CAJ | 학술논문

为了展现“范式争鸣”如何推动旅游学术研究向纵深发展，文章首先对库恩的科学革命与顾巴的范式四分类进行了概念澄清，接着以顾巴的“本体论一认识论一方法论”三论一体的范式观为基础，提出社会科学的“范式连续统”及“范式争鸣”理念，然后以“本真性”旅游研究为例，展现了“范式争鸣”激发理论建构、推动知识发展的历程。最后文章指出：（1）由于研究对象的属性特质，旅游社会科学研究既需要追求“客观”、“中立”的实证一后实证主义范式，亦需要建立提倡“反思”、“批判”、“辩证”、“理解”的各种新兴范式；（2）能够基于相互了解而达成范式间的有效对话是“范式争鸣”的必要前提，为此，旅游研究者应树立基于范式观的研究质量评价标准。“范式争鸣”正是通过多范式视角全方位地发现谜题、破解谜题、建构理论、发展知识来推动旅游社会科学向纵深发展的。
위료전현“범식쟁명”여하추동여유학술연구향종심발전，문장수선대고은적과학혁명여고파적범식사분류진행료개념징청，접착이고파적“본체론일인식론일방법론”삼론일체적범식관위기출，제출사회과학적“범식련속통”급“범식쟁명”이념，연후이“본진성”여유연구위례，전현료“범식쟁명”격발이론건구、추동지식발전적역정。최후문장지출：（1）유우연구대상적속성특질，여유사회과학연구기수요추구“객관”、“중립”적실증일후실증주의범식，역수요건립제창“반사”、“비판”、“변증”、“리해”적각충신흥범식；（2）능구기우상호료해이체성범식간적유효대화시“범식쟁명”적필요전제，위차，여유연구자응수립기우범식관적연구질량평개표준。“범식쟁명”정시통과다범식시각전방위지발현미제、파해미제、건구이론、발전지식래추동여유사회과학향종심발전적。
To demonstrate how ＂ paradigm contending＂ encourages the development of depth and breadth in academic research into tourism, this paper first clarifies the concepts of Kuhn＇ s ＂scientific revolution＂ and Guba＇ s ＂ four types of paradigms＂, before proposing the application of ＂ paradigm continuum＂ and ＂ paradigm contending＂ to tourism research. The latter ideas are based on Guba＇ s three-in-one paradigm structure, which comprises ontology, epistemology and methodology. Second, the author suggests that while Kuhn had a keen insight into the importance of paradigm for discipline development, his paradigm combining the ideas of ＂incompatible＂ and ＂revolution＂, based on the history of natural science, are not suitable for social science. The term ＂Paradigm war＂ is somewhat exaggerated with regard to social science. In fact, there are currently many contending paradigms that exist side by side in social science, each of which has its own survival space, and no particular one can take overall precedence. In light of the sociologist Alexandra＇ s ＂scientific thought continuum＂, the author suggests that to better understand the state of coexisting paradigms in social science, the concepts of ＂paradigm continuum＂ and ＂paradigm contending＂ are superior to ＂paradigm types＂ and ＂paradigm war＂. Third, the author describes the process by which ＂paradigm contending＂ inspires theory construction and encourages knowledge development in tourism social science, using ＂ authenticity＂ tourism research as an example. From the 1960s to the 1990s, authentic tourism research went through a stage of theory construction in which old paradigms were continually queried and new paradigms emerged. Although all authentic tourism research has focused on the same questions relating to tourist motivation and experience, they have different research approaches and questions that are influenced by the respective paradigm. Objective authenticity, which focuses on tourist attractions＇ objective statesof existence, is suited to cultural archaeology. Constructive authenticity focuses on the process of meaning projection from actors to tourist attractions and is suited to disclosing the power relationship behind the social construction of tourist attractions. Existential authenticity focuses on the potential existential state of being that is activated by tourist activities and is useful for discussing the relationship between tourism and modernity. In the twenty-first century, authenticity tourism research developed into a stage of knowledge summarization, discussing the compatibility amongst paradigms. Currently, there are three perspectives on the relationship between the differing types of authenticity tourism paradigm： 1 ） mutual exclusion, which classifies all authenticity tourism research into two types, highlighting one, while excluding another; 2） a collective view, wherein all types of authenticity paradigm are fused into one conceptual framework that explains tourist motivation and experience together; and 3） circumstantial, in which each authenticity paradigm has its existential rationality and one or more paradigms may be more applicable to a specific tourism field. Finally, the author suggests that because of the idiosyncratic nature of the research object, tourism social science needs positivism and post-positivism paradigms that pursue ＂ objective＂ and ＂ neutral＂ concepts, as well as other new paradigms that pursue ＂ reflexive＂, ＂ critical＂, ＂dialectic＂ and ＂hermeneutic＂ concepts. The essential prerequisite of ＂ paradigm contending＂ is an effective dialogue between paradigms, based on an understanding of each. To achieve this, tourism researchers should establish research quality criteria based on paradigms. ＂Paradigm contending＂ can thus identify and solve problems, construct theories and develop knowledge from all paradigm perspectives, and can therefore drive tourism research to develop depth and breadth.