旨趣和方法的异同:论钱大昕与王鸣盛的地理考辨

乾嘉学者钱大昕与王鸣盛治学以考据见长,二者在历史地理领域的研究各有特点。钱大昕擅长运用缜密的考辨方法,致力于建置沿革的考证纠谬,成果丰硕。王鸣盛则重视地理考察,贯通古今史事,辨析形势险要,探究地理条件与历代兴亡、战争胜负的关系;同时又以《禹贡》为中心,将儒家经典中的重要篇章纳入地理考辨的范围,反映其学术研究的丰富性和多样性。钱大昕与王鸣盛的考证成果及历史分析对近现代历史地理研究具有重要的参考价值,其细密考证与归纳、概括的综合分析也具有方法论上的借鉴意义。     

Modeling Issue Definitions Using Quantitative Text Analysis

Issue definitions, the way policy issues are understood, are an important component for understanding the policymaking process. Research on issue definitions has been divided between a macro level that examines collective issue definitions and a micro level focusing on the ways in which policy actors frame policy issues. This article develops a model of issue definitions that assumes issues are multidimensional, competition exists among policy actors in defining issues, and that collective issue definitions can be understood as the aggregation of individual issue definitions. This model is then estimated using quantitative text analysis. While various approaches to text analysis and categorization have been used by scholars, latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), a specific type of topic modeling, is used to estimate issue definitions. Using LDA, witness testimony taken from Congressional hearings that occurred from 1975 to 2012 about the issue of used nuclear fuel (UNF) is examined and seven distinct dimensions of the UNF debate are estimated. The construct validity of these dimensions is checked by testing them against two major policy changes that occurred in the UNF domain. I conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weakness of topic modeling, and how this approach could be used to test hypotheses drawn from several of the major policymaking theories.     

Short-Term Versus Long-Term Coalitions in the Policy Process: Automotive Pollution Control, 1963–1989

Research on coalitions in the policy process has found evidence of both short-term and long-term coalitions. Two possible methodological reasons for the varied results are that (1) there has been little systematic longitudinal research on the topic, and (2) most scholars have not distinguished situations where fundamental versus secondary interests are at stake. This article addresses both points by first applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which distinguishes fundamental from secondary beliefs/interests, and then performing a quantitative analysis of the content of organizations' testimonies regarding automotive pollution control over 26 years. Consistent with the ACF, we find that coalitions of interest groups, legislators, local governments, and agencies are relatively stable over time, despite two potentially disruptive events—the 1973–74 Oil Embargo and the 1980 Elections. On the other hand, there is little support for the ACF's hypothesis that broader beliefs will be more stable than narrower secondary beliefs. Our systematic methodology also enables us to separate the general pattern of stability from interesting exceptions of instability.     

A Review of the Environmental Policy Literature from 2014 to 2017 with a Closer Look at the Energy Justice Field

This review article documents and analyzes trends within the environmental policy literature published between 2014 and 2017. We find that environmental policy scholarship has recently shifted its focus from more traditional topics, such as watershed and ecosystem management, to other modern issues, such as climate change and energy. The environmental policy literature has increased in complexity and become more interdisciplinary in nature, which we illustrate with a discussion of the energy justice literature. The methodological approaches used by environmental policy scholars have also become increasingly diverse, with a notable uptick in statistical and modeling approaches. We find that some topics, such as policy failure, gender issues, and energy welfare policies are under‐explored, and certain regions within the world, such as developing countries, are less frequently studied. We encourage scholars to consider these gaps in the literature when developing future research.     

Qualitative Methods for the Study of Policy Diffusion: Challenges and Available Solutions

This article deals with the question whether and how processes of policy diffusion can be examined with qualitative methods. More specifically, how can qualitative methods address the “twin challenge of interdependence,” namely the challenge to identify diffusion, on the one hand, and the challenge to discriminate between mechanisms of diffusion, on the other? I argue, first, that there are three distinct qualitative techniques that can be used, namely cross‐case analysis (often based on systematic case selection), within‐case process tracing, and counterfactual reasoning. I demonstrate how these techniques can be adapted to the study of policy diffusion. Second, a combination of these methods is the best practice, since they are largely complementary in terms of the twin challenge of diffusion. The discussion draws on numerous illustrations from recent qualitative policy diffusion studies. The article closes with some suggestions for further methodological development in the study of policy diffusion, including the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.     

乾嘉考据学派对20世纪新历史考据学的影响

20世纪新历史考据学不只是受西方史学影响,而且与乾嘉考据学有直接的联系。乾嘉考据学派与西方近代史学多有相通之处,20世纪的历史考据学治史所采用的理念和方法既来源于西方,也来源于中国传统史学。乾嘉考据学派对近代中国史学产生了重大影响,许多学者传承了乾嘉考据学的精神和方法,在借鉴传统史学优长的基础上引进西方史学的理念与方法,从而构建了新的理论体系。在民族史学近代化过程中,史学的转型离不开民族文化的载体,而乾嘉考据学本身的生命力适应了近代史学转型的要求。     

Policy Narratives and Policy Processes

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has influenced a generation of policy scholars with its emphasis on causal drivers, testable hypotheses, and falsification. Until recently, the role of policy narratives has been largely neglected in ACF literature partially because much of that work has operated outside of traditional social science principles, such as falsification. Yet emerging literature under the rubric of Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) demonstrates how the role of policy narratives in policy processes is studied using the same rigorous social science standards initially set forth by Paul A. Sabatier. The NPF identifies theories specifying narrative elements and strategies that are likely useful to ACF researchers as classes of variables that have yet to be integrated. Examining this proposition, we provide seven hypotheses related to critical ACF concepts including advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs, policy learning, public opinion, and strategy. Our goal is to stay within the scientific, theoretical, and methodological tradition of the ACF and show how NPF's empirical, hypotheses, and causal driven work on policy narratives identifies theories applicable to ACF research while also offering an independent framework capable of explaining the policy process through the power of policy narratives. In doing so, we believe both ACF and NPF scholarship can contribute to the advancement of our understanding of the policy process.     

The 2012 TRIP survey of international relations in Australia: one problem to rule us all

This article analyses the results of the most recent and largest cross-national survey on the international relations discipline. Completed by scholars in 20 countries, the survey covered the areas of teaching, research, foreign policy, the profession, and the relationship between policy and academia. From an Australian perspective, the key findings include the strong link between what academics teach and research; the narrowing epistemological gap between the USA and Australia; the curious pessimism of scholars on a wide range of foreign policy issues; and the ability of scholars to define research quality independently of other national settings. The most significant and alarming finding, however, concerned how the present structure of the field is undermining scholars'attempt to forge closer, more influential ties with policy makers in Canberra. In fact, it is clear from the results that what academics research and how they go about it is actually counterintuitive to this goal. The article concludes with three recommendations aimed at rectifying this problem.     

THE ONTOLOGY OF CAPITAL: ON THE SHARED METHODOLOGICAL LIMITS OF MODERNIZATION THEORY AND ITS CRITICS

This article argues that critical scholarship in historical studies has not overcome the methodological limits of modernization theory for failing to question the ontological principles that construct its object of analysis. I call these principles the “ontology of capital” and explicate them through Bourdieu's conceptualization of the field and capital. I argue that this ontology is established according to a distribution model in which social entities come into the analysis with the amount and value of the capital they hold. This model grasps all social relations in the form of competition, and actors and actions enter into the analysis only when they are involved in such relations. I then analyze Bernard Lewis's The Emergence of Modern Turkey, which is written explicitly from a modernization perspective, to show how the principles of the “ontology of capital” operate in this text. The analysis focuses on how sociohistorical facts are constructed through selection and articulation of empirical evidence that become meaningful only on the basis of this ontology. The aim of this analysis is to show the ontology of capital that constructs the object of analysis in Lewis's text rather than the Eurocentric, teleological, and elitist character of his analysis of history that critics in recent decades have addressed as problems of the modernization paradigm. Based on this, I argue that for a productive critical approach, relational analysis, which characterizes critical scholarship in contrast to essentialism, also has to consider the ontological principles in a historical work to overcome methodological limits. The failure to interrogate this ontology leads to an analytical separation in critical scholarship between the analysis of historical reality and of alternatives to this reality. This separation not only produces a dehistoricized analysis of the present from a critical perspective, but also turns the alternatives into utopian models.     

‘We are of the connections’: migration,methodological nationalism,and ‘militant research’

Abstract

If there were no borders, there would be no migrants – only mobility. The persistent reification of migrants and migration – even in critical migration studies –(re-)fetishizes and (re-)naturalizes the epistemological stability attributed to the (‘national’) state as a modular fixture of geopolitical space. In this regard, migration scholarship (however critical) is implicated in a continuous (re-)reification of ‘migrants’ as a distinct category of human mobility. Thus, the methodological nationalism that rationalizes the whole conjuncture of borders-making-migrants supplies a kind of defining horizon for migration studies as such. The dilemma of methodological nationalism has never been merely a problem of thought, however. It is indeed a manifestation of the veritable participation of researchers and scholars – whether consciously or unwittingly – in the very same sociopolitical processes and struggles through which the ‘national’ configuration of ‘society’ (or, the social field) is reified and actualized as the territorial expression of state power. Therefore, the questions of methodological nationalism and what might be called ‘militant research’ are deeply interconnected, indeed, mutually constitutive. As scholars of ‘migration’ – and above all, as practitioners of ‘militant research’ – we must attend to a self-reflexive critique of our own complicities with the ongoing nationalization of ‘society’. Hence, as researchers or scholars of migration, we are indeed ‘of the connections’ between migrants’ transnational mobilities and the political, legal, and border-policing regimes that seek to orchestrate, regiment, and manage their energies. We are ‘of’ these connections because there is no ‘outside’ or analytical position beyond them. The larger juridical regimes of citizenship, denizenship, and alienage configure us to be always-already located within the nexus of inequalities that are at stake in these conflicts.     

The Evolution of Ethnographic Research Methods: Curiosities and Contradictions in the Qualitative Research Literature

This article evaluates six recent contributions to the literature on ethnographic research methods. Four concern collecting and analyzing texts, one introduces the use of textual and numerical data, and one illustrates the use of quantitative methods for qualitative data. The first four books reveal that current thinking in qualitative methods continues to privilege inexplicit criteria for data collection and analysis despite recognizing that explicit criteria work best. The last two books show how to effectively integrate qualitative and quantitative data in ways that resolve these contradictions.     

对清代考据学批评之批评

前人对考据学批评较多的是“复古”、“繁琐”、“门户之见”,这些批评有可商榷之处。考据学重视先秦两汉文献是由他们的研究课题所决定的,具有极大的合理性,并非是复古。繁琐不是考据学者们的追求,他们讲究博征,注明出处是为了增强结论的科学性,不能不加区别地视为繁琐。考据学派中的吴派矫枉过正,确有较深的门户之见,但皖派、扬州学派都主张实事求是,不以汉宋论是非,不偏主一家。     

Textual context in the history of political thought and intellectual history

ABSTRACT

We can easily misread historical texts if we take ideas and passages out of their textual contexts. The resulting errors are widespread, possibly even more so than errors through reading ideas and passages out of their historical contexts. Yet the methodological literature stresses the latter and says little about the former. This paper thus theorises the idea of textual context, distinguishes three types of textual context, and asks how we uncover the right textual contexts. I distinguish four kinds of textual-context error, and offer practical tips for avoiding these errors. However, the beating heart of this paper is the history–philosophy debate: in contrast to the prevailing assumption that historical and philosophical analysis are fundamentally different, I show that a commitment to textual context, which should be entirely uncontroversial, also commits one to think philosophically.     

How street-level dilemmas and politics shape divergence: The accountability regimes framework

Hierarchical accountability often proves insufficient to control street-level implementation, where complex, informal accountability relations prevail and tasks must be prioritized. However, scholars lack a theoretical model of how accountability relations affect implementation behaviors that are inconsistent with policy. By extending the Accountability Regimes Framework (ARF), this paper explains how multiple competing subjective street-level accountabilities translate into policy divergence. The anti-terrorism “Prevent Duty” policy in the United Kingdom requires university lecturers to report any student they suspect may be undergoing a process of radicalization. We ask: what perceived street-level accountabilities and dilemmas does this politically contested policy imply for lecturers, and how do they affect divergence? An online survey of British lecturers (N = 809), combined with 35 qualitative follow-up interviews, reveals that accountability dilemmas trigger policy divergence. The ARF models how street-level bureaucrats become informal policymakers in the political system when rules clash with their roles as professionals, citizen-agents, or “political animals.”     

Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations

For the past several decades, scholars have studied the role of policy research in decision making. Depending how "use" is measured, the results have indicated only modest or indirect impacts. This study takes another direction to studying knowledge utilization, comparing the influence of nonpartisan policy research organizations in 19 states on their principal clients: state legislators. Nonpartisan research agencies represent a particularly rigorous test since the literature on knowledge utilization questions whether nonpartisan policy analysis organizations (NPROs) can remain neutral and contribute meaningfully to policymaking. Further, this analysis is comparative across states, studies institutions rather than specific reports or policy domains, and examines multiple types of "use." Using the results of surveys of both agencies and legislators, the results indicate a strong association between the size and type of policy research organizations and legislators' assessments of use, even controlling for political and ideological factors. This suggests that policy analysis organizations—even those in a highly politicized environment—have a significant impact on policymaking, mainly by providing information and analysis to decision makers but also in influencing public policy outcomes.     

Traditions of learning around the English Battle of the Books

This article calls for a reassessment of the Battle of the Books by arguing that the dispute did not simply oppose imitators of the ancients and supporters of modern critical scholarship, but that many scholars and critics were also attempting to support the authority of the ancients through their philological methods. A deep undercurrent of concern about the methods of philology can be traced in the development of biblical and patristic scholarship in the late seventeenth century. The article further emphasizes how the satirists (Swift especially) were aware of this strand of criticism, and yet how they hid their debt to it in order to portray textual criticism as a whole as a pedantic exercise. The Battle of the Books should therefore not be seen as a straightforward opposition between “supporters of the ancients” and “supporters of the moderns,” but as contention between doctrine and reason.     

Pacific Studies in China: Policies,Structure and Research

ABSTRACT

The expansion of Chinese influence in the Pacific has aroused growing attention from academics and policymakers. Although China has established six main Pacific research centres, there has been little investigation into what motivates this increasing interest. Building on the author's recent interviews with 39 Chinese mainstream scholars on the subject of Pacific Studies, this paper aims to fill this gap by providing an in-depth analysis of Pacific Studies in China, especially how centres are structured and what motivated their establishment. It is argued that the initiation, structure and scholarly focus of academic research on the Pacific in China has been largely driven by government policies, but also that government interest has fluctuated under President Xi Jinping. Government policy dependence is a double-edged sword that both promotes and hinders Pacific scholarship.     

Capacity,scale and place: pragmatic lessons for doing community-based research in the rural setting

Community-based research (CBR) represents a particularly timely approach to rural research. Rural areas in industrialized nations are undergoing dramatic and rapid processes of economic, social and political restructuring. These forces, combined with a trend towards place-based development and territorial policy make CBR an appropriate rural method given its flexibility and sensitivity to local context. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the use and methods of CBR in the rural setting, drawn from our collective research experience in northern British Columbia. There has been increased attention paid to CBR, signalling a form of acceptance within the academy towards community-based and participatory methods. However, gaps exist in addressing the various approaches to conducting CBR and in considering the relevance of CBR in different contexts. Researchers also note the need for better training in the use of community-based methods. We reflect upon our rural CBR experience to offer insights and pragmatic lessons on effective methodological practices using a simplified framework of the key research process stages: preparing for community engagement, doing community-based research and after the fieldwork.     

Conceptualizing Urban Inequalities as a Complex Socio-Technical Phenomenon

The United Nations World Social Report (2020) reveals that more than two thirds of the world's population live in countries where urban inequalities have increased in the last three decades. While urban inequalities are traditionally characterized as an economic issue, scholars are increasingly applying methods from geospatial analysis to study them. In the context of these advancements, it remains unclear what underlying perspectives are guiding decisions to concentrate on certain aspects of urban inequalities, while potentially ignoring others. We address this gap by reviewing the literature centered on the geospatial analysis of urban inequalities and identify three predominant research lenses from accessibility, distribution, and policy and stakeholder perspectives. As a primary contribution of this article, we connect the perspectives with ideas drawn from complexity theory to develop an overarching socio-technical framework for how urban inequalities emerge over space and time. While traditional scientific frameworks seek to increase knowledge through causality, complexity science acknowledges the inherent challenges in defining, understanding and solving complex problems such as urban inequalities, which has profound implications for their representation, modeling and interpretation. We critically reflect on the framework through key relational themes and insights drawn from the literature and close with considerations for future research.