对《可比性》一文存在的问题进行探讨与纠正,《可比性》一文仅从概念分析的角度阐释"可比性",忽视了比较研究者的主观判断形成是受历史环境影响的事实,难以从"激进"与"保守"的历史惯性中寻求出解决"可比性"问题的理性方法.《可比性》一文片面地理解贝雷迪的比较研究思想,过度依赖"科学实证"而忽视"科学实证"与"历史人文"在方法论中的结合;《可比性》一文从"背景可比性"单一维度对"可比性"进行推演,夸大了"背景可比性"的制约作用;《可比性》一文漠视了"可比性"在体育比较研究中的"目的性"作用,一定程度上滑入了"保守"的理论倾向,并对部分体育比较研究的评价有失公允.认为考量"可比性"问题应回归科学实证主义与历史人文主义相结合的方法论范畴,辩证认识研究者的主观判断与背景制约间的共生关系,重视在方法论、基本策略与具体方法中对"可比性"问题理性认识的重要性.%The author probed into and corrected problems existing in Comparability, the results show that Compara-bility interpreted "comparability" from the perspective of concept analysis, and neglected the fact that comparative researchers' subjective judgment formation is subjected to the influence of historical environments; in the "radical"and "conservative" historical inertia, it is difficult to seek for a rational method for solving the issue of "comparabil-ity". The author of Comparability one-sidedly understood Bereday's thoughts about comparative study, overly relied on "scientific empiricism", thus neglected the combination of "scientific empiricism" and "historical humanism" in methodology, deduced "comparability" from such a single dimension as "background comparability", exaggerated the restricting function of "background comparability", ignored the "goal setting" function of "comparability" in"background comparability", slipped into "conservative" theoretical tendency to a certain extent, and somewhat lost fairness in evaluating some sports comparative study. This study believed that considering the issue of 'comparabil-ity" should return to the scope of methodology that combines scientific empiricism and historical humanism, and the symbiotic relationship between dialectical cognition researchers' subjective judgment and background restriction, and value the importance of methodology, basic strategies and specific methods to the rational cognition of the issue of "comparability".
展开▼
