本文主要企圖回應其他典範學者對自我敘說研究的疑問：「自我敘說研究的個人故事具有『真實性』嗎？」研究者以自身研究及指導研究生進行自我敘說研究經驗為基底，反思上述的問題。為回答此問題研究者先進入哲學本體論層次討論四種真實，而自我敘說屬於建構真實的立場。另外借用Habermas（哈伯馬斯）的「普通語用學」所提出溝通行動的四種宣稱來思索，發現敘說研究關切的焦點並非在客觀世界的真偽，而在於反映內在世界的真誠性。另外其他典範學者對於此類論文的不易接受是對於正當性的質疑，而正當性建立於相關社群所形成的共識。故研究者認為敘說研究社群應該開始對論文品質標準、寫作形式等對話討論，漸漸形成自身研究社群之共識。最後研究者基於先前自我敘說研究經驗，試提出幾個品質參照標準，以供社群之後再持續思索與對話。
This study aims to discuss and respond to an essential question about self-narrative research: Can personal stories represent reality? The researchers of this study reflected on this question based on their own experience of studying and directing graduate students' self-narrative researches. Four types of reality in the philosophical aspect of the ontology are discussed first, which indicate that self-narratives are based on the dimension of the constructed reality. Moreover, by examining the four claims of the theory of communicative action in Habermas' universal pragmatics, it becomes evident that the focus of narrative research lies on the sincere reflection of one's subjective world, not the truthfulness or falseness of the objective world. In addition, scholars from different disciplines deem these dissertations unacceptable based on questions of rightness, yet rightness is established on the consensus of the related communities. Therefore, this study suggests that the community of the narrative research should begin to discuss the quality criteria for dissertations and forms of writing, in order to gradually form consensus. Finally, based on past experience in adopting self-narrative study, this study proposes several quality criteria for future exploration and discussion.
