思想史视野中的质性研究:以方法意涵的构建为例
|
摘要
本文尝试从思想史视角反思质性研究方法,以揭示被结构视角遮蔽的研究过程,从而探讨一种直面内心的反思性社会科学研究方式。思想史视角强调回到文本去阐释书写者赋予研究方法以意涵的思想过程。本文以"推论""充分必要性"与"意义"等三种方法论立场中的方法意涵构建过程为例展现这样的思想过程:方法论如何引导了对特定研究方法的选择;当方法论与现实情况存在差距时,书写者如何在原有方法论立场中发展对质性方法新的理解以捍卫方法论的合理性;书写者如何在强调与其他立场的区分中发展对方法的理解。本文由此揭示了看似相同的方法背后所蕴含的巨大意涵和实践差异。一种围绕"意涵"展开的方法知识系统将有可能被建立起来。思想史视角为反思性的质性方法知识构建提供了可以付诸实践的路径。
This article argues that the intellectual history approach generates new ways for understanding qualitative research.The approach focuses on the processes,in which the meanings of qualitative methods emerge in concrete contexts,and thus enables the researcher to interpret such meanings from authors' writings that claim the legitimacy of the methods in application.Through an in-depth discussion of three methodological perspectives,this article shows how the intellectual history approach can deepen our understanding of qualitative methods by shifting our focus from the taken-for-granted meaning structures bestowed outwardly,to the mechanism by which the concrete meanings emerge,alter and are retained within the subjective world of the authors.These concreate meanings can be seen as an outcome of the researchers' intention to reconcile the enduring insufficiency of methodological designs with the actual changing situation that they intend to explain in the real world.This article thus brings back the issue of meanings to the current discussion of qualitative methods.It is argued that theexisting discussion tends to emphasize either the normative or the structural dimension of qualitative methods while ignores the concrete and fluid meanings of those methods as well as the contexts that produce them.With this in mind,the article suggests a new direction for understanding qualitative research.
This article argues that the intellectual history approach generates new ways for understanding qualitative research.The approach focuses on the processes,in which the meanings of qualitative methods emerge in concrete contexts,and thus enables the researcher to interpret such meanings from authors' writings that claim the legitimacy of the methods in application.Through an in-depth discussion of three methodological perspectives,this article shows how the intellectual history approach can deepen our understanding of qualitative methods by shifting our focus from the taken-for-granted meaning structures bestowed outwardly,to the mechanism by which the concrete meanings emerge,alter and are retained within the subjective world of the authors.These concreate meanings can be seen as an outcome of the researchers' intention to reconcile the enduring insufficiency of methodological designs with the actual changing situation that they intend to explain in the real world.This article thus brings back the issue of meanings to the current discussion of qualitative methods.It is argued that theexisting discussion tends to emphasize either the normative or the structural dimension of qualitative methods while ignores the concrete and fluid meanings of those methods as well as the contexts that produce them.With this in mind,the article suggests a new direction for understanding qualitative research.
引文
科宾,朱丽叶、安塞尔姆·L.施特劳斯.2015.质性研究的基础——形成扎根理论的程序与方法[M].朱光明,译.重庆大学出版社
陈向明.2016.质性研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社.
刘子曦.2018.故事与讲故事:叙事社会学何以可能——兼谈如何讲述中国故事[J].社会学研究(2):164-188.
渠敬东.2019.迈向社会全体的个案研究[J].社会39(1):1-36.
许茨.2017.社会世界的意义构建[M].霍桂恒,译.北京师范大学出版社.
徐晓宏.2017.大时代有风暴眼[J].读书(12):92-102.
应星.2018.“田野工作的想象力”:在科学与艺术之间——以《大河移民上访的故事》为例[J].社会38(1):30-53.
折晓叶.2018.“田野”经验中的日常生活逻辑:经验、理论与方法[J].社会38(1):1-29.
Abbot,Andrew.1983.“Sequences of Social Events:Concepts and Methods for the Analysis of Order.”Historical Methods 16(4):129-147.
Abbot,Andrew.2001.TimeMatters:On Theory and Method.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Abend,Gabriel and Caitlin Petre.2013.“Styles of Causal Thought:An Empirical Investigation.”American Journal of Sociology 119(3):602-654.
Alexander,Jeffrey C.2004.“Cultural Pragmatics:Social Performance Between Ritual and Strategy.”Sociological Theory 22(4):527-573.
Beach,Derek and Rasmus Pedersen.2013.Process-Tracing Methods:Foundations and Guidelines.Ann Arbor,MI:University of Michigan Press.
Béland,Daniel and Robert Henry Cox.2012.“Introduction:Ideas and Politics.”In Ideas and Politics in Social Science,edited by Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bennett,Andrew and Jeffrey T.Checkel 2015.Process Tracing:From Metaphor to Analytic Tool.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Berman,Sheri.1998.The Social Democratic Moment:Ideas and Politics in the Making of Interwar Europe.Mass:Harvard University Press.
Bevir,Mark.1999.The Logic of the History of Ideas.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bol,Peter K.2004.“On the Problem of Contextualizing Ideas:Reflections on Yu Yingshi’s Approach to the Study of Song Daoxue.”Journal of Song-Yuan Studies(34):59-79.
Blyth,Mark.2002.Great Transformations:Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brady,Henry E.and David Collier.2010.Rethinking Social Inquiry:Diverse Tools,Shared Standards.Bowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Chartier,Roger.1982.“Intellectual History or Sociocultural History?”In Modern European Intellectual History:Reappraisals and New Perspectives,edited by Dominick LaCapra and Steven Kaplan.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Clemens,Elisabeth.2007.“Toward a Historicized Sociology:Theorizing Events,Process,and Emergence.”Annual Review of Sociology(33):527-549.
Clemens,Elisabeth and James Cook.1999.“Politics and Institutionalism:Explaining Durability and Change.”Annual Review of Sociology(25):441-466.
Collier,David and Steven Levitsky.1997.“Democracy with Adjectives:Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.”World Politics 49(3):430-445.
Denzin,Norman K.and Yvonna S.Lincoln.1998.Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry.Thousand Oaks,Calif.:Sage Publications.
Durkheim,Emile.1938.The Rules of Sociological Method(8th edition).Translated by Sarah Solovay and John Mueller.Glencoe III:Free Press.
Emirbayer,Mustafa.1997.“Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.”American Journal of Sociology 103(2):281-317.
Ermakoff,Ivan.2008.Ruling Oneself Out:A Theory of Collective Abdications.Duke University Press,
Gerring,John.2007.Case Study Research:Principles and Practices.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Giovanni,Capoccia and R.Daniel Kelemen.2007.“The Study of Critical Junctures:Theory,Narrative,and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism.”World Politic59(3):341-369.
Goertz,Gary and James Mahoney.2012.A Tales of Two Cultures:Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Gorski,Philip.1993.The Disciplinary Revolution:Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Griffin,Larry.1993.“Narrative,Event-Structure Analysis,and Causal Interpretation in Historical Sociology.”American Journal of Sociology 98(5):1094-1133.
Gross,Neil.2009.“A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.”American Sociological Review74(3):358-379.
Hall,Peter.1986.Governing the Economy:The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hall,Peter.2003.“Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.”In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences,edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer.Cambridge,UK and New York:Cambridge University Press:373-404.
Hall,Peter and Rosemary C.R.Taylor.1996.“Politics Scierce and the Three New Institutionalisms.”Political Studies 44(5):936-957.
Hirschman,Daniel and Isaac Ariail Reed.2014.“Formation Stories and Causality in Sociology,Daniel Hirschman.”Sociological Theory 32(4):259-282.
Katz,Jack.2001.“From How to Why:On Luminous Description and Causal Inference in Ethnography(Part I).”Ethnography 2(4):443-473.
King,Gary,Robert Keohane,and Sidney Verba.1994.Designing Social Inquiry:Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Kiser,Edgar and Michael Hechter.1998.“The Debate on Historical Sociology:Rational Choice Theory and Its Critics.”American Journal of Sociology 104(3):785-816.
Johnson,James.2006.“Consequences of Positivism:A Pragmatist Assessment.”Comparative Political Studies 39(2):224-252.
LaCapra,Dominick.1982.“Rethinking Intellectual History and Reading Texts.”In Modern European Intellectual History:Reappraisals and New Perspectives,edited by Dominick LaCapra and Steven Kaplan.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Levi,Margret.1998.Of Rule and Revenue.Berkeley:University of California Press.
Lichterman,Paul.2005. Elusive Togetherness:Church Goups Tring to Bridge American’s Divisions.Princeton,NJ:Princeton University Press.
Lichterman,Paul and Isaac Ariail Reed.2014.“Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography.”Sociological Methods&Research44(4):585-635.
Lieberman,Robert.2002.“Ideas,Institutions,and Political Order:Explaining Political Change.”American Political Science Review96(4):697-712.
Lieberman,Evan.2005.“Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.”American Political Science Review99(3):435-452.
Lijphart,Arend.1971.“Comparative Politics and Comparative Method.”American Political Science Review65(3):682-693.
Lijphart,Arend.1975.“The Comparable-cases Strategy in Comparative Research.”Comparative Political Studies 8(2):158-177.
Mahoney,James.2000.“Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.”Theory and Society 29(4):507-548.
Mahoney,James.2008.“Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.”Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5):412-436.
Mahoney,James.2012.“The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.”Sociological Methods&Research41(4):570-597.
Mahoney,James,Erin Kimball,and Kendra Koivu.2009.“The Logic of Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences.”Comparative Political Studies 42(1):114-146.
Mahoney,James and Kathleen Thelen.2010. Explaining Institutional Change:Ambiguity,Agency,and Power.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney,James and Kathleen Thelen.2015.Advances in Comparative Historical Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mann,Michael.2012.The Sources of Social Power,vol 2.New York:Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell,Timothy.1991.“Limits of the State:Beyond Statist Approach and Their Critics.”American Political Science Review85(1):77-96.
Moe,Terry.2006.“Political Control and the Power of the Agent.”Journal of Law,Economics,and Organizationb 22(1):1-29.
Pierson,Paul.2015.“Power and Path Dependency.”In Advances in ComparativeHistorical Analysis,edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:123-146.
Powell,Walter and Paul Dimaggio.1991.The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Ragin,Charles.2000.Fuzzy-Set Social Science.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Ragin,Charles and Howard Becker.1992.What Is a Case:Exploring Foundations of Social Inquiry.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Reed,Isaac Ariail.2011.Interpretation and Social Knowledge:On the Use of Theory in the Human Sciences.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,
Reed,Isaac Ariail.2013.“Power:Relational,Discursive,and Performative Dimensions.”Sociological Theory 3(3):193-218.
Sartori,Giovanni.1970.“Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.”American Political Science Review64(4):1033-1053.
Sewell,William H.,Jr.1985.“Ideologies and Social Revolutions:Reflections on the French Case.”Journal of Modern History 57(1):57-85.
Sewell,William H.,Jr. 2005. Logics of History:Social Theory and Social Transformation.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Schutz,Alfred.1962.Collected Papers:The Problem of Social Reality. Martinus Nijhoff:The Hague.
Schutz,Alfred.1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston,IL:Northwestern University Press.
Skinner,Quentin.1969.“Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.”History and Theory 8(1):3-53.
Skinner,Quentin.2002.Visions of Politics volume 1:Regarding Method.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol,Theda 1979.States and Social Revolutions:A Comparative Analysis of France,Russia and China.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Skocpol,Theda.1985a.“Bringing the State Back In:Current Research.”In Bringing the State Back In,edited by Peter Evans,Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:17-20.
Skocpol,Theda.1985b.“Cultural Idioms and Political Ideologies in the Revolutionary Reconstruction of State Power:A Rejoinder to Sewell.”Journal of Modern History57(1):86-96.
Skocpol,Theda and Margaret Somers.1980.“The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.”Comparative Studies in Society and History 22(2):174-197.
Slater,Dan and Daniel Ziblatt.2013.“The Enduring Indispensability of the Controlled Comparison.”Comparative Political Studie46(10):1301-1327.
Steinmetz,George.1999.State/Culture:State Formation after the Cultural Turn.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Swidler,Ann.1986.“Culture in Action:Symbols and Strategies.”American Sociological Review51(2):273-286.
Tavory,Iddo and Stefan Timmermans.2013.“A Pragmatist Approach to Causality in Ethnography.”American Journal of Sociology 119(3):682-714.
Thelen,Kathleen.1999.“Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.”Annual Review of Political Science(2):369-404.
Timmermans,Stefan and Iddo Tavory.2012.“Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis.”Sociological Theory 30(3):167-186.
Tsai,Lily.2007.Accountability without Democracy:Solidary Groups and Public Goods Provision in Rural China.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Vaughan,Diane.1992.“Theory:The Heuristics of Case Analysis.”In What Is a Case:Exploring Foundations of Social Inquiry,edited by Charles Ragin and Howard Becker.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:173-202.
Vaughan,Diane.2004.“Theorizing Disaster:Analogy,Historical Ethnography,and the Challenger Accident.”Ethnography 5(3):315-347.
Vaughan,Diane.2006.“NASA Revisited:Theory,Analogy,and Public Sociology.”American Journal of Sociology 112(2):353-393.
Wacquant,Lo6c.2002.“Scrutinizing the Street:Poverty,Morality,and the Pitfalls of Urban Ethnography.”American Journal of Sociology 107(6):1468-1532.
Wedeen,Lisa.2002.“Conceptualizing Culture:Possibilities for Political Science.”American Political Science Review96(4):713-728.
Wagner-Pacifici,Robin.2010.“Theorizing the Restlessness of Events.”American Journal of Sociology 115(5):1351-1386.
Watts,Duncan.2014.“Common Sense and Sociological Explanations.”American Journal of Sociology 120(2):313-351.
1.本文所说的思想史,特指基于历史语境的研究方式。这不同于广义思想史研究中的观念史流派,后者更强调观念具有的超越语境的客观意义。
2 .本文凡是说到“书写者”或“作者”,都是指特定的文本的写作者或学术成果的生产者。从广义上说,这些作品的书写者也就是研究者。但本文将书写者与一般意思上的研究者区分开来,以便于结合文本阐释他们的思想过程。
3.本文所说的“方法论”是关于“何以知之”的认识论逻辑,也就是说明为什么按照某些特定的研究方法就可以发现因果性。方法论,如本文讨论的推论、充分必要性和意义研究,是被一定研究群体所共享的知识。首先,方法论是一种逻辑体系,需要按照逻辑推理来自洽性地说明“何以知之”。其次,方法论是一种研究立场。本文谈到的方法书写者相信这种立场需要体现在具体的方法操作中。最后,方法论还是一种认同,书写者因赞成某些方法论而宣称自己按照此方法论展开研究,因反对某些方法论而在研究中强调与之区别。本文所说的因果性(causality)包含两种类型:体现在叙事中的因果性和体现在因果识别中的因果性。第一个类型是关于结果如何产生的叙事。叙事中隐含了叙事者对原因的理解。这样的过程在本文也被称为“因果过程”。第二个类型是对原因的识别。是对“为什么”的回答。回答的方式是用理论概念概括原因,这样的原因可以是关于变量间因果相关性的,也可以是关于概念间充分必要性关系的,还可以是对整体因果过程的综合概括。
4.一些学者已开始关注书写者如何在实际的研究过程中体现他们对因果性的理解,而不只是看他们如何宣称该怎么发现因果性(Abend and Petre,2013)。
5 .本文并不打算全面展示所有方法论,而只是根据说明论点的需要列举三种。比如,熟知的批判实在论(critical realism)等方法论就没有出现。
6.或称单位(unit)。
7.这里的“事件”是指由行动者(actor)、行动(action)与行动目标(object of action)组成的分析单元(Clemens,2007)。
8.引文括号内中文文字为笔者所加。
9.这样的反思式的研究已经开始。最近的中英文社会学界的讨论可参见一些相关研究(Vaughan,2006;折晓叶,2018;应星,2018)。
陈向明.2016.质性研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社.
刘子曦.2018.故事与讲故事:叙事社会学何以可能——兼谈如何讲述中国故事[J].社会学研究(2):164-188.
渠敬东.2019.迈向社会全体的个案研究[J].社会39(1):1-36.
许茨.2017.社会世界的意义构建[M].霍桂恒,译.北京师范大学出版社.
徐晓宏.2017.大时代有风暴眼[J].读书(12):92-102.
应星.2018.“田野工作的想象力”:在科学与艺术之间——以《大河移民上访的故事》为例[J].社会38(1):30-53.
折晓叶.2018.“田野”经验中的日常生活逻辑:经验、理论与方法[J].社会38(1):1-29.
Abbot,Andrew.1983.“Sequences of Social Events:Concepts and Methods for the Analysis of Order.”Historical Methods 16(4):129-147.
Abbot,Andrew.2001.TimeMatters:On Theory and Method.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Abend,Gabriel and Caitlin Petre.2013.“Styles of Causal Thought:An Empirical Investigation.”American Journal of Sociology 119(3):602-654.
Alexander,Jeffrey C.2004.“Cultural Pragmatics:Social Performance Between Ritual and Strategy.”Sociological Theory 22(4):527-573.
Beach,Derek and Rasmus Pedersen.2013.Process-Tracing Methods:Foundations and Guidelines.Ann Arbor,MI:University of Michigan Press.
Béland,Daniel and Robert Henry Cox.2012.“Introduction:Ideas and Politics.”In Ideas and Politics in Social Science,edited by Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bennett,Andrew and Jeffrey T.Checkel 2015.Process Tracing:From Metaphor to Analytic Tool.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Berman,Sheri.1998.The Social Democratic Moment:Ideas and Politics in the Making of Interwar Europe.Mass:Harvard University Press.
Bevir,Mark.1999.The Logic of the History of Ideas.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bol,Peter K.2004.“On the Problem of Contextualizing Ideas:Reflections on Yu Yingshi’s Approach to the Study of Song Daoxue.”Journal of Song-Yuan Studies(34):59-79.
Blyth,Mark.2002.Great Transformations:Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brady,Henry E.and David Collier.2010.Rethinking Social Inquiry:Diverse Tools,Shared Standards.Bowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Chartier,Roger.1982.“Intellectual History or Sociocultural History?”In Modern European Intellectual History:Reappraisals and New Perspectives,edited by Dominick LaCapra and Steven Kaplan.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Clemens,Elisabeth.2007.“Toward a Historicized Sociology:Theorizing Events,Process,and Emergence.”Annual Review of Sociology(33):527-549.
Clemens,Elisabeth and James Cook.1999.“Politics and Institutionalism:Explaining Durability and Change.”Annual Review of Sociology(25):441-466.
Collier,David and Steven Levitsky.1997.“Democracy with Adjectives:Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.”World Politics 49(3):430-445.
Denzin,Norman K.and Yvonna S.Lincoln.1998.Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry.Thousand Oaks,Calif.:Sage Publications.
Durkheim,Emile.1938.The Rules of Sociological Method(8th edition).Translated by Sarah Solovay and John Mueller.Glencoe III:Free Press.
Emirbayer,Mustafa.1997.“Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.”American Journal of Sociology 103(2):281-317.
Ermakoff,Ivan.2008.Ruling Oneself Out:A Theory of Collective Abdications.Duke University Press,
Gerring,John.2007.Case Study Research:Principles and Practices.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Giovanni,Capoccia and R.Daniel Kelemen.2007.“The Study of Critical Junctures:Theory,Narrative,and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism.”World Politic59(3):341-369.
Goertz,Gary and James Mahoney.2012.A Tales of Two Cultures:Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Gorski,Philip.1993.The Disciplinary Revolution:Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Griffin,Larry.1993.“Narrative,Event-Structure Analysis,and Causal Interpretation in Historical Sociology.”American Journal of Sociology 98(5):1094-1133.
Gross,Neil.2009.“A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.”American Sociological Review74(3):358-379.
Hall,Peter.1986.Governing the Economy:The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hall,Peter.2003.“Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.”In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences,edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer.Cambridge,UK and New York:Cambridge University Press:373-404.
Hall,Peter and Rosemary C.R.Taylor.1996.“Politics Scierce and the Three New Institutionalisms.”Political Studies 44(5):936-957.
Hirschman,Daniel and Isaac Ariail Reed.2014.“Formation Stories and Causality in Sociology,Daniel Hirschman.”Sociological Theory 32(4):259-282.
Katz,Jack.2001.“From How to Why:On Luminous Description and Causal Inference in Ethnography(Part I).”Ethnography 2(4):443-473.
King,Gary,Robert Keohane,and Sidney Verba.1994.Designing Social Inquiry:Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Kiser,Edgar and Michael Hechter.1998.“The Debate on Historical Sociology:Rational Choice Theory and Its Critics.”American Journal of Sociology 104(3):785-816.
Johnson,James.2006.“Consequences of Positivism:A Pragmatist Assessment.”Comparative Political Studies 39(2):224-252.
LaCapra,Dominick.1982.“Rethinking Intellectual History and Reading Texts.”In Modern European Intellectual History:Reappraisals and New Perspectives,edited by Dominick LaCapra and Steven Kaplan.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Levi,Margret.1998.Of Rule and Revenue.Berkeley:University of California Press.
Lichterman,Paul.2005. Elusive Togetherness:Church Goups Tring to Bridge American’s Divisions.Princeton,NJ:Princeton University Press.
Lichterman,Paul and Isaac Ariail Reed.2014.“Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography.”Sociological Methods&Research44(4):585-635.
Lieberman,Robert.2002.“Ideas,Institutions,and Political Order:Explaining Political Change.”American Political Science Review96(4):697-712.
Lieberman,Evan.2005.“Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.”American Political Science Review99(3):435-452.
Lijphart,Arend.1971.“Comparative Politics and Comparative Method.”American Political Science Review65(3):682-693.
Lijphart,Arend.1975.“The Comparable-cases Strategy in Comparative Research.”Comparative Political Studies 8(2):158-177.
Mahoney,James.2000.“Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.”Theory and Society 29(4):507-548.
Mahoney,James.2008.“Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.”Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5):412-436.
Mahoney,James.2012.“The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.”Sociological Methods&Research41(4):570-597.
Mahoney,James,Erin Kimball,and Kendra Koivu.2009.“The Logic of Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences.”Comparative Political Studies 42(1):114-146.
Mahoney,James and Kathleen Thelen.2010. Explaining Institutional Change:Ambiguity,Agency,and Power.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney,James and Kathleen Thelen.2015.Advances in Comparative Historical Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mann,Michael.2012.The Sources of Social Power,vol 2.New York:Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell,Timothy.1991.“Limits of the State:Beyond Statist Approach and Their Critics.”American Political Science Review85(1):77-96.
Moe,Terry.2006.“Political Control and the Power of the Agent.”Journal of Law,Economics,and Organizationb 22(1):1-29.
Pierson,Paul.2015.“Power and Path Dependency.”In Advances in ComparativeHistorical Analysis,edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:123-146.
Powell,Walter and Paul Dimaggio.1991.The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Ragin,Charles.2000.Fuzzy-Set Social Science.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Ragin,Charles and Howard Becker.1992.What Is a Case:Exploring Foundations of Social Inquiry.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Reed,Isaac Ariail.2011.Interpretation and Social Knowledge:On the Use of Theory in the Human Sciences.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,
Reed,Isaac Ariail.2013.“Power:Relational,Discursive,and Performative Dimensions.”Sociological Theory 3(3):193-218.
Sartori,Giovanni.1970.“Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.”American Political Science Review64(4):1033-1053.
Sewell,William H.,Jr.1985.“Ideologies and Social Revolutions:Reflections on the French Case.”Journal of Modern History 57(1):57-85.
Sewell,William H.,Jr. 2005. Logics of History:Social Theory and Social Transformation.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Schutz,Alfred.1962.Collected Papers:The Problem of Social Reality. Martinus Nijhoff:The Hague.
Schutz,Alfred.1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston,IL:Northwestern University Press.
Skinner,Quentin.1969.“Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.”History and Theory 8(1):3-53.
Skinner,Quentin.2002.Visions of Politics volume 1:Regarding Method.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol,Theda 1979.States and Social Revolutions:A Comparative Analysis of France,Russia and China.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Skocpol,Theda.1985a.“Bringing the State Back In:Current Research.”In Bringing the State Back In,edited by Peter Evans,Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:17-20.
Skocpol,Theda.1985b.“Cultural Idioms and Political Ideologies in the Revolutionary Reconstruction of State Power:A Rejoinder to Sewell.”Journal of Modern History57(1):86-96.
Skocpol,Theda and Margaret Somers.1980.“The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.”Comparative Studies in Society and History 22(2):174-197.
Slater,Dan and Daniel Ziblatt.2013.“The Enduring Indispensability of the Controlled Comparison.”Comparative Political Studie46(10):1301-1327.
Steinmetz,George.1999.State/Culture:State Formation after the Cultural Turn.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press.
Swidler,Ann.1986.“Culture in Action:Symbols and Strategies.”American Sociological Review51(2):273-286.
Tavory,Iddo and Stefan Timmermans.2013.“A Pragmatist Approach to Causality in Ethnography.”American Journal of Sociology 119(3):682-714.
Thelen,Kathleen.1999.“Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.”Annual Review of Political Science(2):369-404.
Timmermans,Stefan and Iddo Tavory.2012.“Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis.”Sociological Theory 30(3):167-186.
Tsai,Lily.2007.Accountability without Democracy:Solidary Groups and Public Goods Provision in Rural China.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Vaughan,Diane.1992.“Theory:The Heuristics of Case Analysis.”In What Is a Case:Exploring Foundations of Social Inquiry,edited by Charles Ragin and Howard Becker.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:173-202.
Vaughan,Diane.2004.“Theorizing Disaster:Analogy,Historical Ethnography,and the Challenger Accident.”Ethnography 5(3):315-347.
Vaughan,Diane.2006.“NASA Revisited:Theory,Analogy,and Public Sociology.”American Journal of Sociology 112(2):353-393.
Wacquant,Lo6c.2002.“Scrutinizing the Street:Poverty,Morality,and the Pitfalls of Urban Ethnography.”American Journal of Sociology 107(6):1468-1532.
Wedeen,Lisa.2002.“Conceptualizing Culture:Possibilities for Political Science.”American Political Science Review96(4):713-728.
Wagner-Pacifici,Robin.2010.“Theorizing the Restlessness of Events.”American Journal of Sociology 115(5):1351-1386.
Watts,Duncan.2014.“Common Sense and Sociological Explanations.”American Journal of Sociology 120(2):313-351.
1.本文所说的思想史,特指基于历史语境的研究方式。这不同于广义思想史研究中的观念史流派,后者更强调观念具有的超越语境的客观意义。
2 .本文凡是说到“书写者”或“作者”,都是指特定的文本的写作者或学术成果的生产者。从广义上说,这些作品的书写者也就是研究者。但本文将书写者与一般意思上的研究者区分开来,以便于结合文本阐释他们的思想过程。
3.本文所说的“方法论”是关于“何以知之”的认识论逻辑,也就是说明为什么按照某些特定的研究方法就可以发现因果性。方法论,如本文讨论的推论、充分必要性和意义研究,是被一定研究群体所共享的知识。首先,方法论是一种逻辑体系,需要按照逻辑推理来自洽性地说明“何以知之”。其次,方法论是一种研究立场。本文谈到的方法书写者相信这种立场需要体现在具体的方法操作中。最后,方法论还是一种认同,书写者因赞成某些方法论而宣称自己按照此方法论展开研究,因反对某些方法论而在研究中强调与之区别。本文所说的因果性(causality)包含两种类型:体现在叙事中的因果性和体现在因果识别中的因果性。第一个类型是关于结果如何产生的叙事。叙事中隐含了叙事者对原因的理解。这样的过程在本文也被称为“因果过程”。第二个类型是对原因的识别。是对“为什么”的回答。回答的方式是用理论概念概括原因,这样的原因可以是关于变量间因果相关性的,也可以是关于概念间充分必要性关系的,还可以是对整体因果过程的综合概括。
4.一些学者已开始关注书写者如何在实际的研究过程中体现他们对因果性的理解,而不只是看他们如何宣称该怎么发现因果性(Abend and Petre,2013)。
5 .本文并不打算全面展示所有方法论,而只是根据说明论点的需要列举三种。比如,熟知的批判实在论(critical realism)等方法论就没有出现。
6.或称单位(unit)。
7.这里的“事件”是指由行动者(actor)、行动(action)与行动目标(object of action)组成的分析单元(Clemens,2007)。
8.引文括号内中文文字为笔者所加。
9.这样的反思式的研究已经开始。最近的中英文社会学界的讨论可参见一些相关研究(Vaughan,2006;折晓叶,2018;应星,2018)。