论文部分内容阅读
立足于学科史视阈,对乔治·盖洛普在1940年代为“科学的”民意调查所做的辩护语境、逻辑与影响进行了分析。1936年《文学文摘》民调选举预测的失败引发了人们对民意调查方法、功能与意义的疑虑,民意调查存在着合法性危机。盖洛普的辩护主要围绕公众舆论对参与性民主的功能、抽样调查在解决参与性民主中“布赖斯难题”的工具意义、民意调查的“科学性”“客观性”等方面,在“科学的”民意调查之“工具性价值”与民主政治之存续与完善的“合目的性价值”之间建立起重要的理论勾连。盖洛普的辩护逻辑以经典的参与式民主为立论根基,回应了19世纪末、20世纪初进步主义者对美国建国之父们的批评传统,同时又顺应了公众舆论研究的“科学化”范式转型。
Based on the perspective of academic history, this paper analyzes the context, logic and influence of the defense made by George Gallup in the 1940s for the “scientific” opinion polls. The failure of the predictions on the “Literary Abstracts” polls in 1936 raised doubts about the methods, functions and significance of opinion polls. There was a crisis of legitimacy in opinion polls. Gallup’s defense revolves around the function of public opinion on the function of participatory democracy. The sample survey is of instrumental significance in solving the “Bryce problem” in participatory democracy, the “scientific” objectivity of opinion polls, “And other areas, establishing an important theoretical link between the” instrumental value “of” scientific "public opinion polls and the existence and perfection of democratic politics. Gallup’s defense logic takes the classic participatory democracy as the basis of his argument and responds to the critical tradition of the progressiveists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries on the founding fathers of the United States and at the same time complies with the scientific theory of public opinion. Paradigm shift.