「研究者」的脈絡文化觀點：再思考學術研究報告何以自「我」設限
The contextualization viewpoint of "the Researcher": Rethinking the use of anonymity in academic writings

王宜燕

本篇論文旨在探討學術寫作格式較少使用第一人稱單數「我」的口吻，而是以匿名、非人稱的寫作稱謂取而代之，本文目的不在捍衛學術寫作格式的必要性，抑或反對使用第一人稱單數觀點，相反的，是對不假思索套用匿名格式而流於形式的第三人稱觀點與去脈絡化的第一人稱單數觀點提出反思，全文聚焦於社會科學學術寫作格式中的自「我」設限進行追本溯源的探討。
在檢視歷來《APA出版手冊》後發現，時下廣泛使用的APA寫作格式竟未有明文規定不得使用第一人稱單數觀點，反而為求寫作清晰，明確鼓勵使用正確的代名詞「我」，可見學術寫作因襲已久的非人稱寫作格式並非規範，而是一種「必須接受、視為理所當然的──生活形式」，因此，本文嘗試從學術寫作脈絡、學術典範平台、知識旨趣、學術「生活形式」與實踐轉向等觀點指出第一人稱單數觀點去脈絡化之處。但研究主體並非完全被脈絡所建構，本文指出非人稱觀點具有的反思性與學門反思性，都是彰顯出研究主體的能動性以及與脈絡共形構的「結構化」特性。

This thesis aims to explore the use of impersonal discourse in academic writings and the reason why not write in the first person. After a look at the development of the《APA Publication Manual》, finding its academic writing advise without allowing not to use the first person discourse; moreover, for clarity, it encourages scholars to use the proper pronoun "I". Therefore, the third-person style is a kind of academic "form of life". The thesis tries to argue from the viewpoints of academic writing style context, paradigm platform, knowledge interests, academic "form of life" and the practical turn to point out the de-contextualization of the first person in academic writings. Nonetheless, the impersonal discourses are not overwhelmingly constructed by context, in fact the reflexivity and discipline reflexivity of the third person style are the agency of the researchers. This is the so-called structuration characteristic.

脈絡，生活形式，實踐轉向，反思性，結構化

context, form of life, practical turn, reflexivity, structuration

2006.07.12

已授權

2006H03.pdf