Pub Date : 2021-10-07DOI: 10.1017/9781108966009.005
Joe Soss
a specific research
具体研究
{"title":"On Casing a Study versus Studying a Case","authors":"Joe Soss","doi":"10.1017/9781108966009.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966009.005","url":null,"abstract":"a specific research","PeriodicalId":348720,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Comparison","volume":"438 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116172204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-07DOI: 10.1017/9781108966009.003
F. Schaffer
1 Here and in what follows I use “things” in a colloquial, encompassing sense. The term includes not only material objects but also events, actions, processes, practices, experiences and the like. 2 The comparative dimension of metaphor becomes more evident when contrasting metaphoric and literal utterances. The metaphoric “The moon is a piece of cheese” can be reworded as “The moon is like a piece of cheese” and still make sense. The literal “Red is a color,” in contrast, cannot be rendered as “Red is like a color”–such an utterance is nonsensical (Carston 2002, 358). The point is that metaphors can be turned into explicit comparisons whereas literal utterances cannot. This is not to claim that metaphor and simile function identically, but only to call attention to the fact that both involve comparison. For more on the comparative dimension of metaphor, see Perrine (1971). On the differences between metaphor and simile, and the more complicated relationship of metaphor to comparison, see Glucksberg and Haught (2006). In taking up the task of “rethinking comparison in the social sciences,” we might gainfully ask a basic, but not-too-often posed, question: What are the different ways to compare? Or to rephrase the query more precisely: What are the different ways in which we ordinarily use the word “compare”? My aim in posing this question is to bring into clearer view a way of comparing that, despite being both common and integral to the social sciences, often goes unnoticed. By drawing attention to it, I hope to provide social scientists with a set of starting points to think more clearly about the comparisons they make and to expand their imagination about the kinds of comparing that are possible.
在这里和接下来的内容中，我使用“事物”是一种口语化的、包罗万象的意思。这个术语不仅包括物质对象，还包括事件、行动、过程、实践、经验等。隐喻的比较维度在隐喻话语和字面话语的对比中变得更加明显。“月亮是一块奶酪”这个比喻可以改写为“月亮就像一块奶酪”，仍然有意义。相反，字面上的“红色是一种颜色”不能被翻译成“红色就像一种颜色”——这样的表达是荒谬的(Carston 2002, 358)。关键是隐喻可以转化为明确的比较，而字面上的话语却不能。这并不是说隐喻和明喻的功能是相同的，而只是提醒人们注意两者都涉及比较的事实。关于隐喻的比较维度的更多内容，请参见Perrine(1971)。关于隐喻与明喻的区别，以及隐喻与比较之间更为复杂的关系，请参见Glucksberg and Haught(2006)。在接受“重新思考社会科学中的比较”的任务时，我们可能会提出一个基本的、但不太经常提出的问题:有哪些不同的比较方法?或者更精确地重新表述这个问题:我们通常使用“compare”这个词的不同方式是什么?我提出这个问题的目的是为了让人们更清楚地认识到一种比较方法，尽管这种比较方法对社会科学来说既常见又不可或缺，但却经常被忽视。通过引起人们的注意，我希望为社会科学家提供一套出发点，让他们更清楚地思考他们所做的比较，并扩大他们对可能的比较类型的想象力。
{"title":"Two Ways to Compare","authors":"F. Schaffer","doi":"10.1017/9781108966009.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966009.003","url":null,"abstract":"1 Here and in what follows I use “things” in a colloquial, encompassing sense. The term includes not only material objects but also events, actions, processes, practices, experiences and the like. 2 The comparative dimension of metaphor becomes more evident when contrasting metaphoric and literal utterances. The metaphoric “The moon is a piece of cheese” can be reworded as “The moon is like a piece of cheese” and still make sense. The literal “Red is a color,” in contrast, cannot be rendered as “Red is like a color”–such an utterance is nonsensical (Carston 2002, 358). The point is that metaphors can be turned into explicit comparisons whereas literal utterances cannot. This is not to claim that metaphor and simile function identically, but only to call attention to the fact that both involve comparison. For more on the comparative dimension of metaphor, see Perrine (1971). On the differences between metaphor and simile, and the more complicated relationship of metaphor to comparison, see Glucksberg and Haught (2006). In taking up the task of “rethinking comparison in the social sciences,” we might gainfully ask a basic, but not-too-often posed, question: What are the different ways to compare? Or to rephrase the query more precisely: What are the different ways in which we ordinarily use the word “compare”? My aim in posing this question is to bring into clearer view a way of comparing that, despite being both common and integral to the social sciences, often goes unnoticed. By drawing attention to it, I hope to provide social scientists with a set of starting points to think more clearly about the comparisons they make and to expand their imagination about the kinds of comparing that are possible.","PeriodicalId":348720,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Comparison","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116978703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1017/9781108966009.002
E. Simmons, N. Smith, Rachel A. Schwartz
ions. They inveighed against equating particular practices or institutions that have superficial similarities, yet actually work in profoundly different ways. Sartori’s taxonomical metaphor, with its injunction against comparing across genera, may have seemed like a prudent corrective to problematic scholarly trends in 1970, yet appears too confining for today’s world. (It Qualitative and Multi-Method Research | 33 Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 2018, Vol. 16, No. 1 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562173 would seem odd to the modern biologists who compare DNA, evolutionary patterns, and more across kingdoms, let alone across lower taxonomic ranks.) His skepticism that any category might travel effectively from “the West” to “Africa or South-East Asia,” now seems antiquated. Both Sartori and LaPalombara questioned whether political “participation” could happen in communist regimes, yet certain forms of participation, including grassroots protests, are frequent in today’s China. While Sartori objected to using the term “mobilization” in democracies, today it is well-accepted that individuals do not always engage in democratic political action purely on their own initiative, but rather are driven to act by friends, organizations, inspiring leaders, and so forth. One can simultaneously note this and also bear in mind a vital distinction in kind between this and the type of ruling party orchestration that, in autocracies, compels people to cast ballots in sham elections and the like. The key point here is that we can investigate related phenomena across contrasting political systems, without losing sight of nuances, frictions, and the possibility that they have radically different meanings. Indeed, assessing conceptual fit with care and attention to context is a significant purpose and contribution of comparative work. It is by doing so that we guard against thoughtlessly and misleadingly assimilating unlike things, a danger that Sartori was right to warn against. Making the case for some degree of comparability across highly dissimilar systems is a crucial part of an investigator’s task in such research. A general approach is to argue that an area of politics exists that follows its own distinct rules and patterns, perhaps somewhat isolated from other aspects of the political system, or at least not wholly reducible to it. Zhang, for example, does this in her analysis of the politics of urban preservation, examining how different kinds of governmental fragmentation in Beijing, Chicago, and Paris dictate which historical buildings are protected and which are bulldozed (2013). Another example is Thomas J. Christensen’s Useful Adversaries, which remarkably compares the United States and China from 1947–1958. He argues that in both countries, leaders stoked low-level conflicts in order to rally the public for long-term security strategies, and that such frictions can spiral into unwanted wars, such as the Korean War (1996). By their nature, compar
不同系统之间的比较通常为概念创新和发展提供了机会，即使它带来了“延伸”的风险。当然，广泛的比较可以借鉴现有的概念定义，但我认为，它们相对更有可能为新的背离创造机会。这没有必要，也不应该采取随意将概念扩展到不适合它们的地方的形式。相反，它可以意味着定义或发现不同于已知和接受的经验现象的类别-无论它们是否如此新颖以至于构成“未知的政治对象”(Jourde 2009, 201)。这些可能是有形的，比如一种特定类型的组织结构，也可能是无形的，比如一种社会运动中的动态。例如，蔡对印度和中国的“世界性资本主义”的比较，将通常以国内为中心的国家-社会关系概念扩展到包括跨国移民和散居社区。这种创新的可能性应被视为跨系统比较所取得成就的一个重要组成部分。(读者会注意到，这与索斯在本次研讨会中讨论的“套管”过程，以及赫顿和詹森纽斯关于概念发展的观点有密切关系。)通过框架和概念开发进行的创新是独立的事情，不需要在同一个项目中同时发生，但两者是相互关联的。当我们将注意力从熟悉的案例转移到不太相似的案例时，我们的注意力被吸引到案例的概念方面，这些方面在其他角度被忽视或似乎不重要。(“与其他案例不同的是，印度尼西亚从未有过A，而是有过B，但在C方面与其他案例相似，我想知道这是否通过相同的机制运作……”)。与此同时，突出这些概念的不同特征可能会促使人们努力寻找相关的、迄今为止未经研究的、具有这些特征的案例。(“我想知道马来西亚是否也有这样的东西……”)。1945年至1990年代初，国民党统治下的台湾在很多方面与中国共产党统治下的中国相似。许多最相似的系统研究将两者进行了比较然而，自台湾民主化以来，两者在政治上出现了分歧。尽管台湾海峡两岸在文化、社会和语言上保持着共同之处，但如今的比较既带来了机遇，也带来了特殊的挑战。我的一个项目研究了中国大陆和台湾最基层城市的国家-社会互动，它说明了应对这些挑战和机遇所需要的工作。我试图解释公民是如何看待政府组织的社区组织并与之互动的，这些组织将国家权力和权威带入了居民社区的超地方性领域。我比较了(主要是)首都北京和台北的具体制度。在前者中，我的研究对象是官方的社区组织，被称为“居民”。我在“中国-台湾比较:仍有希望，但不“理想””中回顾了这种比较，哈佛中国政治研讨会，2018年2月23日，http://cnpoliticsworkinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Ben-Read_China-Taiwan-Comparisons.pdf 3在中国大陆和台湾，这些组织也有农村的对应组织。一篇文章将上海的社区委员会比作洛杉矶的社区委员会。这导致了一些敏锐的观察，但主要是一个结构对比的目录(Chen, Cooper, and Sun 2009)。委员会(RCs;自20世纪50年代初以来，中国政府一直维持这一政策。在后者，是国家资助的社区办事处(李邦公处)，可以追溯到20世纪40年代中期国民党的到来。比较这些的基础是什么?他们有很多共同点。它们都是覆盖所有城市空间的全国性网络的一部分虽然组织细节因地而异，但它们是国家法律规定的，并符合统一的模板。一个社区没有选择是否有这样一个办公室。在这两个国家，他们承担着非常广泛的责任。他们可以被称为社区一级国家机构的全能联络点，例如，帮助福利机构根据他们对当地居民情况的了解，确定家庭是否有资格获得援助项目。他们还要回答选民提出的各种各样的问题和要求。它们嵌入的类似的统计结构便于比较。
{"title":"Beyond Mill: Why Cross-Case Qualitative Causal Inference Is Weak, and Why We Should Still Compare","authors":"E. Simmons, N. Smith, Rachel A. Schwartz","doi":"10.1017/9781108966009.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966009.002","url":null,"abstract":"ions. They inveighed against equating particular practices or institutions that have superficial similarities, yet actually work in profoundly different ways. Sartori’s taxonomical metaphor, with its injunction against comparing across genera, may have seemed like a prudent corrective to problematic scholarly trends in 1970, yet appears too confining for today’s world. (It Qualitative and Multi-Method Research | 33 Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 2018, Vol. 16, No. 1 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562173 would seem odd to the modern biologists who compare DNA, evolutionary patterns, and more across kingdoms, let alone across lower taxonomic ranks.) His skepticism that any category might travel effectively from “the West” to “Africa or South-East Asia,” now seems antiquated. Both Sartori and LaPalombara questioned whether political “participation” could happen in communist regimes, yet certain forms of participation, including grassroots protests, are frequent in today’s China. While Sartori objected to using the term “mobilization” in democracies, today it is well-accepted that individuals do not always engage in democratic political action purely on their own initiative, but rather are driven to act by friends, organizations, inspiring leaders, and so forth. One can simultaneously note this and also bear in mind a vital distinction in kind between this and the type of ruling party orchestration that, in autocracies, compels people to cast ballots in sham elections and the like. The key point here is that we can investigate related phenomena across contrasting political systems, without losing sight of nuances, frictions, and the possibility that they have radically different meanings. Indeed, assessing conceptual fit with care and attention to context is a significant purpose and contribution of comparative work. It is by doing so that we guard against thoughtlessly and misleadingly assimilating unlike things, a danger that Sartori was right to warn against. Making the case for some degree of comparability across highly dissimilar systems is a crucial part of an investigator’s task in such research. A general approach is to argue that an area of politics exists that follows its own distinct rules and patterns, perhaps somewhat isolated from other aspects of the political system, or at least not wholly reducible to it. Zhang, for example, does this in her analysis of the politics of urban preservation, examining how different kinds of governmental fragmentation in Beijing, Chicago, and Paris dictate which historical buildings are protected and which are bulldozed (2013). Another example is Thomas J. Christensen’s Useful Adversaries, which remarkably compares the United States and China from 1947–1958. He argues that in both countries, leaders stoked low-level conflicts in order to rally the public for long-term security strategies, and that such frictions can spiral into unwanted wars, such as the Korean War (1996). By their nature, compar","PeriodicalId":348720,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Comparison","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130936008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：