田野调查的认识论特权:在饱受战争蹂躏的叙利亚的集体调查

A. Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, Arthur Quesnay
{"title":"田野调查的认识论特权:在饱受战争蹂躏的叙利亚的集体调查","authors":"A. Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, Arthur Quesnay","doi":"10.1177/0759106321995723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article highlights the epistemological privilege of observation in social contexts marked by armed violence and disorder. Faced with these situations, researchers have sometimes considered that their work begins once the conflicts have stabilized, thus favouring archives (written or oral) and secondary sources over observation and interviews collected in context. Despite the difficulties it poses, however, investigation in context offers the researcher, through a sometimes-brutal confrontation with exceptional situations, the possibility of greater theoretical creativity by opening to new objects and new research questions. In return, such research requires a more reactive modality of theoretical elaboration, with a constant reciprocal interaction between hypotheses and data production. Rather than developing these themes in an abstract way, we return to the investigation we conducted on the Syrian conflict. We analyse in particular the difficulties of access, the risks of selection bias, the problems associated with remote research and subcontracting of data production, and the advantages of conducting collective fieldwork.","PeriodicalId":210053,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The epistemological privilege of fieldwork: A collective investigation in war-torn Syria\",\"authors\":\"A. Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, Arthur Quesnay\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0759106321995723\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article highlights the epistemological privilege of observation in social contexts marked by armed violence and disorder. Faced with these situations, researchers have sometimes considered that their work begins once the conflicts have stabilized, thus favouring archives (written or oral) and secondary sources over observation and interviews collected in context. Despite the difficulties it poses, however, investigation in context offers the researcher, through a sometimes-brutal confrontation with exceptional situations, the possibility of greater theoretical creativity by opening to new objects and new research questions. In return, such research requires a more reactive modality of theoretical elaboration, with a constant reciprocal interaction between hypotheses and data production. Rather than developing these themes in an abstract way, we return to the investigation we conducted on the Syrian conflict. We analyse in particular the difficulties of access, the risks of selection bias, the problems associated with remote research and subcontracting of data production, and the advantages of conducting collective fieldwork.\",\"PeriodicalId\":210053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106321995723\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106321995723","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

文章强调了在以武装暴力和混乱为标志的社会背景下观察的认识论特权。面对这些情况,研究人员有时认为,一旦冲突稳定下来,他们的工作就开始了,因此,他们更喜欢档案(书面或口头)和二手资料,而不是在特定背景下收集的观察和采访。然而,尽管存在困难,但背景调查通过与特殊情况的有时残酷的对抗,为研究人员提供了通过开放新对象和新研究问题获得更大理论创造力的可能性。反过来,这种研究需要一种更具反应性的理论阐述方式,在假设和数据产生之间不断相互作用。我们不是以抽象的方式展开这些主题,而是回到我们对叙利亚冲突进行的调查。我们特别分析了获取的困难,选择偏差的风险,与远程研究和数据生产分包相关的问题,以及进行集体实地调查的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The epistemological privilege of fieldwork: A collective investigation in war-torn Syria
The article highlights the epistemological privilege of observation in social contexts marked by armed violence and disorder. Faced with these situations, researchers have sometimes considered that their work begins once the conflicts have stabilized, thus favouring archives (written or oral) and secondary sources over observation and interviews collected in context. Despite the difficulties it poses, however, investigation in context offers the researcher, through a sometimes-brutal confrontation with exceptional situations, the possibility of greater theoretical creativity by opening to new objects and new research questions. In return, such research requires a more reactive modality of theoretical elaboration, with a constant reciprocal interaction between hypotheses and data production. Rather than developing these themes in an abstract way, we return to the investigation we conducted on the Syrian conflict. We analyse in particular the difficulties of access, the risks of selection bias, the problems associated with remote research and subcontracting of data production, and the advantages of conducting collective fieldwork.
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
×
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