考虑比较:一些方法学回应

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341492
O. Freiberger
{"title":"考虑比较:一些方法学回应","authors":"O. Freiberger","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe present issue’s review symposium on comparison comprises six thoughtful and stimulating essays in which the authors, in conversation with Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges (2018) and my Considering Comparison (2019), reflect on the comparative method and on how it relates to their work. Their reflections are explorative, productive, thought-provoking, and they also criticize and challenge aspects of our books in constructive ways, each from the perspective of their own field of expertise. In this response I discuss the methodological questions that each essay raised for me and, at times, propose a potential way forward. The symposium shows that exploring the comparative method can be useful and rewarding not only for explicit cross-cultural research, but also for research projects that do not seem comparative at first glance. I argue that since studying religion—a highly comparative category—is inherently comparative, the methodology of comparison deserves proper attention.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"495-508"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341492","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Considered: Some Methodological Responses\",\"authors\":\"O. Freiberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341492\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe present issue’s review symposium on comparison comprises six thoughtful and stimulating essays in which the authors, in conversation with Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges (2018) and my Considering Comparison (2019), reflect on the comparative method and on how it relates to their work. Their reflections are explorative, productive, thought-provoking, and they also criticize and challenge aspects of our books in constructive ways, each from the perspective of their own field of expertise. In this response I discuss the methodological questions that each essay raised for me and, at times, propose a potential way forward. The symposium shows that exploring the comparative method can be useful and rewarding not only for explicit cross-cultural research, but also for research projects that do not seem comparative at first glance. I argue that since studying religion—a highly comparative category—is inherently comparative, the methodology of comparison deserves proper attention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"495-508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341492\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341492\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341492","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本期的比较评论研讨会包括六篇深思熟虑、富有启发性的文章,作者在与布鲁斯·林肯的《苹果和橙子》(2018)和我的《思考比较》(2019)的对话中,反思了比较方法及其与他们的工作的关系。他们的思考是探索性的、富有成效的、发人深省的,他们还以建设性的方式批评和挑战我们书籍的各个方面,每个方面都从自己的专业领域出发。在这篇回应中,我讨论了每一篇文章为我提出的方法论问题,有时还提出了一条潜在的前进道路。研讨会表明,探索比较方法不仅对明确的跨文化研究有用,而且对乍一看不具有比较性的研究项目也有益。我认为,由于研究宗教——一个高度可比较的类别——本质上是可比较的,因此比较的方法值得适当关注。
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
Comparison Considered: Some Methodological Responses
The present issue’s review symposium on comparison comprises six thoughtful and stimulating essays in which the authors, in conversation with Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges (2018) and my Considering Comparison (2019), reflect on the comparative method and on how it relates to their work. Their reflections are explorative, productive, thought-provoking, and they also criticize and challenge aspects of our books in constructive ways, each from the perspective of their own field of expertise. In this response I discuss the methodological questions that each essay raised for me and, at times, propose a potential way forward. The symposium shows that exploring the comparative method can be useful and rewarding not only for explicit cross-cultural research, but also for research projects that do not seem comparative at first glance. I argue that since studying religion—a highly comparative category—is inherently comparative, the methodology of comparison deserves proper attention.
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion publishes articles, notes, book reviews and letters which explicitly address the problems of methodology and theory in the academic study of religion. This includes such traditional points of departure as history, philosophy, anthropology and sociology, but also the natural sciences, and such newer disciplinary approaches as feminist theory and studies. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion also concentrates on the critical analysis of theoretical problems prominent in the study of religion.
期刊最新文献
Awkward History, Awkward Theory Front matter The Discursive Side of Sociological Institutionalism in the Study of Religion ‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion
×
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