1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Education
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 教育行政方法論典範變遷之研究：實證論、後實證論、與後現代主義
Study of Paradigm Change of Educational Administration Methodology: Positivism, Postpositivism, and Postmodernism
作者 黃貞裕
貢獻者 秦夢群
Joseph Chin, M.
黃貞裕
關鍵詞 實證論
後實證論
後現代主義
批判典範
連貫論
positivism
postpositivism
postmodernism
critical paradigm
coherentism
日期 2001
上傳時間 18-Apr-2016 16:33:36 (UTC+8)
摘要 教育行政學興起於十九世紀末。本世紀初教育行政學處於規範時期，其理論與實踐皆以其他領域（管理學、行政學）之常識做為基礎。二次世界大戰後，以邏輯實證論為理念基礎的理論運動(theory movement)如火如荼地展開，其目的在建立系統性與普遍性的原理原則，並將行政中之主觀成分（價值、倫理）排除。1970年代開始，科學哲學中之後實證論觀點波及教育行政研究，使得其原有的方法論格局產生了極大的變化。尤其是Greenfield、Bates、Hodgkinson等人所提出的批判性觀點，使整個教育行政領域開始對行政科學化的方法論進行大幅度反省與修正，也造成教育行政方法論由原來的單一典範時期轉入多元典範時期。
At the beginning of the 20th century, educational administration had just begun to emerge as a recognizable discipline and was therefore in a sort of "prescriptive era." After World War II, the theory movement which was based on the foundation of Logic Positivism started with great swiftness. The movement aimed to establish general and systematic rules for the administration practices, while excluding the subjective elements (values and ethics) of educational administration research. In 1970, the philosophy of science shifts to the postpositivism era and begins to rapidly influence the research of educational administration, thus greatly altering the original methodology. Greenfield, Bates, and Hodgkinson, the key scholars of this movement, criticize the scientific view, and hence influence educational administration methodology away from the dominant positivistic era and into the multi-paradigm era.
參考文獻 中文部分：
     王如哲(1997a)。當代教育行政學術發展及其研究方法論變遷之研究。行政院國家科學委員會(NSC86-2418-H-194-001-T)。
     王如哲(1997b)。跨世紀教育行政研究發展之展望：增進教育行政知識的三種可能性。嘉義：國立中正大學。
     王如哲(1998)。教育行政學。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     王如哲(1999)。教育行政研究的展望。載於國立中正大學教育學研究所主編《教育學研究方法論文集》(pp.99-124)。高雄：麗文文化公司。
     王逢振(1995)。女性主義。臺北市：揚智文化。
     朱元鴻、馬彥彬、方孝鼎、張崇熙、李世明等譯(1996)。後現代理論－批判的質疑。台北：巨流圖書公司。
     江明修(1992)。社會科學多重典範的爭辯：試論質與量研究方法的整合。國立政治大學學報，64，315-344。
     江明修(1997)。公共行政研究方法論。台北：政大書城。
     伍振鷟、陳伯璋(1985)。我國近四十年來教育研究之初步檢討。中國論壇，241，230-243。
     吳明清(1993)。教育研究：基本觀念與方法之分析。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     吳清山(1994)。教育研究本土化的取向。載於國立政治大學教育研究所主編《教育研究方法論文集》(pp.149-157)。台北：臺灣書店。
     吳清基(1986)。賽蒙行政決定理論與教育行政。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     吳瓊恩(1995)。行政學的範圍與方法。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     李平寫(1987)。向科學理性的權威挑戰-科學哲學「頑童」保羅?費若本。當代，10，12-19。
     李英明(1989)。科學社會學。台北：桂冠圖書出版社。
     金吾倫(1994)。托馬斯?庫思。台北：遠流出版公司。
     林明地(1999)。學校行政管理研究的現況與趨勢。載於國立中正大學教育學研究所主編《教育學研究方法論文集》(pp.125-152)。高雄：麗文文化公司。
     林明地(2000)。學校行政的「技藝」性質及其對學校行政理論與實際的啟示。學校行政雙月刊，5，45-62。
     林夏水(1997)。非線性科學的哲學問題。哲學研究，1997(12)，48-55。
     林清山(1993)。實驗研究法。輯於黃光雄、簡茂發主編《教育概論》(pp.309-340)。台北：師大書苑。
     周昌忠譯(1996)。反對方法。台北：時報文化出版公司。
     周寄中譯(1992)。批判與知識的增長。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
     孟建偉(1997)。還原論與整體論：必要的張力－對當代西方科學哲學方法論的反思。哲學研究，1997(8)，32-38。
     孟樊、鄭祥福合編(1997)。後現代學科與理論。台北：生智出版社。
     姚介厚(1996)。當代美國哲學。台北：遠流出版公司。
     胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流圖書公司。
     侯怡楓(1997)。一位國小女性校長領導實際之個案研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     姜新立(1994)。當代社會科學哲學。中山社會科學學報，8(1)，199-245。
     孫中興(1993)。愛?秩序?進步：社會學之父－Comte。台北：巨流。
     徐宗國(1986)。由田野研究資料建立紮根的理論。台大社會學刊，18，51-62。
     徐宗國譯(1997)。質性研究概論。台北：巨流圖書公司。
     高宣揚(1995)。新馬克思主義導引(修訂版)。台北：遠流出版公司。
     高敬文(1996)。質化研究方法論。台北：師大書苑。
     秦夢群(1989)。教育行政理論與應用。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     秦夢群(1995)。混沌理論在教育行政領域上的應用。教育與心理研究，18，83-102。
     秦夢群(1997)。教育行政：理論部份。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     張之滄(1998)。後現代主義的「實在論」態度。哲學雜誌，24，206-225。
     張巨青、吳寅華(1994)。邏輯與歷史-現代科學方法論的嬗變。台北：淑馨出版社。
     張國清(1995)。羅蒂：再現論、反再現論和當代西方哲學主題的轉向。哲學研究，7，34-41。
     張鈿富(1990)。組織氣氛與組織文化的含義及其研究方法。教育研究雙月刊，15，35-44。
     張慶雄譯(1992)。歐洲科學危機和超越現象學。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
     莊文瑞(1987)。當代科學哲學的轉向-巴柏與孔恩的辯論。當代，10，26-36。
     國立教育資料館(1994)。中華民國教育研究資訊彙編。台北：國立教育資料館。
     陳文林譯(1994)。西洋哲學故事。台北：志文出版社。
     陳木金(1996)。混沌理象對學校行政的啟示。教育資料與研究，9，69-75。
     陳木金(1999)。混沌理論對學校組織變革因應策略之啟示。學校行政雙月刊，1，61-68。
     陳木金(2000)。從奇異吸子理論談新世紀的學校行政革新。學校行政雙月刊，5，30-44。
     陳伯璋(1995)。我國教育研究之檢討與展望。載於國立空中大學、國立花蓮師範學院、國立屏東師範學院合編《分析社會的方法論文集》(pp.C1-C21)。屏東：屏東師範學院。
     陳碧祥(1998)。理解之詮釋學分析及其教育意義。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
     黃乃熒(1999)。隱喻的意義及其在學校行政問題解決的應用。教育研究集刊，42，171-202。
     黃光國(1993)。西方社會科學理論移植到東方所造成的相關問題及對策。輯於杜祖貽主編《西方社會科學理論的移植與應用：西方社會科學理論的移植與應用合作研究計劃論文彙編》(pp.33-36)。台北：遠流出版公司。
     黃宗顯(1999)。一九九○年後台灣地區教育行政學術研究狀況之分析與展望。輯於國立臺灣師範大學教育學系教育部國家講座主編《科學的國際化與本土化》(pp.385-422)。台北：揚智出版社。
     黃政傑(1987)。教育研究亟須擺脫量化的支配。輯於中國教育學會主編《教育研究方法論》(pp.131-140)。台北：師大書苑。
     黃瑞琪(1980)。批判理論與現代社會學。台北：巨流圖書公司。
     黃瑞琪(1996)。批判社會學─批判理論與現代社會學。台北：三民書局。
     黃麗蓉(1995)。組織中之女性領導。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
     湯家豪(1993)。渾沌與偶然之間。二十一世紀雙月刊，20，90-98。
     舒煒光(1994)。科學哲學導論。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     結構群編譯(1990)。自由社會中的科學。台北：結構群文化事業有限公司。
     程樹德(1997)。輕鬆與科學家知性對話。蘇采禾譯之《科學之終結》導讀。台北：聯經出版社。
     程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥等譯(1994)。科學革命的結構。台北：遠流。
     彭懷恩(1999)。政治學方法論Q&A。台北：風雲論壇出版社。
     詹志禹(1997)。從科學哲學的發展探討「理性」的意義及其對教育的含意。輯於郭實渝主編《當代教育哲學論文集II》一書(pp.1-41)。台北：中央研究院歐美研究所。
     詹志禹、吳璧純(1992)。邏輯實證論的迷思。思與言，30(1)，101-121。
     廖仁義譯(1991)。法蘭克福學派。台北：桂冠圖書有限公司。
     趙敦華(1988)。維根斯坦。台北：遠流。
     蔡秀涓(1993)。公共行政理論危機與重建方向。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     蔡美儀(1992)。我國女性教育主管性別角色、自我概念、社會支持與工作適應之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     歐用生(1989)。質的研究。台北：師大書苑。
     鄭同僚(2000)。徘徊在十字路口的教研所碩士教育。教育研究雜誌，72，1。
     樊秀惠(1998)。比較教育中實證主義的論爭。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     劉魁(1998)。後現代科學觀。台北：揚智出版社。
     簡成熙(1994)。謝富樂教育分析哲學的探討與應用。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
     簡成熙(1995)。謝富樂(I. Scheffler)的隱喻理論及其在教育上的應用。行政院國家科學委員會(0103-H-83-FA-3021)。
     鍾靜宜(1999)。臺灣地區教育、職業地位取得之性別差異與變遷－女性主義觀點。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文（未出版）。
     蕭明慧譯(1991)。科學哲學與實驗。台北：桂冠出版社。
     羅青(1989)。什麼是後現代主義。台北：學生書局。
     貳、英文部分
     Achilles, C. M. (1991). Re-forming educational administration: An agenda for the 1990s. Planning and Changing, 2(1), 23-33.
     Anderson, G. L. (1990). Toward a critical constructionist approach to school administration: Invisibility, legitimation, and the study of non-events. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 26, 38-59.
     Anderson, G. L., & Grinberg, J. (1998). Educational administration as a disciplinary practice: Appropriating foucault`s view of power, discourse, and method. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 329-353.
     Barlosky, M. (1996a). Knowledge, certainty, and openness in educational administration. In C. W. Evers & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Exploring educational administration: Coherentist applications and critical debates(pp.247-270). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Barlosky, M. (1996b). A rejoinder to Evers and Lakomski. In C. W. Evers & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Exploring educational administration: Coherentist applications and critical debates(pp.271-278). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Bates, R. J. (1984). Toward a critical practice of educational administration. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     Bates, R. J. (1985). Public administration and the crisis of the state. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
     Begley, P. T. (1988). The influence of personal beliefs and values on principal`s adoption and use of computers in schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
     Begley, P. T. (1996). Cognitive perspectives on values in administration: A quest for coherence and relevance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 403-426.
     Bigum C., & Green, B. (1993). Governing chaos: Postmodern science, information technology and educational administration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 25(2), 79-103.
     Bjork, L. G. (2000). Introduction: Woman in the superintendency-Advances in research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5-15.
     Blackmore, J. (1996). `Breaking the silence`: Feminist contributions to educational administration and policy. In K. Leithwood & J. Chapman & E. Corson & P. hallinger & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp.997-1042). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
     Blumberg, A. (1989). School administration as a craft: Foundations of practice. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
     Bonjour, L. (1999). The dialectic of foundationalism and coherentism. In J. Greco & E. Sosa (Eds.), The blackwell guide to epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Borland, J. H. (1990). Postpositivist inquiry: Implications of the "New philosophy of science" for the field of education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 161-167.
     Boyan, N. J. (1981). Follow the leader: Commentary on research in educational administration. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 6-13.
     Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. CA: Sage.
     Brunner, C. C. (2000). Unsettled moments in settled discourse: Woman superintendents` experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1),76-116.
     Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1994). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Arena.
     Campbell, D. T. (1982). Experiments ad arguments. In E. House (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual(pp.117-127). Beverly Hills: Sage.
     Crowson, R. L., & McPherson, R. B. (1987). The legacy of the theory movement: Learning from the new tradition. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to administrative training in education(pp.45-64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
     Culbertson, J. A. (1988). A century`s quest for a knowledge base. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.3-26). New York and London: Longman.
     Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures : the rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
     Donmoyer, R. (1999). Paradigm talk (and its absence) in the second edition of the handbook of research on educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 614-641.
     Erickson, D. A. (Ed.). Educational organization and administration. Berkeley: McCutchan.
     Evers, C. W. (1991). Towards a coherentist theory of validity. International Journal of Educational Research, 15, 499-597.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing education administration: Contemporary methodological controversies in educational administration research. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1994). Educational administration: Ethical and philosophical issues. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (eds.), International Encyclopedia of education(2nd ed.)(pp.1769-1775). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. L. (1996a). Science in educational administration: A postpositivist conception. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 379-402.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1996b). Exploring educational administration: Coherentist applications and critical debates. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Feigl, H. (1953). Scientific outlook: Naturalism and humanism. In H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck(Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc..
     Feigl, H. (1981). Naturalism and humanism. In R. S. Cohen(Ed.), Herbert Feigl: Inquiries and provocations(pp.366-377). Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
     Fenwick, W. E. (1992). Educational administration: The human science. New York：Harper Collins.
     Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London: Verso.
     Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method. London: Verso.
     Foster, W. P. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo: Prometheus Press.
     Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 12(5), 13-25.
     Gibboney, R. A. (1987, April). Edcuation of administrator: "An american tragedy." Educational Week, p.28.
     Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993a). Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.1-25). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993b). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.134-161). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993c). Science and service: The making of the profession of educational administration. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.199-228). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993d). Research in educational administration in the united states and canada: An overview and critique. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.26-52). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Toward a humane science. London: Routledge.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1978). Contemporary theory development and educational administration. Educational Administration, 6(2), 82.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1979a). Intellectual turmoil in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 43-65.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1979b). Another look at research on the behavior of administrators. In G. L. Immegart & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Problem-finding in educational administration: Trends in research and theory. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1988). Administrative theory. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbooks of research on educational administration(pp.27-52). New York: Logman.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1995). Book Reviews: Greenfield on educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 151-165.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1999). Introduction. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform(pp.xi-xix). CA: Corwin Press.
     Griffith, D. E., Hart, A. W., & Blair, B. G. (1992). Still another approach to administration: Chaos theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 430-451.
     Griffiths, D. E., & Iannaccone, L. (1958). Administrative theory, relationships and preparation. Review of Educational Research, 28(4), 334-357.
     Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117-142.
     Guba, E. G. (1985). The context of emergent paradigm research. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution(pp.79-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
     Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston：Beacon Press.
     Habermas, J. (1984)(Translated by T. A. McCarthy). The theory of communicative action volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
     Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. Yew York：The Macmillan Company.
     Halpin, A. W. (1969). A foggy view from Olympus. Journal of Educational Administration, 7(1), 3-18.
     Harris, C. E. (1996). The aesthetic of Thomas B. Greenfield: An exploration of practices that leave no mark. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 487-511.
     Hill, M. S., & Ragland, J. C. (1995). Woman as educational leaders: Opening windows, pushing ceilings. CA: Corwin Press.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1983). The philosophy of leadership. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: the moral art . NY, Albany: State University of New York Press.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1996). Administrative philosophy : values and motivations in administrative life. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Hollis, M. (1994). The philosophy of social science: An introduction. British：Cambridge University Press.
     Hoy, W. K. (1994). Foundations of educational administration: Traditional and emerging perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 178-198.
     Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice(5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Husen, T. (1985). Research paradigms in education. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Husen, T. (1997). Research paradigms in education. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook(2nd Ed.)(pp. 16-21). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Immegart, G. L. & Boyd, W. L. (Eds.). (1979). Problems-finding in educational administration: Trends in research and theory. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
     Jackson P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     Keeves, J. P. (Ed.). (1988). Educational research methodology, and measurement: An international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. Educational and psychological inquiry(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
     Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research(3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
     Kuhn(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     Lakomski, G. (1997). Critical theory and education. In John P. Keeves(Ed.), Educational research methodology and measurement: An international handbook(2nd ed.)(pp.168-173). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Levine, H. G. (1991). Types of naturalistic inquiry. In M. C. Alkin et. al.(Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York: Macmillan.
     Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
     Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
     Littrell, J., & Foster, W. (1995). The myth of a knowledge base in administration. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imer & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives(pp.32-46). New York: The State University of New York Press.
     Longino, H. E. (1999). Feminist epistemology. In J. Greco & E. Sosa (Eds.), The blackwell guide to epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Lyotard, J-F. (1984)(Translated by G. Bennington & B. Massumi). The post-modern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     Maddock, T. H. (1993). Enlightenment and redemption: On the consequences of two different versions of critical theory for educational administration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 25(2), 1-20.
     Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Maxcy, S. J. (Ed.)(1994). Educational school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration. Westport, ET: Praeger.
     McCarthy, M. (1986). Research in educational administration: Promising signs for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 3-20.
     McGuire, J. E. (1992). Scientific change: Perspectives and proposals. In M. H. Salmon, et. Al. (Eds.). Introduction to the philosophy of science：A test by members of the department of the history and philosophy of science of the university of Pittsbrugh(pp.132-178). New York: Prentice-Hall.
     Murphy, J. (1995). The Knowledge base in school administration: Historical footings and emerging trends. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imer & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives(pp.62-71). New York: The State University of New York Press.
     Murphy, J. (1999). The reform of the profession A self-portrait. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform(pp.3-38). CA: Corwin Press.
     Murphy, J., & Forsyth, P. B. (1999). A decade of change: An overview. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform. CA: Corwin Press.
     Nuyen, A. T.(1996). Postmodern Education as Sublimation. Education Theory, 46(1), 93-103.
     Oldroyd, D. (1986). The arch of knowledge：An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science. New York: Methuen.
     Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z : how American business can meet the Japanese challenge. New York : Avon Books.
     Owens, R. G. (1982). Methodological perspective: Methodological rigor in naturalistic inquiry: Some issues and answers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(2), 1-21.
     Park, S. H. (1999). The development of Richard Bates`s critical theory in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(4), 367-388.
     Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury park, CA: Sage.
     Pitner, N. J. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiverness. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.99-122). New York and London: Longman.
     Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research. London: Falmer Press.
     Popper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations：The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Routledge.
     Reilly, D. H. (1999). Non-linear systems and educational development in europe. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 424-440.
     Ritzer, G. (1992). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
     Robinson, V. M. J. (1994). The practical promise of critical research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 56-76.
     Robinson, V. M. J. (1996). Problem-based methodology and administrative practice. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 32(3), 427-451.
     Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
     Scheffler, I. (1985). Of human potential: An essay in the philosophy of education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
     Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Social relativism: A postmodernist epistemology for educational administration. In S. J. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration. Westport, CT: Praeger.
     Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Research method in the postmodern. Falmer Press.
     Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Developing a relevant theory of administration. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
     Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1987). Educational governance and administration(2nd Eds.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1992). Educational governance and administration(3rd Eds.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
     Shulman L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(3rd Eds.)(pp.3-36). New York: Macmillan.
     Smircich L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
     Simon, H. A. (1976). Administration behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization(3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
     Skrla, L., Reyes, P., & Scheurich, J.J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Woman superintendents speaks up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1),44-75.
     Stockman, N. (1983). Antipositivist theories of the sciences. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
     Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     Tatsuoka, M., & Silver, P. (1988). Qualitative research methods in educational administration, In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.677-702). New York and London: Longman.
     Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. London: William Hodge.
     Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: The Free Press.
     Willower, D. J. (1975). Theory in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 13, 77-91.
     Willower, D. J. (1988). Synthesis and projection. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.729-747). New York and London: Longman.
     Willower, D. J. (1993). Explaining and improving educational administration. Educational Management and Administration, 21(3), 153-160.
     Willower, D. J. (1996). Inquiry in educational administration and the spirit of the times. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 344-365.
     Wolcott, H. (1973). The man in the principal`s office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
86152022
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2002001692
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 秦夢群zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Joseph Chin, M.en_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃貞裕zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 黃貞裕zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2001en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-Apr-2016 16:33:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-Apr-2016 16:33:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Apr-2016 16:33:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) A2002001692en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/85545-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 教育學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 86152022zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 教育行政學興起於十九世紀末。本世紀初教育行政學處於規範時期，其理論與實踐皆以其他領域（管理學、行政學）之常識做為基礎。二次世界大戰後，以邏輯實證論為理念基礎的理論運動(theory movement)如火如荼地展開，其目的在建立系統性與普遍性的原理原則，並將行政中之主觀成分（價值、倫理）排除。1970年代開始，科學哲學中之後實證論觀點波及教育行政研究，使得其原有的方法論格局產生了極大的變化。尤其是Greenfield、Bates、Hodgkinson等人所提出的批判性觀點，使整個教育行政領域開始對行政科學化的方法論進行大幅度反省與修正，也造成教育行政方法論由原來的單一典範時期轉入多元典範時期。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) At the beginning of the 20th century, educational administration had just begun to emerge as a recognizable discipline and was therefore in a sort of "prescriptive era." After World War II, the theory movement which was based on the foundation of Logic Positivism started with great swiftness. The movement aimed to establish general and systematic rules for the administration practices, while excluding the subjective elements (values and ethics) of educational administration research. In 1970, the philosophy of science shifts to the postpositivism era and begins to rapidly influence the research of educational administration, thus greatly altering the original methodology. Greenfield, Bates, and Hodgkinson, the key scholars of this movement, criticize the scientific view, and hence influence educational administration methodology away from the dominant positivistic era and into the multi-paradigm era.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 封面頁
     證明書
     致謝詞
     論文摘要
     目錄
     表目錄
     圖目錄
     第一章 緒論
     第一節 研究動機與目的
     第二節 研究問題與架構
     壹、研究問題
     貳、研究架構
     第三節 研究方法與步驟
     壹、研究方法
     貳、研究步驟
     第四節 研究限制
     第四節 名詞註釋
     第二章 單一典範時期教育行政方法論的發展
     第一節 邏輯實證論的歷史發展
     壹、社會科學的實證論源頭
     貳、邏輯實證論的歷史發展
     參、邏輯實證論的方法論特徵
     第二節 邏輯實證論對教育行政理論發展之影響
     壹、早期教育行政理論演進的過程
     貳、邏輯經驗論與「理論運動」
     第三節 教育行政方法論的科學化
     壹、Herbert Feigl的實證主張與教育行政研究
     貳、Daniel Griffiths的實證主張
     參、Herbert A. Simon的教育行政科學化觀點
     第四節 教育行政科學化的特徵與理論建立過程
     壹、科學化的研究特徵
     貳、科學化的理論建立過程
     第五節 本章小結
     第三章 後實證論與教育行政方法論革命
     第一節 科學哲學的後實證論轉向
     壹、否證論與邏輯實證論的爭辯
     貳、歷史取向的科學哲學發展
     參、Paul Feyerabend的「怎麼都行」
     肆、科學實在論的反實證立場
     第二節 社會科學方法論的自我批判與反省
     壹、新馬克思主義對實證的批判
     貳、Quine的反邏輯實證論主張
     第三節 Greenfield與教育行政方法論革命
     壹、Greenfield教育行政思想發展背景
     貳、方法論革命的要點
     參、Greenfield的思想評析
     肆、Greenfield對教育行政研究的貢獻
     第四節 Bate與教育行政方法論解放
     壹、Bates的思想簡介
     貳、Bates的三大哈伯瑪斯式批判
     第五節 Hodgkinson與教育行政研究價值、倫理的重建
     壹、教育行政研究的倫理問題
     貳、教育行政研究的價值問題
     第六節 本章小結
     第四章 多元典範時期教育行政方法論之發展
     第一節 自然論
     壹、何謂「自然論」？
     貳、自然論的基本主張
     參、自然論之方法論特徵
     肆、自然論之適用性評估
     伍、增進信度的方法
     第二節 批判典範
     壹、何謂「批判典範」？
     貳、Habermas的社會批判理論與教育行政研究
     參、Adorno的批判理論與教育行政研究
     肆、女性主義研究觀點
     伍、批判典範對教育行政理論發展之影響
     第三節 文化理論
     壹、何謂「文化理論」？
     貳、文化理論在教育行政研究的發展情形
     參、文化理論的理論基礎
     肆、文化理論在教育行政研究的應用
     第四節 連貫論
     壹、何謂「連貫論」？
     貳、連貫論的基本主張
     參、連貫論的證成模式
     肆、連貫論在教育行政研究的應用
     第五節 本章小結
     第五章 後現代科學觀與教育行政研究
     第一節 後現代科學觀的發展
     壹、科學理論發展方面
     貳、科學哲學發展方面
     第二節 後現代科學觀的特徵
     壹、多元主義
     貳、反基礎主義
     參、反決定論
     肆、反還原論
     伍、反權威性
     陸、重視分化
     第三節 後現代主義對教育行政研究之影響
     壹、後現代主義派別概述
     貳、後現代思潮對教育行政研究的影響
     第四節 本章小結
     第六章 教育行政方法論的爭辯與反省
     第一節 教育行政研究之典範爭辯
     壹、質性與量化之爭辯
     貳、多元典範的發展
     參、Greenfield與Bates間之爭辯
     肆、Bates與Evers & Lakomski間之爭辯
     伍、Evers & Lakomski與Barlosky間之爭辯
     陸、未來教育行政之方法論動向：多元對話
     第二節 教育行政研究的典範變遷與反思
     壹、美國地區
     貳、台灣地區
     參、綜合討論與分析
     第三節 教育行政研究之問題與展望
     壹、美國當前教育行政研究之兩大難題
     貳、教育行政研究之未來發展趨勢
     第七章 研究發現與建議
     第一節 研究發現
     第二節 建議
     參考書目		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2002001692en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 實證論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 後實證論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 後現代主義zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 批判典範zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 連貫論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) positivismen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) postpositivismen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) postmodernismen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) critical paradigmen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) coherentismen_US
dc.title (題名) 教育行政方法論典範變遷之研究：實證論、後實證論、與後現代主義zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Study of Paradigm Change of Educational Administration Methodology: Positivism, Postpositivism, and Postmodernismen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分：
     王如哲(1997a)。當代教育行政學術發展及其研究方法論變遷之研究。行政院國家科學委員會(NSC86-2418-H-194-001-T)。
     王如哲(1997b)。跨世紀教育行政研究發展之展望：增進教育行政知識的三種可能性。嘉義：國立中正大學。
     王如哲(1998)。教育行政學。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     王如哲(1999)。教育行政研究的展望。載於國立中正大學教育學研究所主編《教育學研究方法論文集》(pp.99-124)。高雄：麗文文化公司。
     王逢振(1995)。女性主義。臺北市：揚智文化。
     朱元鴻、馬彥彬、方孝鼎、張崇熙、李世明等譯(1996)。後現代理論－批判的質疑。台北：巨流圖書公司。
     江明修(1992)。社會科學多重典範的爭辯：試論質與量研究方法的整合。國立政治大學學報，64，315-344。
     江明修(1997)。公共行政研究方法論。台北：政大書城。
     伍振鷟、陳伯璋(1985)。我國近四十年來教育研究之初步檢討。中國論壇，241，230-243。
     吳明清(1993)。教育研究：基本觀念與方法之分析。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     吳清山(1994)。教育研究本土化的取向。載於國立政治大學教育研究所主編《教育研究方法論文集》(pp.149-157)。台北：臺灣書店。
     吳清基(1986)。賽蒙行政決定理論與教育行政。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     吳瓊恩(1995)。行政學的範圍與方法。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     李平寫(1987)。向科學理性的權威挑戰-科學哲學「頑童」保羅?費若本。當代，10，12-19。
     李英明(1989)。科學社會學。台北：桂冠圖書出版社。
     金吾倫(1994)。托馬斯?庫思。台北：遠流出版公司。
     林明地(1999)。學校行政管理研究的現況與趨勢。載於國立中正大學教育學研究所主編《教育學研究方法論文集》(pp.125-152)。高雄：麗文文化公司。
     林明地(2000)。學校行政的「技藝」性質及其對學校行政理論與實際的啟示。學校行政雙月刊，5，45-62。
     林夏水(1997)。非線性科學的哲學問題。哲學研究，1997(12)，48-55。
     林清山(1993)。實驗研究法。輯於黃光雄、簡茂發主編《教育概論》(pp.309-340)。台北：師大書苑。
     周昌忠譯(1996)。反對方法。台北：時報文化出版公司。
     周寄中譯(1992)。批判與知識的增長。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
     孟建偉(1997)。還原論與整體論：必要的張力－對當代西方科學哲學方法論的反思。哲學研究，1997(8)，32-38。
     孟樊、鄭祥福合編(1997)。後現代學科與理論。台北：生智出版社。
     姚介厚(1996)。當代美國哲學。台北：遠流出版公司。
     胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流圖書公司。
     侯怡楓(1997)。一位國小女性校長領導實際之個案研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     姜新立(1994)。當代社會科學哲學。中山社會科學學報，8(1)，199-245。
     孫中興(1993)。愛?秩序?進步：社會學之父－Comte。台北：巨流。
     徐宗國(1986)。由田野研究資料建立紮根的理論。台大社會學刊，18，51-62。
     徐宗國譯(1997)。質性研究概論。台北：巨流圖書公司。
     高宣揚(1995)。新馬克思主義導引(修訂版)。台北：遠流出版公司。
     高敬文(1996)。質化研究方法論。台北：師大書苑。
     秦夢群(1989)。教育行政理論與應用。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     秦夢群(1995)。混沌理論在教育行政領域上的應用。教育與心理研究，18，83-102。
     秦夢群(1997)。教育行政：理論部份。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     張之滄(1998)。後現代主義的「實在論」態度。哲學雜誌，24，206-225。
     張巨青、吳寅華(1994)。邏輯與歷史-現代科學方法論的嬗變。台北：淑馨出版社。
     張國清(1995)。羅蒂：再現論、反再現論和當代西方哲學主題的轉向。哲學研究，7，34-41。
     張鈿富(1990)。組織氣氛與組織文化的含義及其研究方法。教育研究雙月刊，15，35-44。
     張慶雄譯(1992)。歐洲科學危機和超越現象學。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
     莊文瑞(1987)。當代科學哲學的轉向-巴柏與孔恩的辯論。當代，10，26-36。
     國立教育資料館(1994)。中華民國教育研究資訊彙編。台北：國立教育資料館。
     陳文林譯(1994)。西洋哲學故事。台北：志文出版社。
     陳木金(1996)。混沌理象對學校行政的啟示。教育資料與研究，9，69-75。
     陳木金(1999)。混沌理論對學校組織變革因應策略之啟示。學校行政雙月刊，1，61-68。
     陳木金(2000)。從奇異吸子理論談新世紀的學校行政革新。學校行政雙月刊，5，30-44。
     陳伯璋(1995)。我國教育研究之檢討與展望。載於國立空中大學、國立花蓮師範學院、國立屏東師範學院合編《分析社會的方法論文集》(pp.C1-C21)。屏東：屏東師範學院。
     陳碧祥(1998)。理解之詮釋學分析及其教育意義。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
     黃乃熒(1999)。隱喻的意義及其在學校行政問題解決的應用。教育研究集刊，42，171-202。
     黃光國(1993)。西方社會科學理論移植到東方所造成的相關問題及對策。輯於杜祖貽主編《西方社會科學理論的移植與應用：西方社會科學理論的移植與應用合作研究計劃論文彙編》(pp.33-36)。台北：遠流出版公司。
     黃宗顯(1999)。一九九○年後台灣地區教育行政學術研究狀況之分析與展望。輯於國立臺灣師範大學教育學系教育部國家講座主編《科學的國際化與本土化》(pp.385-422)。台北：揚智出版社。
     黃政傑(1987)。教育研究亟須擺脫量化的支配。輯於中國教育學會主編《教育研究方法論》(pp.131-140)。台北：師大書苑。
     黃瑞琪(1980)。批判理論與現代社會學。台北：巨流圖書公司。
     黃瑞琪(1996)。批判社會學─批判理論與現代社會學。台北：三民書局。
     黃麗蓉(1995)。組織中之女性領導。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
     湯家豪(1993)。渾沌與偶然之間。二十一世紀雙月刊，20，90-98。
     舒煒光(1994)。科學哲學導論。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
     結構群編譯(1990)。自由社會中的科學。台北：結構群文化事業有限公司。
     程樹德(1997)。輕鬆與科學家知性對話。蘇采禾譯之《科學之終結》導讀。台北：聯經出版社。
     程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥等譯(1994)。科學革命的結構。台北：遠流。
     彭懷恩(1999)。政治學方法論Q&A。台北：風雲論壇出版社。
     詹志禹(1997)。從科學哲學的發展探討「理性」的意義及其對教育的含意。輯於郭實渝主編《當代教育哲學論文集II》一書(pp.1-41)。台北：中央研究院歐美研究所。
     詹志禹、吳璧純(1992)。邏輯實證論的迷思。思與言，30(1)，101-121。
     廖仁義譯(1991)。法蘭克福學派。台北：桂冠圖書有限公司。
     趙敦華(1988)。維根斯坦。台北：遠流。
     蔡秀涓(1993)。公共行政理論危機與重建方向。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     蔡美儀(1992)。我國女性教育主管性別角色、自我概念、社會支持與工作適應之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     歐用生(1989)。質的研究。台北：師大書苑。
     鄭同僚(2000)。徘徊在十字路口的教研所碩士教育。教育研究雜誌，72，1。
     樊秀惠(1998)。比較教育中實證主義的論爭。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
     劉魁(1998)。後現代科學觀。台北：揚智出版社。
     簡成熙(1994)。謝富樂教育分析哲學的探討與應用。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
     簡成熙(1995)。謝富樂(I. Scheffler)的隱喻理論及其在教育上的應用。行政院國家科學委員會(0103-H-83-FA-3021)。
     鍾靜宜(1999)。臺灣地區教育、職業地位取得之性別差異與變遷－女性主義觀點。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文（未出版）。
     蕭明慧譯(1991)。科學哲學與實驗。台北：桂冠出版社。
     羅青(1989)。什麼是後現代主義。台北：學生書局。
     貳、英文部分
     Achilles, C. M. (1991). Re-forming educational administration: An agenda for the 1990s. Planning and Changing, 2(1), 23-33.
     Anderson, G. L. (1990). Toward a critical constructionist approach to school administration: Invisibility, legitimation, and the study of non-events. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 26, 38-59.
     Anderson, G. L., & Grinberg, J. (1998). Educational administration as a disciplinary practice: Appropriating foucault`s view of power, discourse, and method. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 329-353.
     Barlosky, M. (1996a). Knowledge, certainty, and openness in educational administration. In C. W. Evers & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Exploring educational administration: Coherentist applications and critical debates(pp.247-270). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Barlosky, M. (1996b). A rejoinder to Evers and Lakomski. In C. W. Evers & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Exploring educational administration: Coherentist applications and critical debates(pp.271-278). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Bates, R. J. (1984). Toward a critical practice of educational administration. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     Bates, R. J. (1985). Public administration and the crisis of the state. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
     Begley, P. T. (1988). The influence of personal beliefs and values on principal`s adoption and use of computers in schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
     Begley, P. T. (1996). Cognitive perspectives on values in administration: A quest for coherence and relevance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 403-426.
     Bigum C., & Green, B. (1993). Governing chaos: Postmodern science, information technology and educational administration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 25(2), 79-103.
     Bjork, L. G. (2000). Introduction: Woman in the superintendency-Advances in research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5-15.
     Blackmore, J. (1996). `Breaking the silence`: Feminist contributions to educational administration and policy. In K. Leithwood & J. Chapman & E. Corson & P. hallinger & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp.997-1042). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
     Blumberg, A. (1989). School administration as a craft: Foundations of practice. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
     Bonjour, L. (1999). The dialectic of foundationalism and coherentism. In J. Greco & E. Sosa (Eds.), The blackwell guide to epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Borland, J. H. (1990). Postpositivist inquiry: Implications of the "New philosophy of science" for the field of education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 161-167.
     Boyan, N. J. (1981). Follow the leader: Commentary on research in educational administration. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 6-13.
     Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. CA: Sage.
     Brunner, C. C. (2000). Unsettled moments in settled discourse: Woman superintendents` experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1),76-116.
     Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1994). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Arena.
     Campbell, D. T. (1982). Experiments ad arguments. In E. House (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual(pp.117-127). Beverly Hills: Sage.
     Crowson, R. L., & McPherson, R. B. (1987). The legacy of the theory movement: Learning from the new tradition. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to administrative training in education(pp.45-64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
     Culbertson, J. A. (1988). A century`s quest for a knowledge base. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.3-26). New York and London: Longman.
     Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures : the rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
     Donmoyer, R. (1999). Paradigm talk (and its absence) in the second edition of the handbook of research on educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 614-641.
     Erickson, D. A. (Ed.). Educational organization and administration. Berkeley: McCutchan.
     Evers, C. W. (1991). Towards a coherentist theory of validity. International Journal of Educational Research, 15, 499-597.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing education administration: Contemporary methodological controversies in educational administration research. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1994). Educational administration: Ethical and philosophical issues. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (eds.), International Encyclopedia of education(2nd ed.)(pp.1769-1775). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. L. (1996a). Science in educational administration: A postpositivist conception. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 379-402.
     Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1996b). Exploring educational administration: Coherentist applications and critical debates. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Feigl, H. (1953). Scientific outlook: Naturalism and humanism. In H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck(Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc..
     Feigl, H. (1981). Naturalism and humanism. In R. S. Cohen(Ed.), Herbert Feigl: Inquiries and provocations(pp.366-377). Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
     Fenwick, W. E. (1992). Educational administration: The human science. New York：Harper Collins.
     Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London: Verso.
     Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method. London: Verso.
     Foster, W. P. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo: Prometheus Press.
     Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 12(5), 13-25.
     Gibboney, R. A. (1987, April). Edcuation of administrator: "An american tragedy." Educational Week, p.28.
     Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993a). Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.1-25). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993b). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.134-161). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993c). Science and service: The making of the profession of educational administration. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.199-228). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B. (1993d). Research in educational administration in the united states and canada: An overview and critique. In T. B. Greenfield & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Greenfield on educational administration(pp.26-52). London: Routledge.
     Greenfield, T. B., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Toward a humane science. London: Routledge.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1978). Contemporary theory development and educational administration. Educational Administration, 6(2), 82.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1979a). Intellectual turmoil in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 43-65.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1979b). Another look at research on the behavior of administrators. In G. L. Immegart & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Problem-finding in educational administration: Trends in research and theory. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1988). Administrative theory. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbooks of research on educational administration(pp.27-52). New York: Logman.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1995). Book Reviews: Greenfield on educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 151-165.
     Griffiths, D. E. (1999). Introduction. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform(pp.xi-xix). CA: Corwin Press.
     Griffith, D. E., Hart, A. W., & Blair, B. G. (1992). Still another approach to administration: Chaos theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 430-451.
     Griffiths, D. E., & Iannaccone, L. (1958). Administrative theory, relationships and preparation. Review of Educational Research, 28(4), 334-357.
     Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117-142.
     Guba, E. G. (1985). The context of emergent paradigm research. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution(pp.79-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
     Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston：Beacon Press.
     Habermas, J. (1984)(Translated by T. A. McCarthy). The theory of communicative action volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
     Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. Yew York：The Macmillan Company.
     Halpin, A. W. (1969). A foggy view from Olympus. Journal of Educational Administration, 7(1), 3-18.
     Harris, C. E. (1996). The aesthetic of Thomas B. Greenfield: An exploration of practices that leave no mark. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 487-511.
     Hill, M. S., & Ragland, J. C. (1995). Woman as educational leaders: Opening windows, pushing ceilings. CA: Corwin Press.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1983). The philosophy of leadership. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: the moral art . NY, Albany: State University of New York Press.
     Hodgkinson, C. (1996). Administrative philosophy : values and motivations in administrative life. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Hollis, M. (1994). The philosophy of social science: An introduction. British：Cambridge University Press.
     Hoy, W. K. (1994). Foundations of educational administration: Traditional and emerging perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 178-198.
     Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice(5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Husen, T. (1985). Research paradigms in education. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Husen, T. (1997). Research paradigms in education. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook(2nd Ed.)(pp. 16-21). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Immegart, G. L. & Boyd, W. L. (Eds.). (1979). Problems-finding in educational administration: Trends in research and theory. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
     Jackson P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     Keeves, J. P. (Ed.). (1988). Educational research methodology, and measurement: An international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon.
     Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. Educational and psychological inquiry(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
     Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research(3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
     Kuhn(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     Lakomski, G. (1997). Critical theory and education. In John P. Keeves(Ed.), Educational research methodology and measurement: An international handbook(2nd ed.)(pp.168-173). Oxford: Pergamon.
     Levine, H. G. (1991). Types of naturalistic inquiry. In M. C. Alkin et. al.(Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York: Macmillan.
     Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
     Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
     Littrell, J., & Foster, W. (1995). The myth of a knowledge base in administration. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imer & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives(pp.32-46). New York: The State University of New York Press.
     Longino, H. E. (1999). Feminist epistemology. In J. Greco & E. Sosa (Eds.), The blackwell guide to epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Lyotard, J-F. (1984)(Translated by G. Bennington & B. Massumi). The post-modern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     Maddock, T. H. (1993). Enlightenment and redemption: On the consequences of two different versions of critical theory for educational administration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 25(2), 1-20.
     Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Maxcy, S. J. (Ed.)(1994). Educational school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration. Westport, ET: Praeger.
     McCarthy, M. (1986). Research in educational administration: Promising signs for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 3-20.
     McGuire, J. E. (1992). Scientific change: Perspectives and proposals. In M. H. Salmon, et. Al. (Eds.). Introduction to the philosophy of science：A test by members of the department of the history and philosophy of science of the university of Pittsbrugh(pp.132-178). New York: Prentice-Hall.
     Murphy, J. (1995). The Knowledge base in school administration: Historical footings and emerging trends. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imer & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives(pp.62-71). New York: The State University of New York Press.
     Murphy, J. (1999). The reform of the profession A self-portrait. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform(pp.3-38). CA: Corwin Press.
     Murphy, J., & Forsyth, P. B. (1999). A decade of change: An overview. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform. CA: Corwin Press.
     Nuyen, A. T.(1996). Postmodern Education as Sublimation. Education Theory, 46(1), 93-103.
     Oldroyd, D. (1986). The arch of knowledge：An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science. New York: Methuen.
     Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z : how American business can meet the Japanese challenge. New York : Avon Books.
     Owens, R. G. (1982). Methodological perspective: Methodological rigor in naturalistic inquiry: Some issues and answers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(2), 1-21.
     Park, S. H. (1999). The development of Richard Bates`s critical theory in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(4), 367-388.
     Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury park, CA: Sage.
     Pitner, N. J. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiverness. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.99-122). New York and London: Longman.
     Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research. London: Falmer Press.
     Popper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations：The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Routledge.
     Reilly, D. H. (1999). Non-linear systems and educational development in europe. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 424-440.
     Ritzer, G. (1992). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
     Robinson, V. M. J. (1994). The practical promise of critical research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 56-76.
     Robinson, V. M. J. (1996). Problem-based methodology and administrative practice. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 32(3), 427-451.
     Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
     Scheffler, I. (1985). Of human potential: An essay in the philosophy of education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
     Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Social relativism: A postmodernist epistemology for educational administration. In S. J. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration. Westport, CT: Praeger.
     Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Research method in the postmodern. Falmer Press.
     Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Developing a relevant theory of administration. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
     Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1987). Educational governance and administration(2nd Eds.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1992). Educational governance and administration(3rd Eds.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
     Shulman L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(3rd Eds.)(pp.3-36). New York: Macmillan.
     Smircich L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
     Simon, H. A. (1976). Administration behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization(3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
     Skrla, L., Reyes, P., & Scheurich, J.J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Woman superintendents speaks up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1),44-75.
     Stockman, N. (1983). Antipositivist theories of the sciences. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
     Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     Tatsuoka, M., & Silver, P. (1988). Qualitative research methods in educational administration, In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.677-702). New York and London: Longman.
     Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. London: William Hodge.
     Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: The Free Press.
     Willower, D. J. (1975). Theory in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 13, 77-91.
     Willower, D. J. (1988). Synthesis and projection. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration(pp.729-747). New York and London: Longman.
     Willower, D. J. (1993). Explaining and improving educational administration. Educational Management and Administration, 21(3), 153-160.
     Willower, D. J. (1996). Inquiry in educational administration and the spirit of the times. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 344-365.
     Wolcott, H. (1973). The man in the principal`s office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.		zh_TW