教育社會學研究，10(1)，175-225。