俄罗斯东正教信徒的政治选择:定性与定量研究方法的优势与局限

Yuliya Karpich
{"title":"俄罗斯东正教信徒的政治选择:定性与定量研究方法的优势与局限","authors":"Yuliya Karpich","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-48-69","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous studies have shown that religiosity is a heterogeneous concept combining identities, practices, and beliefs. At the same time, most of these studies are based on a quantitative methodology. It allows a relationship between religiosity and the political choice of believers to be found, but imposes a limitation on the analysis. The quantitative methodology does not control the interactions of aspects of religiosity, and cannot explain the discovered relationships. This paper proposes an alternative research strategy, specifically, (1) the proposed model allows an analysis of the multiple influences of both religious and non-religious identities, practices and beliefs, and that (2) the qualitative data collected from in-depth interviews with believers complements previous research of the mechanisms of religious influence on political choice. A subjective assessment of one’s position and the actions of the authorities are the most important aspects to the voter (the role of beliefs). An assessment leads to a political choice when (1) a group-identity intensifies the significance of the political problem and poses questions for the individual, and (2) a set of norms and practices provides clues on how to solve a problem. An empirical test of the model was carried out in 2019 in three settlements in the Lipetsk region. The findings illustrate the sufficient potential of the chosen research strategy. The different political choice among respondents, who were expected to have the same political attitudes by quantitative indicators, are explained through the choice of motives and context.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Political Choice of Orthodox Believers in Russia: Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research\",\"authors\":\"Yuliya Karpich\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-48-69\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous studies have shown that religiosity is a heterogeneous concept combining identities, practices, and beliefs. At the same time, most of these studies are based on a quantitative methodology. It allows a relationship between religiosity and the political choice of believers to be found, but imposes a limitation on the analysis. The quantitative methodology does not control the interactions of aspects of religiosity, and cannot explain the discovered relationships. This paper proposes an alternative research strategy, specifically, (1) the proposed model allows an analysis of the multiple influences of both religious and non-religious identities, practices and beliefs, and that (2) the qualitative data collected from in-depth interviews with believers complements previous research of the mechanisms of religious influence on political choice. A subjective assessment of one’s position and the actions of the authorities are the most important aspects to the voter (the role of beliefs). An assessment leads to a political choice when (1) a group-identity intensifies the significance of the political problem and poses questions for the individual, and (2) a set of norms and practices provides clues on how to solve a problem. An empirical test of the model was carried out in 2019 in three settlements in the Lipetsk region. The findings illustrate the sufficient potential of the chosen research strategy. The different political choice among respondents, who were expected to have the same political attitudes by quantitative indicators, are explained through the choice of motives and context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":102221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-48-69\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-48-69","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究表明,宗教信仰是一个结合身份、实践和信仰的异质概念。同时,这些研究大多基于定量方法。它允许发现宗教虔诚度与信徒的政治选择之间的关系,但对分析施加了限制。定量方法不能控制宗教信仰各方面的相互作用,也不能解释所发现的关系。本文提出了另一种研究策略,具体而言,(1)提出的模型允许分析宗教和非宗教身份、实践和信仰的多重影响,(2)从对信徒的深度访谈中收集的定性数据补充了先前关于宗教影响政治选择机制的研究。对一个人的立场和当局的行动的主观评价是选民最重要的方面(信仰的作用)。当(1)群体认同强化了政治问题的重要性并向个人提出问题,以及(2)一套规范和实践为如何解决问题提供线索时,评估会导致政治选择。2019年,在利佩茨克地区的三个定居点对该模型进行了实证检验。研究结果说明了所选择的研究策略的充分潜力。通过对动机和背景的选择,解释了定量指标预期具有相同政治态度的受访者的不同政治选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Political Choice of Orthodox Believers in Russia: Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research
Previous studies have shown that religiosity is a heterogeneous concept combining identities, practices, and beliefs. At the same time, most of these studies are based on a quantitative methodology. It allows a relationship between religiosity and the political choice of believers to be found, but imposes a limitation on the analysis. The quantitative methodology does not control the interactions of aspects of religiosity, and cannot explain the discovered relationships. This paper proposes an alternative research strategy, specifically, (1) the proposed model allows an analysis of the multiple influences of both religious and non-religious identities, practices and beliefs, and that (2) the qualitative data collected from in-depth interviews with believers complements previous research of the mechanisms of religious influence on political choice. A subjective assessment of one’s position and the actions of the authorities are the most important aspects to the voter (the role of beliefs). An assessment leads to a political choice when (1) a group-identity intensifies the significance of the political problem and poses questions for the individual, and (2) a set of norms and practices provides clues on how to solve a problem. An empirical test of the model was carried out in 2019 in three settlements in the Lipetsk region. The findings illustrate the sufficient potential of the chosen research strategy. The different political choice among respondents, who were expected to have the same political attitudes by quantitative indicators, are explained through the choice of motives and context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is Ethnic Discrimination a Matter of Common Sense in the Fight against Crime and Terrorism? On Violence in History Post-City (II): Cartographies of Imaginaton and Co-spatiality Politics Radical Democratic Model of Politics as a Response to the Problem of Refugees Political Integration The Philosopher Robert Spaemann and His Public Positions
×
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