{"title":"Theda Skocpol 的《国家与社会革命》的方法论遗产:比较历史分析三大支柱的定位","authors":"Marcus Kreuzer","doi":"10.1177/02633957241245893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stein Rokkan and Barrington Moore revived comparative historical analysis (CHA) in Europe and the United States, respectively, during the 1960s without, however, elaborating its methodological underpinnings. Theda Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions as well as her Visions and Methods Historical Sociology filled this gap. In her important essay with Margaret Somers, she identified three distinct strands of CHA that tackled macro-historical question in distinct but ultimately also complimentary ways. In doing so, she established the foundation for subsequent work on CHA methodology. The article elaborates the subsequent elaborations of Skopol and Somer’s CHA typology and the factors contributing to this evolution. It also underscores how many of those innovations were already implicit in Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions even though she herself did not highlight it in her own methodological writings. Skocpol the empirical scholar thus turns out to have been methodologically more advanced than Skocpol the methodologist.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The methodological legacies of Theda Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions: Locating the three pillars of comparative historical analysis\",\"authors\":\"Marcus Kreuzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02633957241245893\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Stein Rokkan and Barrington Moore revived comparative historical analysis (CHA) in Europe and the United States, respectively, during the 1960s without, however, elaborating its methodological underpinnings. Theda Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions as well as her Visions and Methods Historical Sociology filled this gap. In her important essay with Margaret Somers, she identified three distinct strands of CHA that tackled macro-historical question in distinct but ultimately also complimentary ways. In doing so, she established the foundation for subsequent work on CHA methodology. The article elaborates the subsequent elaborations of Skopol and Somer’s CHA typology and the factors contributing to this evolution. It also underscores how many of those innovations were already implicit in Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions even though she herself did not highlight it in her own methodological writings. Skocpol the empirical scholar thus turns out to have been methodologically more advanced than Skocpol the methodologist.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957241245893\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957241245893","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Stein Rokkan 和 Barrington Moore 在 20 世纪 60 年代分别在欧洲和美国复兴了比较历史分析(CHA),但没有详细阐述其方法论基础。Theda Skocpol 的《国家与社会革命》以及她的《历史社会学的愿景与方法》填补了这一空白。在她与玛格丽特-萨默斯(Margaret Somers)共同撰写的重要文章中,她指出了三股不同的历史社会学,它们以不同但最终也是互补的方式处理宏观历史问题。这样,她就为后来的 CHA 方法论工作奠定了基础。这篇文章阐述了斯科波尔和索默的 CHA 类型学的后续发展以及促成这一演变的因素。文章还强调了斯科波尔的《国家与社会革命》中已经隐含了许多创新,尽管她本人并未在自己的方法论著作中强调这一点。因此,实证学者斯科茨波尔在方法论上要比方法论学者斯科茨波尔更先进。
The methodological legacies of Theda Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions: Locating the three pillars of comparative historical analysis
Stein Rokkan and Barrington Moore revived comparative historical analysis (CHA) in Europe and the United States, respectively, during the 1960s without, however, elaborating its methodological underpinnings. Theda Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions as well as her Visions and Methods Historical Sociology filled this gap. In her important essay with Margaret Somers, she identified three distinct strands of CHA that tackled macro-historical question in distinct but ultimately also complimentary ways. In doing so, she established the foundation for subsequent work on CHA methodology. The article elaborates the subsequent elaborations of Skopol and Somer’s CHA typology and the factors contributing to this evolution. It also underscores how many of those innovations were already implicit in Skocpol’s State and Social Revolutions even though she herself did not highlight it in her own methodological writings. Skocpol the empirical scholar thus turns out to have been methodologically more advanced than Skocpol the methodologist.
期刊介绍:
Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.