Mapping methodological nationalism in Middle Eastern studies: Toward a transnational understanding of the 2011 Arab uprisings?

Pub Date : 2024-01-16 DOI:10.1111/dome.12309
Jonas Nabbe, Ward Vloeberghs, Maryse Kruithof
{"title":"Mapping methodological nationalism in Middle Eastern studies: Toward a transnational understanding of the 2011 Arab uprisings?","authors":"Jonas Nabbe,&nbsp;Ward Vloeberghs,&nbsp;Maryse Kruithof","doi":"10.1111/dome.12309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article assesses the prevalence and implications of the research foci methodological nationalism, methodological globalism, and transnationalism in publications regarding the 2011 Arab uprisings. We propose a new typology that contrasts state-centered methodological nationalism with the cosmopolitan lens of methodological globalism as two opposite ends of a spectrum. Transnationalism is conceptualized in between these two, due to its sensitivity to multiple localities and cross-border variables. We compare the merits and limits of these three research foci through quantitative research and content analysis. Our systematic review of one decade of scholarship on the Arab uprisings suggests a consistent trend toward the dominance of methodologically nationalist research approaches in Middle Eastern studies. This is surprising because the multilocal nature of the Arab uprisings suggests that it can best be analyzed transnationally. This article, therefore, critically discusses the methodological nationalist bias to better understand and illustrate the trend. We conclude by highlighting some comparative advantages offered by transnational perspectives on actors and processes in the Arab uprisings and its aftermath.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dome.12309","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dome.12309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article assesses the prevalence and implications of the research foci methodological nationalism, methodological globalism, and transnationalism in publications regarding the 2011 Arab uprisings. We propose a new typology that contrasts state-centered methodological nationalism with the cosmopolitan lens of methodological globalism as two opposite ends of a spectrum. Transnationalism is conceptualized in between these two, due to its sensitivity to multiple localities and cross-border variables. We compare the merits and limits of these three research foci through quantitative research and content analysis. Our systematic review of one decade of scholarship on the Arab uprisings suggests a consistent trend toward the dominance of methodologically nationalist research approaches in Middle Eastern studies. This is surprising because the multilocal nature of the Arab uprisings suggests that it can best be analyzed transnationally. This article, therefore, critically discusses the methodological nationalist bias to better understand and illustrate the trend. We conclude by highlighting some comparative advantages offered by transnational perspectives on actors and processes in the Arab uprisings and its aftermath.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
绘制中东研究中的民族主义方法论:实现对 2011 年阿拉伯起义的跨国理解?
本文评估了在有关 2011 年阿拉伯起义的出版物中,方法论民族主义、方法论全球主义和跨国主义等研究焦点的普遍性及其影响。我们提出了一种新的类型学,将以国家为中心的方法论民族主义与方法论全球主义的世界主义视角作为光谱的两端进行对比。跨国主义的概念介于两者之间,因为它对多重地域和跨境变量非常敏感。我们通过定量研究和内容分析来比较这三个研究重点的优点和局限性。我们对十年来有关阿拉伯起义的学术研究进行了系统回顾,结果表明,在中东研究中,方法论上的民族主义研究方法始终占据主导地位。这令人惊讶,因为阿拉伯起义的多地方性表明,对其进行跨国分析是最好的。因此,本文批判性地讨论了方法论上的民族主义偏见,以更好地理解和说明这一趋势。最后,我们强调了跨国视角对阿拉伯起义及其后果的参与者和过程所提供的一些比较优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1