本研究旨在運用哲學研究法，比較M. S. Archer與E. J. King教育制度研究方法論，以尋繹教育制度研究的理論基礎，並提供實際進行教育制度研究時之參考。
壹、研究目的
一、探究Archer與King教育制度研究方法論的思想淵源。
二、比較Archer與King的教育制度研究理論。
三、比較Archer與King的教育制度研究方法。
四、比較Archer與King的教育制度個案研究。
五、釐清Archer與King教育制度研究方法論之論爭。
六、評析Archer與King的教育制度研究方法論及其研究個案。
七、綜合前述研究結果，參酌Archer與King的教育制度研究方法論提出建議，以作為進行教育制度研究者之參考。
貳、研究結果
一、Archer與King源自不同思想淵源，發展出當代獨樹一格的教育制度研究方法論
Archer深受Weber、Parsons、Popper的影響。Weber之理念型論述影響Archer運用類似概念架構起不同脈絡下的共相，Weber對教育制度形式的分類影響Archer強調支配團體與訴求團體間的角力對決，Weber有關支配與意識型態的論述促成Archer描繪支配制度的必要條件，以及新舊支配間的轉換歷程。Parsons之行動理論啟迪Archer有關行動者間的互動關係，Parsons之社會制度理論則啟發Archer描繪出系統整合與社會整合的關係。Popper的情境邏輯影響Archer構作出不同的情境邏輯。
King深受Whitehead與Popper的影響。Whitehead有關主客體關係的論述影響King認為觀察者的主觀意向會涉入觀察事物的過程，此外，Whitehead有關創新性的論述則影響King強調動態的教育制度研究方法。Popper之否證論啟迪King科學研究精神與知識演化歷程所呈現的創新性，Popper之情境邏輯論述影響King重視洞察社會生態脈絡，此外，Popper之恒定性法則定義則影響King否定長期預測的可能性。
二、Archer與King的教育制度研究理論同樣基於社會變遷的基本立場，卻對社會變遷的解釋不盡相同
Archer的形式生成發展論蘊涵教育變遷的結構精緻化與文化精緻化，King的社會生態學脈絡論注重不同脈絡的教育制度變遷，其理論基礎均建立在社會變遷的本質、持非決定論立場、重視時間、強調互動。然而，兩者在社會發展的本質、社會發展的歷程、時間的認識、情境邏輯的理解、對人的探討重點、變遷的來源等方面，論述均不相同。
三、Archer與King的教育制度研究方法同樣強調不斷發展的動態學，卻對脈絡的解釋方法不盡相同
Archer運用教育政治學剖析教育制度變遷的社會互動，藉由矯正、排除、防護、機會主義等情境邏輯在結構、文化領域產生不同的精緻化結果。King對教育制度的研究始於發現問題，並依循獲得資訊、洞察分析、進行教育實務改革等研究步驟。兩者的研究方法均強調不斷發展，然而，卻各以不同的方法瞭解情境，對情境邏輯的運用方式也不同，此外，對於能否解決鉅觀研究的問題、研究方法的選擇方式、對時間的運用、研究的基本假設、變遷的起源機制等，兩人均不相同。
四、Archer與King教育制度個案研究的研究重點、結果的解釋不同
Archer的個案研究旨在解釋研究對象的教育如何形成制度的歷程，King則旨在發現研究對象的教育關鍵問題。兩者均以法律與數字作為解釋的依據，卻在解釋上有所不同。
五、Archer與King對制度化研究的論爭顯示兼顧不同情境脈絡的重要性
Archer與King在教育互動關係上的論爭焦點在於教育制度與社會制度的關係，在教育制度研究理論上的論爭焦點在於能否建立鉅型理論與如何顧及不同脈絡，在教育制度研究方法上的論爭焦點在於能否建立唯一的研究方法。
六、Archer與King的教育制度研究方法論均重視研究的情境脈絡，卻在運用時有其限制與缺失
Archer與King的教育制度研究理論均重視釐清研究脈絡，卻在進行跨國研究上受到限制。兩者的教育制度研究方法均呈現不斷成長的歷程，卻在研究方法的運用上受到限制。兩者的個案研究均符應其各自的方法論，卻分別有研究對象的代表性不足、比較論證的支持力不足等疏失。
參、研究建議
綜合前述研究結果，本研究提出下述建議，以為未來應用Archer與King教育制度研究方法論或進一步研究時參酌之用。
一、方法論上建議進一步研究整合Archer與King方法論的可能性
在教育制度研究理論上，進一步研究整合Archer運用理念型勾勒脈絡的大致輪廓，再運用King深入洞察脈絡的論述。在研究方法上，研究運用Archer初步簡化概念以釐清關鍵研究面向，再就King所強調之水平廣度與垂直深度進行深入洞察。
二、實際進行教育制度研究時建議善用方法論以深入比較
建議進行教育制度研究時宜慎選嚴謹的教育制度研究方法論作深入比較研究，不應僅止於陳述併排資料之表面比較。此外，進行個案研究時可運用Archer教育制度研究方法論對Archer的方法論進行驗證性研究。

The aim of this study is to use philosophical methods to investigate similarities and differences between M. Archer and E. King’s methodologies in studying educational systems.
The goals of the study are:
1. To probe the origins of Archer’s and King’s ideas on methodology.
2. To compare Archer’s and King’s theories in studying educational systems.
3. To compare Archer’s and King’s methods in studying educational systems.
4. To compare Archer’s and King’s case studies in educational systems.
5. To clarify the debates between Archer and King on the methodology of studying educational systems.
6. To analyse Archer’s and King’s methodologies in studying educational systems and case studies critically.
7. To put forth new proposals for studying educational systems based on the conclusions drawn from my evaluation of Archer’s and King’s methodologies.
The major findings of the study are:
1. Archer’s and King’s methodologies in studying educational systems are different from those based on typology. Archer develops a methodology based on Weber’s ideal type, Parsons’ theory of social system, and Popper’s situational logic. On the other hand, King creates a methodology affected by Whitehead’s arguments on the relation of object-to-subject and creativity, and Popper’s theory of social science.
2. Both Archer and King base their theories on the idea of social change, however, they have different views on how society changes. Archer’s theory of morphogenesis focuses on explaining structural and cultural elaboration in educational change. King’s social ecological contextualism emphasizes that educational systems change because of societal, historical and environmental developments.
3. Both Archer and King emphasize social dynamics in studying process, but differ in using situational logic to explain the dynamics. Archer develops four situational logics: correction, elimination, protection and opportunism for the explanation of structural and cultural elaboration. By contrast, King regards situational logic as a researcher’s objective attitude in the research process.
4. In case studies, Archer emphasizes how state educational systems emerged from the monopoly of churches, but King attempts to locate the key problems squarely in education in each case.
5. The debates in relation to educational interaction and methodology between Archer and King reveal the dilemma between theorizing and situationalizing.
6. Archer and King’s methodologies are aimed to clarify research contexts, but are in fact limited in doing cross-national and cross-cultural studies.
Some proposals are made for further studies in the following areas:
1. To develop a new methodology based on a synthesis of Archer and King’s methodologies.
2. To use Archer or King’s methodology for analysing data more thoroughly in case studies.

Anderson, C. Arnold (1961). Methodology of Comparative Education. International Review of Education, 7, pp.1~23.
Archer, Margaret Scotford & Vaughan, Michalina (1971). Domination and Assertion in Educational Systems. In Earl Hopper (Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Educational Systems (chapter 3). London: Hutchinson
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1972a). Introduction. In Margaret S. Archer (Ed.), Students, University and Society: a comparative sociological review , chapter 1. London: Heinemann.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1972b). Introduction. In Margaret S. Archer (Ed.), Students, University and Society: a comparative sociological review , chapter 6. London: Heinemann.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1978). The Theoretical and the Comparative Analysis of Social Structure. In Salvador Giner and Margaret S. Archer (Eds.), Contemporary Europe: social structures and cultural patterns, chapter 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1979). Social Origins of Educational Systems. London: Sage.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1980). Macro-sociology and Comparative Education: two points of view. Comparative Education, 16(2), pp.179~185.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1982). Introduction: theorizing about the expansion of educational systems. In Margaret S. Archer (Ed.), The Sociology of Educational Expansion: take-off, growth and inflation in educational systems, chapter 1. London: Sage.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1984). Social Origins of Educational Systems. London: SAGE.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1985). Educational Politics: a model for their analysis. In Ian McNay and Jelly Ozga (Eds.), Policy-making in Education: the breakdown of consensus. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1988). Culture and Agency: the place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: University Press.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1995). Realist Social Theory: the morphogenetic approach. London: Cambridge.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (1996). Culture and Agency: the place of culture in social theory (Rev. ed.). Cambridge: University Press.
Archer, Margaret Scotford (2000). Being Human: the problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, Margaret Scotford & Vaughan, Michalina (1971). Domination and Assertion in Educational Systems. In Earl Hopper (Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Educational Systems (chapter 3). London: Hutchinson.
Ben-David, Joseph (1963~64). Professions in the Class System of Present-Day Societies. Current Sociology (La Sociologie Contemporaine), 12(3), pp.247~330.
Ben-David, Joseph & Zloczower, Awraham (1962). Universities and Academic Systems in Modern Societies. European Journal of Sociology (Archives Européennes de Sociologie), 3(1), pp.45~84.
Bishop, A. S. (1971). The Rise of a Central Authority for English Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackledge David & Hunt Barry (1985). Sociological Interpretations of Education. London: Routeledge.
Cowen, Robert (2000). Comparing Futures or Comparing Pasts? Comparative Education, 36(3), pp.333~342.
Davies, Ioan (1971). The Management of Knowledge: a critique of the use of typologies in educational sociology. In Earl Hopper (Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Educational Systems (chapter 6). London: Hutchinson.
Dobinson, C. H. (1979). The Book Review of “Other Schools and Ours”. Comparative Education, 15(3), pp.344~346.
Epstein, E. H. (1983). Currents Left and Right: ideology in comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 27(1), pp.3~29.
Gehlen, Arnold (1980). Man in the Age of Technology (Die Seele im Technischen Zeitalter) (translated by Patricia Lipscomb)(original published in 1957). New York: Columbia University Press.
Gouldner, A. (1967). Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functionalist Theory. In N. J. Demerath and R. A. Peterson (Eds.), System, Change and Conflict: a reader on contemporary sociological theory and the debate over functionalism. New York: Free Press.
Green, Andy (1990). Education and State Formation: the rise of education systems in England, France and the USA. London: Macmillan.
Hall, A. D. & Hagen, R. E. (1969). Definition of System. In Joseph A. Litterer (Ed.), Organisations: systems, control and adaptation, Vol.2, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hopper, Earl(1971). A Typology for the Classification of Educational Systems. In Earl Hopper(Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Educational Systems(chapter 5). London: Hutchinson.
Jarvie, I. C. (1972). Concepts and Society. London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul.
Jones, Phillip E. (1971). Comparative Education: purpose and method. Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Keeves, John P. (1988). Social Theory and Educational Research. In John P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: an international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon.
King, Edmund James (1965). The purpose of Comparative Education. Comparative Education, 1(3), pp.147~159.
King, Edmund James (1966). Educational and Social Change. London: Pergamon.
King, E. J. (1967). Comparative Studies and Policy Decisions. Comparative Education, 4(1), pp.51~63.
King, E. J. (1968). Comparative Studies and Educational Decision. London: Methuen Educational.
King, E. J. (1970). Changing Perspectives in the Education Process. In E. J. King (Ed.), The Teacher and the Needs of Society in Evolution. Oxford: Pergamon.
King, Edmund James (1973). Other Schools and Ours: comparative studies for today (4th ed.). London: Holt.
King, Edmund James (1977). Education for a Communications Society. In E. J. King (Ed.), Reorganizing Education: management and participation for change. London: Sage.
King, Edmund James (1979a). Other Schools and Ours: comparative studies for today (5th ed.). London: Holt.
King, Edmund James (1979b). Book review of “Social Origins of Educational Systems”. Comparative Education, 15(3), pp.350~352.
King, Edmund James (1979c). Editor’s Introduction. In E. J. King (Ed.), Education for Uncertainty. London: Sage.
King, Edmund James (1979d). Post-Compulsory Education: the frontier of uncertainty. In E. J. King (Ed.), Education for Uncertainty. London: Sage.
King, Edmund James (1980a). Prescription or Partnership in Comparative Studies of Education? Comparative Education, 16(2), pp.185~195.
King, Edmund James (1980b). Education’s steps towards computer-assisted learning. European Journal of Education, 15, pp.125~137.
King, Edmund James (1985). Comparative Studies and Educational Reform. In K. Watson and R. Wilson (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Comparative Education (chapter 13). London: Croom Helm.
King, Edmund James (1989). Comparative Investigation of Education: an evolutionary process. Prospects, 19(3), pp.369~379.
King, Edmund James (1992). Introduction: a context of unprecedented change and challenge. Comparative Education, 28(1), pp.3~7.
Merquior, J. G. (1979). The Veil and the Mask. London: Routeldge and Kegan Paul.
Noah, H. J. & Eckstein, M. A. (1975). The Essay Review of “Other Schools and Ours”. Comparative Education Review, 19(2), pp.290~295.
Parsons, Talcott (1951). The Social System. London: Routledge.
Popper, Karl R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routedge and Kegan Paul.
Popper, Karl R. (1961). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routedge and Kegan Paul.
Popper, Karl R. (1966). The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul.
Popper, Karl R. (1989). Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ritzer, George (1996). Sociological Theory (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schriewer, Jürgen (1990). Comparative method and extra need: methodological criteria and sociological concepts (translated by Shen-Keng Yang, 1992). In Jürgen Schriewer and Brian Holmes (Eds.), Theories and Methods in Comparative Education. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University Press.
Smith, Dannis(1971). Selection and Knowledge in the Theory of Educational Systems. In Earl Hopper(Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Educational Systems(chapter 7). London: Hutchinson.
Smith, Dennis (1979). The Book Review of “Social Origins of Educational Systems” and “Education, Social Structure and Development: a comparative analysis”. The Sociological Review, 27(4), pp.853~859.
Turner, Ralph H. (1960). Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System. American Sociological Review, 25(6), pp.855~867.
Turner, Ralph H. (1971). Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System. In Earl Hopper(Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Educational Systems(chapter 4). London: Hutchinson.
Turner, Jonathan H. (1998). The Structure of Sociological Theory (6th ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Vaughan, Michalina & Archer, Margaret Scotford (1971). Social Conflict and Educational Change in England and France 1789-1848. London: Cambridge University.
Weber, Max (1967). From Max Weber: essays in sociology (translated, edited and with a new preface by H. H. Gerth and Charles Wright Mills). London: Routledge.
Winch, Peter (1958). The Idea of a Social Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Parul.
Winch, Peter (1979). Understanding a Primitive Society. In Bryan Wilson (Ed.), Rationality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Whitehead, A. N. (1933). Adventures of Ideas(chap. 6). New York: Macmillan.
Wolhuter, C. C. (1997). Classification of National Education Systems: a multivariate approach. Comparative Education Review, 41(2), 161-77.
Yang, Shen-Keng (1991). Shil and Kairos: time category in the study of educational reform. Proceedings of National Science Council, ROC, Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), pp.253~259.
王家通(民86)。比較教育論叢。高雄市：麗文。
中國教育學會(民55)。學校制度研究。台北市：正中。
巴柏·卡爾(民78a)。客觀知識—一個進化論的研究(初版，第六章)(程實定譯)。台北：結構群。(原著出版年：1972)
巴柏·卡爾(民78b)。開放社會及其敵人上下冊(四版)(莊文瑞&李英明編譯)。台北：桂冠。(原著出版年：1943)。
布列克里局&杭特(民76)。教育社會學理論(李錦旭編譯)。台北：桂冠。
江日新(民85)。缺乏與釋負—蓋倫的制度理論的哲學人類學基礎。載於黃瑞祺編，歐洲社會理論，頁191~232。台北市：中研院歐美所。
吳定初(1992)。教育科學研究概論—理論與方法探析。四川：教育出版社。
吳姈娟(民88)。金恩的比較教育理論與方法。台北：揚智。
沈姍姍(民86)。自「借取」與「依賴」觀點探討台灣教育發展的外來影響。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告。
沈清松(民79a)。體系圓融的大哲—懷德海。載於時代心靈之鑰。台北：正中書局。
沈清松(民79b)。現代哲學論衡。台北：黎明。
李奉儒(民88)。比較教育研究之回顧與前瞻—國際脈絡的台灣經驗。載於「教育科學：國際化或本土化國際學術研討會」論文集，頁293-338。
馬基(民70)。卡爾·巴柏(周仲庚譯)。台北：龍田。
高宣揚(1990)。哲學人類學。台北市：遠流。
唐納·強納森(Turner, Jonathan H.)(1992)。社會學理論的結構(The Structure of Sociological Theory)(第四版)(吳曲輝譯)(原著出版年1986)。台北市：桂冠。
張忠宏(民84)。論卡爾、波柏的社會科學方法。載於國立台灣大學哲學研究所，台灣大學哲學研究所研究生學報，創刊號，頁173~190。台北：國立台灣大學哲學研究所。
張明輝(1997)。九O年代中小學學校教育革新之策略與展望。教育研究集刊，43，頁103~137。
楊思偉(民82)。現代教育改革年表。載於中華民國比較教育學會主編，邁向二十一世紀之教育改革，頁379~403。
楊國賜(民84)。從比較教育的觀點論各國教育改革的方向與策略。台灣教育，539，頁2~9。
楊深坑譯(民81)。比較方法和外在化的需求：方法論規準和社會學概念。載於楊國賜、楊深坑編，比較教育理論與方法(Theories and Methods in Comparative Education)，第二章。台北：師大書苑。
葉啟政(民80)。制度化的社會邏輯。台北市：東大。
雷國鼎、徐南號、劉焜輝譯(民61)。學校制度。台北市：臺灣中華。
雷瑟(George Ritzer)(1995)。社會學理論(Sociological Theory)(馬康莊、陳信木譯)(原著出版年1992)。台北市：巨流。
博伊德(William Boyd)、金恩(Edmund J. King)(民78)。西洋教育史(The History of Western Education)(五南編輯部編譯)。台北市：五南。
雅思培(Karl Jaspers)(1992)。論韋伯(Karl Jaspers on Max Weber)(魯燕萍譯)。台北市：桂冠。
蓋倫(Arnold Gehlen)(1992)。科技時代的心靈—工業社會的心理問題(Man in the Age of Technology)(何兆武、何冰譯)(原著出版年1980)。台北市：巨流。
謝斐敦(民88)。F. Schneider比較教育思想研究。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文。
顧忠華(民81)。韋伯學說新探。台北市：唐山。
讓&魏也編(Jean-Pierre Durand & Robert Weil)(1996)。當代社會學(Sociologie Contemporaine)(蔡筱穎&郭光予譯)(原著出版年1990)。台北市：遠流。