2001年美國政治學年會爆發了一場類似政變的政治學「改造運 動」，指摘理性抉擇和實證量化研究形成聯合「霸權」，扭曲了政治學 的發展方向，故要求進行改造。就方法論的訴求而言，改造者從「理 論負载」和「問題驅策」等訴求，形成一條明確的批判主軸。然而彼 等的重建主張卻很單薄，許多方面是在重複後行為主義政治學革命的 論調。本文發現，在改造者和其他批判者言語的字裡行間，透露了不 少對「脈絡」的殷切需求。而此一需求和1960年代開啟的諸多知識 「轉向」有呼應關係，旨在開啟更寬廣而有系統的脈絡探索之學。基 於此，本文特別強調當代語言學的「論述轉向」，認為政治學可以從 偏重「通則」轉向偏重「脈絡」。如此，將有助於達成改造者所揭示 的方向：「周全科學的政治學」。

The Perestroika Movement in political science reflects the long existed “fractured” situation in the discipline and confusion for the future development in the post-cold war era. Perestroika activists accuse that quantitative-oriented positivism and rational choice have conformed a united “hegemony” in the discipline as distorting research resource and developmental courses. This article contends that the so called “hegemony” refers to the superior of knowledge status based on the logic foundation of the nomological model of explanation. Perestroika activists present strong criticisms on this problem. However, they did not see the much more serious problem of the short of “context” in the discipline and thus can not give good suggestion of reconstructing. For reversing this biased view, this article suggests that the discipline should take the way of “discourse turn” to follow the new perspective of the post-positivism and to adopt the new research methods such as textual content analysis and textual narrative analysis. Eventually, it may enhance the dialectical interactions between empirical science and interpretative science in the discipline. And hopefully it may help to reach the goal of “an ecumenical science of politics” stated by the Perestroika activists.