基于实地的侵犯人权行为研究方法

Daniel Rothenberg
{"title":"基于实地的侵犯人权行为研究方法","authors":"Daniel Rothenberg","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Field-based research lies at the heart of human rights discourse and practice. Yet, there is a lack of consistency and coherence in the methodologies used and inadequate transparency regarding research methods in most human rights reporting. This situation opens work up to multiple challenges as to quality, veracity, and legitimacy. Although there have been repeated calls for greater methodological rigor through universal standards, general principles, and guidelines, human rights research remains diverse, uncoordinated, and disparate. This article explores these issues in relation to fact-finding, measuring violations, truth commissions, and emerging tools and technologies. It reviews how methodological debates reflect significant divisions among disciplines, differences in goals and objectives, distinct interests among various actors and organizations working on these issues, and the overall complexity of human rights research. The article argues against implementing universal research practices and for creatively and openly engaging debates regarding field-based methods. Such efforts can provide an essential corrective to unquestioned assumptions, enable greater transparency, and improve the overall quality and comparative value of human rights research.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133939","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Field-Based Methods of Research on Human Rights Violations\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Rothenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Field-based research lies at the heart of human rights discourse and practice. Yet, there is a lack of consistency and coherence in the methodologies used and inadequate transparency regarding research methods in most human rights reporting. This situation opens work up to multiple challenges as to quality, veracity, and legitimacy. Although there have been repeated calls for greater methodological rigor through universal standards, general principles, and guidelines, human rights research remains diverse, uncoordinated, and disparate. This article explores these issues in relation to fact-finding, measuring violations, truth commissions, and emerging tools and technologies. It reviews how methodological debates reflect significant divisions among disciplines, differences in goals and objectives, distinct interests among various actors and organizations working on these issues, and the overall complexity of human rights research. The article argues against implementing universal research practices and for creatively and openly engaging debates regarding field-based methods. Such efforts can provide an essential corrective to unquestioned assumptions, enable greater transparency, and improve the overall quality and comparative value of human rights research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Law and Social Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133939\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Law and Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133939\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133939","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

实地研究是人权论述和实践的核心。然而,在大多数人权报告中,所使用的方法缺乏一致性和连贯性,研究方法透明度不足。这种情况使作品在质量、真实性和合法性方面面临多重挑战。尽管人们一再呼吁通过普遍标准、一般原则和指导方针来提高方法的严谨性,但人权研究仍然是多样化、不协调和不同的。本文探讨了与事实调查、衡量侵权行为、真相委员会以及新兴工具和技术有关的这些问题。它审查了方法论辩论如何反映学科之间的重大分歧、目标和目的的差异、从事这些问题的各种行为者和组织之间的不同利益,以及人权研究的总体复杂性。这篇文章反对实施普遍的研究实践,也反对创造性地公开参与关于基于领域的方法的辩论。这种努力可以对毫无疑问的假设进行必要的纠正,提高透明度,并提高人权研究的总体质量和比较价值。
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
Field-Based Methods of Research on Human Rights Violations
Field-based research lies at the heart of human rights discourse and practice. Yet, there is a lack of consistency and coherence in the methodologies used and inadequate transparency regarding research methods in most human rights reporting. This situation opens work up to multiple challenges as to quality, veracity, and legitimacy. Although there have been repeated calls for greater methodological rigor through universal standards, general principles, and guidelines, human rights research remains diverse, uncoordinated, and disparate. This article explores these issues in relation to fact-finding, measuring violations, truth commissions, and emerging tools and technologies. It reviews how methodological debates reflect significant divisions among disciplines, differences in goals and objectives, distinct interests among various actors and organizations working on these issues, and the overall complexity of human rights research. The article argues against implementing universal research practices and for creatively and openly engaging debates regarding field-based methods. Such efforts can provide an essential corrective to unquestioned assumptions, enable greater transparency, and improve the overall quality and comparative value of human rights research.
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
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Bankruptcy Law's Knowns and Unknowns Centering Race in Studies of Low-Wage Immigrant Labor Authoritarian Legality and State Capitalism in China Mandatory Employment Arbitration How to Study Global Lawmaking: Lessons from Intellectual Property Rights and International Health Emergencies
×
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