{"title":"考虑比较:一些方法学回应","authors":"O. Freiberger","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe present issue’s review symposium on comparison comprises six thoughtful and stimulating essays in which the authors, in conversation with Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges (2018) and my Considering Comparison (2019), reflect on the comparative method and on how it relates to their work. Their reflections are explorative, productive, thought-provoking, and they also criticize and challenge aspects of our books in constructive ways, each from the perspective of their own field of expertise. In this response I discuss the methodological questions that each essay raised for me and, at times, propose a potential way forward. The symposium shows that exploring the comparative method can be useful and rewarding not only for explicit cross-cultural research, but also for research projects that do not seem comparative at first glance. I argue that since studying religion—a highly comparative category—is inherently comparative, the methodology of comparison deserves proper attention.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"495-508"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341492","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Considered: Some Methodological Responses\",\"authors\":\"O. Freiberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341492\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe present issue’s review symposium on comparison comprises six thoughtful and stimulating essays in which the authors, in conversation with Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges (2018) and my Considering Comparison (2019), reflect on the comparative method and on how it relates to their work. Their reflections are explorative, productive, thought-provoking, and they also criticize and challenge aspects of our books in constructive ways, each from the perspective of their own field of expertise. In this response I discuss the methodological questions that each essay raised for me and, at times, propose a potential way forward. The symposium shows that exploring the comparative method can be useful and rewarding not only for explicit cross-cultural research, but also for research projects that do not seem comparative at first glance. I argue that since studying religion—a highly comparative category—is inherently comparative, the methodology of comparison deserves proper attention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"495-508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341492\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341492\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341492","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison Considered: Some Methodological Responses
The present issue’s review symposium on comparison comprises six thoughtful and stimulating essays in which the authors, in conversation with Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges (2018) and my Considering Comparison (2019), reflect on the comparative method and on how it relates to their work. Their reflections are explorative, productive, thought-provoking, and they also criticize and challenge aspects of our books in constructive ways, each from the perspective of their own field of expertise. In this response I discuss the methodological questions that each essay raised for me and, at times, propose a potential way forward. The symposium shows that exploring the comparative method can be useful and rewarding not only for explicit cross-cultural research, but also for research projects that do not seem comparative at first glance. I argue that since studying religion—a highly comparative category—is inherently comparative, the methodology of comparison deserves proper attention.
期刊介绍:
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion publishes articles, notes, book reviews and letters which explicitly address the problems of methodology and theory in the academic study of religion. This includes such traditional points of departure as history, philosophy, anthropology and sociology, but also the natural sciences, and such newer disciplinary approaches as feminist theory and studies. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion also concentrates on the critical analysis of theoretical problems prominent in the study of religion.