理念變因的分析層次、因果機制與推論驗證

The Levels of Analysis, Causal Mechanisms, and the Inferential Verification of Ideas

政治科學界在2000年後興起一股將行為者「理念變因」或「能動性」重新帶回研究焦點的趨勢，在這個趨勢下西方知識界展開了各種名目的轉向。這些轉向多藉由借用心理學或認知科學中「認知」或「認知的」概念來解釋微觀個體層次的認知訊息處理所引發的各種決策行為的改變，進而影響決策內涵與制度變遷或政策結果。此一趨勢主要強調不應僅以「詮釋」方式論述行為者「理念變因」將其作為政策分析或制度建構過程的補充變項，而應是將「理念變因」視為一個具有顯著影響力並且可以進行因果操作與考驗的自變項。整個「理念變因」趨勢的焦點即落在「理念變因」的實證操作化的具體表現，而操作的方式即必須依靠釐清分析層次、確認因果機制與進行推論驗證三個方向進行。
本文首先先就「理念變因」主要的學派理論光譜與各個轉向對「理念變因」的定義、指涉主體進行分析。繼而對政治科學中「理念變因」最常引用的三個主要理論原型與其延展模型的分析層次、因果機制、參照推論與實證應用進行檢視；其分別為：Anthony Giddens的結構化理論、Hedström & Ylikoski的分析社會學修正Coleman’s boat模型以及Bob Jessop的策略關係途徑。最後，本文將綜合整個「理念變因」趨勢的實證應用與限制，討論對其目前的政治科學的影響。本文認為「理念變因」趨勢的更張促使政治學界對於結構－行為者議題已邁進了重要的一小步，各種中程機制理論的開展、疊加與驗證應能為人類政治行為研究有更深化理解的正向助益。

Since 2000, there has been a movement toward bringing the micro-level variables of ideas and agency back into the disciplines of political science. Under these various ideational shifts, the agent-based ideas at the micro-level are conceptualized as terms of cognition or as cognitive information processes in social or cognitive psychology that are to be used to make inferences of structural or macro-level explanations on changes of policy-making or institutional transformation. This trend emphasizes that analyses of ideational factors should be unpacked as independent variables which can be operationalized and verified to have causation. Therefore, this paper suggests that studies of ideational variables should follow three lines of operationalization: the clarification of levels of analysis, the concretization of causal mechanisms, and the verification of practical inferences.
To further investigate the points mentioned above, this paper is split into three sections. First, it explores the various definitions of ideas and their denotations in various approaches. Second, it deconstructs the three major theoretical origins of ideas and their models following three lines of operationalization as mentioned above. They are: the structuration theory by Antony Giddens, the modified Coleman’s Boat model from Hedström & Ylikoski’s analytical sociology, and the strategic-relational approach by Bob Jessop and Colin Hay, as well as their extended theories. The final section synthesizes the practices and the limitations of this trend toward ideas. It argues the the ideational turn facilitates the exploration of the structure-agency dilemma with theoretical models, middle-range causal mechanisms, and practical verifications in political science. However, the valid inferences on various mechanisms at different levels need further investigations and evidence-based verifications.