虛假霸權：台灣政治學研究中的理性選擇

Abstract

本論文的主旨，在於探討理性選擇在台灣政治學研究中扮演的角色。論文首先回顧關於理性選擇的辯論，設定該途徑的狹、廣定義，並據此詳細檢閱被國科會列為評比對象的十九種中文政治學期刊在過去數年所發表的一千五百餘篇論文。結果發現提及理性選擇的論文只有百分之十左右，實際運用的比例更低。本論文也發現，理性選擇理論固然可以用統計工具來印證，但仍有許多論文採取個案研究。反之，許多計量政治的研究和理性選擇是無關的。這種樣態，和美國的政治學有明顯的差距。原因之一，可能是台灣的政治學研究者必須先耗費功夫「了解」事實，才能企圖「解釋」事實，而此種狀況相當程度根植於美國政治和非美國政治的異質性。同理，本論文也論證理性選擇必須和其它途徑相互合作，才可能成為具有解釋力的經驗理論。對理性選擇角色的評判屬於規範問題，但持不同立場的學者，都應對台灣政治學研究的現狀有具體的了解，才能設定合乎實際的改革議程。

The purpose of this article is to depict the role played by rational choice in Taiwan`s political studies. It reviews the debate about rational choice and specifies the definition of this approach, and then examines more than 1500 articles published in the past few years by Taiwan`s leading political science journals. The percentage of articles minimally related to rational choice is roughly 10%, many of which are methodological discussions rather than applicatory. Some rational choice articles utilized statistics to confirm their hypotheses, but case studies are also prevalent. A significant number of statistical analyses are actually irrelevant to rational choice. The difference between the American and Taiwanese political studies is thus immense. The underlying cause may be the heterogeneity of the concerns of the political scientists in the two places, which forces the latter to focus on "finding" rather than "explaining" facts. Accordingly, to become an empirical theory, rational choice must seek cooperation from other approaches. Whether this outcome is acceptable is a normative issue, but pros and cons of this approach should both be based on a correct understanding of the state of the discipline.