本文的目的在於指出教育研究中主、客觀二元對立的脈絡，分析其對於研究本身之知識論／方法論所造成的困境為核心。為了凸顯此一問題，本研究首先藉由韋伯對於「合理性」概念的反省進行分析。如果我們依據「理性」做為研究的架構，我們會發現韋伯在「工具理性」與「價值理性」的劃分上，留下一個十分重的問題：即強調客觀的工具理性與帶有個人主觀色彩的價值理性，二者之間是否是為一個可以絕對二元劃分的命題？筆者在本研究中將此一問題稱為「韋伯命題」。實際上，就「韋伯命題」的後續發展而言，我們發現它呈現出繼承（現代）或揚棄（後現代）的不同態度。 就繼承的角度而言：哈伯瑪斯係以「溝通理性」為基礎，企圖經由「理性典範的轉換」來解決「韋伯命題」；另一方面，傅科則揚棄了「韋伯命題」，採取「後現代」的立場而與哈伯瑪斯大相逕庭—「後現代」直接宣稱「主體的死亡」，亦即通過對絕對客觀理性的否定，代之以「遊戲」或「諷諭」的手法消解了知識與理理性的客觀性或嚴肅性。 就本研究的立場而言，不論是所提出的「責任倫理」，或是哈伯瑪斯所提出「溝通理性」的諸般預設，他們企圖透過個人理性覺醒，減少研究者主觀價值的涉入，進而建立研究的客觀性基礎；背後多少隱含了權力的作用。雖然或哈伯瑪斯與傅科之間存在著論述的歧異與矛盾，但筆者期待透過不同觀點的對照，提供教育研究中研究者主觀價值涉入或教育研究客觀性的反省角度。

This paper primarily aims to explore the epistemological/methodological problem of research itself on education under the context of subjective/objective dichotomy. It will initiate its analysis on Marx Weber’s conception of “rationality” as reexamination to bring out the problem. Underlying his framework of “rationality”, Weber leaves a very important question in dividing “instrumental rational” and “value rational”: that is, the question whether there is a definite division between the objective-based instrumental rational and the individual-subjective value rational. The writer calls such assumption “Weber’s proposition” to which it proclaims differently the attitudes of inheriting (Modern) and abandoning (Postmodern). From the perspective of inheriting attitude, Jurgen Habermas adopts the conception of communicative rationality, attempting to resolve “Weber’s proposition” by “the paradigm shift of rationality”. On the other hand, Michel Foucault abandons “Weber’s proposition”. Foucault’s assertion of postmodern is definitely different from Habermas / “Postmodernity” which announces directly “the death of subject” to which it dissolves the objectivity and sobriety of knowledge and rationality by the use of play or irony through the negation of absolute objective rationality. With regards to the positioning, all of the assumptions proposed by Weber’s “ethics of responsibility” or Habermas’ communicative rationality have the same ambition to diminish the subjective involvement of the researcher’s value through individual rational awakening in order to establish the objective study ground. Foucault, in contrast, considers that it is natural to have the researcher’s subjective value involved. He thinks that the announcement of anything objective in knowledge pursuing itself has somewhat the function of power hidden behind. Despite the difference and contradiction between the discourses of Weber, Habermas and Foucault, the writer expects to provide a perspective of reexamination, through the juxtaposition of the different viewpoints, on both the subjective and the objective assumptions of research in education.