吕孝礼

• 1:清华大学公共管理学院

摘要(Abstract)：

社会科学研究在持续反思研究与实践严重脱节的问题,其原因之一是研究者缺少对实践的深入田野观察,公共危机管理研究也不例外。本文倡导重拾田野工作传统,在田野和实践参与中深入理解危机带来的冲击。笔者以自身研究经历为例将田野工作划分为触摸、深化、聚焦、延展等阶段,主要发现有:对政策领域了解的深度决定了精英访谈的深度;研究者需要争取和把握关键的观察机会;研究者需要策略性地选择长期跟踪田野点和数据采集手段;有设计的闭门会议是研究者建立在社交网络基础上的田野工作的延展。最后,本文建议研究者应正视田野工作的优势,同时注意对现象理解的渐进性和“极限”。

关键词(KeyWords)： 田野工作;危机管理;访谈;理解;同辈压力;闭门会议

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 国家自然科学基金重点项目“重大突发事件协同研判与决策机制研究”(项目批准号:72134003);; 清华大学春风基金人文社科交叉课题“重大传染病中的专家协同研判与决策参与机制研究”(项目批准号:2021Z99CFW044)资助

作者(Author): 吕孝礼

参考文献(References)：

• 曹祖毅,谭力文,贾慧英.2018.脱节还是弥合?中国组织管理研究的严谨性、相关性与合法性---基于中文管理学期刊1979~2018年的经验证据[J].管理世界,34(10):208-229.Cao Z Y,Tan L W,Jia H Y.2018.Disjointed or bridged?The stringency,relevance and legitimacy of Chinese organizational management research:The empirical evidence based on Chinese management journals from 1979 to 2018[J].Management World,34(10):208-229.(in Chinese)
• 吕孝礼.2021.专栏导语:新冠疫情中的危机研究者:挑战与机会[J].公共行政评论,14(6):1-3.Lyu X L.2021.Introduction:Crisis researchers in the COVID-19:Challenges and opportunities[J].Journal of Public Administration,14(6):1-3.(in Chinese)
• 吕孝礼,朱宪.2019.答沃尔多之问:公共危机管理研究的挑战与未来[J].公共管理与政策评论,8(4):54-64.Lyu X L,Zhu X.2019.A tentative answer to Waldo'concern of public administration'crisis of identity:Future prospects and remained challenges of public crisis management research[J].Public Administration and Policy Review,8(4):54-64.(in Chinese)
• 徐浩.2022.情感互动与自由裁量过程:对应急接警的微观互动研究[D].北京:清华大学.Xu H.2022.Emotional Dynamics and Discretionary Process:Micro-interactional Research of Emergency Calls[D].Beijing:Tsinghua University.(in Chinese)
• Bennis W G,O'Toole J.2005.How business schools lost their way[J].Harvard Business Review,83(5):96-104,154.
• CAIB.2003.Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume I[R].Washington:Columbia Accident Investigation Board,National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
• Carpenter D.2010.Reputation and Power:Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press.
• Cummings T G.2007.Quest for an Engaged Academy[J].Academy of Management Review,32(2):355-360.
• Empson L.2018.Elite interviewing in professional organizations[J].Journal of Professions and Organization,5(1):58-69.
• Harley B,Fleming P.2021.Not even trying to change the world:Why do elite management journals ignore the major problems facing humanity?[J].The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,57(2):133-152.
• ‘t Hart P.2022.Teaching crisis management before and after the pandemic:Personal reflections[J].Teaching Public Administration,https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01447394221087889.
• Ismail-Zadeh A T,Cutter S L,Takeuchi K,et al.2017.Forging a paradigm shift in disaster science[J].Natural Hazards,86(2):969-988.
• Jerolmack C,Khan S.2014.Talk is cheap:Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy[J].Sociological Methods&Research,43(2):178-209.
• Killian L M.1956.An Introduction to Methodological Problems of Field Studies in Disasters[R].Washington:National Research Council,21-49.
• Laporte T R,Consolini P M.1991.Working in practice but not in theory:Theoretical challenges of“High-Reliability Organizations”[J].Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,1(1):19-48.
• Loaeza S,Randy S,Devra C M.2005.Symposium:Should everyone do fieldwork?[J].American Political Science Association Newsletter,16(2):8-18.
• McDowell L.1998.Elites in the city of London:Some methodological Considerations[J].Environment and Planning A:Economy and Space,30 (12):2133-2146.
• Mikecz R.2012.Interviewing elites:Addressing methodological issues[J].Qualitative Inquiry,18 (6):482-493.
• Nassauer A.2019.Situational Breakdowns:Understanding Protest Violence and Other Surprising Outcomes[M].New York:Oxford University Press.
• Quarantelli E L.1997.The Disaster Research Center field studies of organized behavior in the crisis time period of disasters[J].International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,15(1):47-69.
• Vaughan D.1996.The Challenger Launch Decision:Risky Technology,Culture,and Deviance at NASA[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
• Waldo D.1968.Public administration[J].The Journal of Politics,30(2):443-479.
• Wang N C.2020.Understanding antibiotic overprescribing in China:A conversation analysis approach[J].Social Science&Medicine,262:113251.
• (1)信息可参见历史与社会高等研究院网站:Philip C. C. Huang.[2022-04-15]. The Social Sciences of Practice[EB/OL]. https://en. lishiyushehui. cn/book/category/44.
• (2)霍桑实验及人际关系学派历史简介可参见哈佛商学院贝克图书馆的历史收藏:Harvard Business School.[2022-01-14]. The Human Relations Movement:Business School and the Hawthorne Experiments(1924—1933)[EB/OL]. https://www. library. hbs. edu/hc/hawthorne/intro. html#i.
• (3)仍坚持开展田野工作的管理学研究者依然较少,比如麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院的John Van Maanen教授及其同事、活跃在波士顿区域的Boston Field Research Conference(http://www. bostonfieldresearchers.org/)、青年博士研究生和教师组成的The Ethnography Atelier(https://www. ethnographyatelier. org/),公共管理领域则更少。
• (4)信息可参见:徐淑英.(2018-07-04)[2022-01-13].商学院教授们,别躲在象牙塔里[EB/OL]. https://www. sohu. com/a/239175385_659080.
• (5)在当前社会学领域,灾害社会学已经是一个非常小众的领域,在当前国际社会学会仅有一个规模不大的研究专委会RC39。
• (6)信息可参见美国科罗拉多大学博尔德分校自然风险中心网站:The Natural Hazards Center,University of Colorado Boulder.[2022-08-06]. Quick Response Research Award Program[EB/OL]. https://hazards.colorado. edu/research/quick-response.
• (1)据笔者观察,在青年学生和学者与精英被访者的对话中,有的时候访谈者感觉沟通很好,但事实上并未触及管理现象的本质。
• (2)付帅泽对此段观点亦有贡献。
• (1)付帅泽对此段观点亦有贡献。
• (2)在这里需要申明,笔者并非反对数据驱动类研究,而是反对对管理现象缺乏基本了解的数据驱动类研究。