Rethinking the Methodological Foundation of Historical Political Science.

IF 3.4 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Chinese Political Science Review Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-08 DOI:10.1007/s41111-021-00200-6
Qipeng Shi
{"title":"Rethinking the Methodological Foundation of Historical Political Science.","authors":"Qipeng Shi","doi":"10.1007/s41111-021-00200-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The basis of a methodology determines whether a research method can fit the core characteristics of a particular academic tradition, and thus, it is crucial to explore this foundation. Keeping in mind the controversy and progress of the philosophy of social sciences, this paper aims to elaborate on four aspects including the cognitive model, the view of causality, research methods, and analysis techniques, and to establish a more solid methodological basis for historical political science. With respect to the \"upstream knowledge\" of methodology, both positivism and critical realism underestimate the tremendous difference between the natural world and the social world. This leads to inherent flaws in controlled comparison and causal mechanism analysis. Given the constructiveness of social categories and the complexity of historical circumstances, the cognitive model of constructivism makes it more suitable for researchers to engage in macro-political and social analysis. From the perspective of constructivism, the causality in \"storytelling,\" i.e., the traditional narrative analysis, is placed as the basis of the regularity theory of causality in this paper, thus forming the historical-causal narrative. The historical-causal narrative focuses on how a research object is shaped and self-shaped in the ontological historical process, and thus ideally suits the disciplinary characteristics of historical political science. Researchers can complete theoretical dialogues, test hypotheses, and further explore the law of causality in logic and evidence, thereby achieving the purpose of \"learning from history\" in historical political science.</p>","PeriodicalId":44455,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Political Science Review","volume":"76 1","pages":"84-110"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8741552/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-021-00200-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The basis of a methodology determines whether a research method can fit the core characteristics of a particular academic tradition, and thus, it is crucial to explore this foundation. Keeping in mind the controversy and progress of the philosophy of social sciences, this paper aims to elaborate on four aspects including the cognitive model, the view of causality, research methods, and analysis techniques, and to establish a more solid methodological basis for historical political science. With respect to the "upstream knowledge" of methodology, both positivism and critical realism underestimate the tremendous difference between the natural world and the social world. This leads to inherent flaws in controlled comparison and causal mechanism analysis. Given the constructiveness of social categories and the complexity of historical circumstances, the cognitive model of constructivism makes it more suitable for researchers to engage in macro-political and social analysis. From the perspective of constructivism, the causality in "storytelling," i.e., the traditional narrative analysis, is placed as the basis of the regularity theory of causality in this paper, thus forming the historical-causal narrative. The historical-causal narrative focuses on how a research object is shaped and self-shaped in the ontological historical process, and thus ideally suits the disciplinary characteristics of historical political science. Researchers can complete theoretical dialogues, test hypotheses, and further explore the law of causality in logic and evidence, thereby achieving the purpose of "learning from history" in historical political science.

对历史政治学方法论基础的再思考。
一种研究方法的基础决定了一种研究方法是否符合某一学术传统的核心特征,因此,探索这一基础至关重要。本文结合社会科学哲学的争议与进步,从认知模式、因果观、研究方法、分析技术四个方面进行阐述,为历史政治学的研究奠定更为坚实的方法论基础。对于方法论的“上游知识”,实证主义和批判现实主义都低估了自然世界与社会世界的巨大差异。这导致了控制比较和因果机制分析的内在缺陷。鉴于社会范畴的建构性和历史环境的复杂性,建构主义的认知模式更适合研究者从事宏观政治和社会分析。本文从建构主义的视角出发,将“讲故事”中的因果关系即传统的叙事分析作为因果关系规律性理论的基础,从而形成历史-因果叙事。历史-因果叙事关注的是研究对象在本体论的历史过程中如何被塑造和自我塑造,因此非常适合历史政治学的学科特点。研究者可以完成理论对话,检验假设,进一步探索逻辑和证据中的因果规律,从而达到历史政治学“以史为鉴”的目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: This journal aims to publish original and cutting-edge research in all areas of political science, such as political theory, comparative politics, international relations, public administration, public policy, methodology, and Chinese politics and government. In the meantime it also provides a major and visible platform for the intellectual dialogue between Chinese and international scholars, and disseminate scholarship that can shed light on the ever changing field of Chinese political studies, stimulate reflective discourse as the field continues to develop both within and outside China. All research articles published in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review. In additional original research articles, Chinese Political Science Review also publishes book reviews to disseminate comprehensive reviews of emerging topics in all areas of political science.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信