分析全球治理失败:一个哲学框架

IF 3.9 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
J. Dixon, Rhys Dogan
{"title":"分析全球治理失败:一个哲学框架","authors":"J. Dixon, Rhys Dogan","doi":"10.1080/13876980308412701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to make a contribution to theory development by explicating the competing approaches (explanatory frameworks and research methods) that can be used in the analysis of episodes of global governance failures—undesirable events (such as war, or incidents of international terrorism) and behaviors (such as rogue political leaders accumulating weapons of mass destruction or supporting international terrorist groups) that are a consequence of the ineffectiveness of a global governance process. It does so by constructing a methodological taxonomy, which enables the identification of the competing philosophical methodologies that underpin contending perspectives on the causation of, and solutions to, episodes of global governance failures, by reference to contesting understandings of what knowledge is (an epistemological issue) and what exists that is capable of giving rise to consequences (an ontological issue). It then identifies the epistemological and ontological challenges facing policy analysts seeking to analyze and address global governance failure. Meeting these challenges requires the adoption of a methodology that draws insights from the epistemological and ontological syntheses that have emerged within contemporary social theory.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980308412701","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing Global Governance Failure: A Philosophical Framework\",\"authors\":\"J. Dixon, Rhys Dogan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876980308412701\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article seeks to make a contribution to theory development by explicating the competing approaches (explanatory frameworks and research methods) that can be used in the analysis of episodes of global governance failures—undesirable events (such as war, or incidents of international terrorism) and behaviors (such as rogue political leaders accumulating weapons of mass destruction or supporting international terrorist groups) that are a consequence of the ineffectiveness of a global governance process. It does so by constructing a methodological taxonomy, which enables the identification of the competing philosophical methodologies that underpin contending perspectives on the causation of, and solutions to, episodes of global governance failures, by reference to contesting understandings of what knowledge is (an epistemological issue) and what exists that is capable of giving rise to consequences (an ontological issue). It then identifies the epistemological and ontological challenges facing policy analysts seeking to analyze and address global governance failure. Meeting these challenges requires the adoption of a methodology that draws insights from the epistemological and ontological syntheses that have emerged within contemporary social theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980308412701\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980308412701\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980308412701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文试图通过解释可用于分析全球治理失败事件(如战争、经济危机和经济危机)的竞争性方法(解释框架和研究方法),对理论发展做出贡献。或国际恐怖主义事件)和行为(如流氓政治领导人积累大规模杀伤性武器或支持国际恐怖组织),这些都是全球治理进程无效的结果。它通过构建一种方法分类法来实现这一目标,通过参考对什么是知识(一个认识论问题)和什么是能够产生结果的存在(一个本体论问题)的有争议的理解,可以识别出相互竞争的哲学方法,这些方法支撑着对全球治理失败事件的因果关系和解决方案的有争议的观点。然后,它确定了寻求分析和解决全球治理失败的政策分析师所面临的认识论和本体论挑战。应对这些挑战需要采用一种方法,从当代社会理论中出现的认识论和本体论综合中汲取见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analyzing Global Governance Failure: A Philosophical Framework
This article seeks to make a contribution to theory development by explicating the competing approaches (explanatory frameworks and research methods) that can be used in the analysis of episodes of global governance failures—undesirable events (such as war, or incidents of international terrorism) and behaviors (such as rogue political leaders accumulating weapons of mass destruction or supporting international terrorist groups) that are a consequence of the ineffectiveness of a global governance process. It does so by constructing a methodological taxonomy, which enables the identification of the competing philosophical methodologies that underpin contending perspectives on the causation of, and solutions to, episodes of global governance failures, by reference to contesting understandings of what knowledge is (an epistemological issue) and what exists that is capable of giving rise to consequences (an ontological issue). It then identifies the epistemological and ontological challenges facing policy analysts seeking to analyze and address global governance failure. Meeting these challenges requires the adoption of a methodology that draws insights from the epistemological and ontological syntheses that have emerged within contemporary social theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信