Problematizing Comparative Historical Studies

比較史學探索

10.6163/tjeas.2010.7(1)71

Ewa Domanska

歷史理論與方法論 ； 接地理論 ； 典範的差異 ； 後人文架構 ； theory and methodology of history ； grounded theory ； paradigmatic gap ； posthumanist framework

臺灣東亞文明研究學刊

7卷1期（2010 / 06 / 01）

71 - 85

英文

本文提出以下論點：我們必須主導當代社會及人文學科的諸種討論保持開放的心態，並重視歷史研究的特殊性，否則真正的危機會是歷史學的地位很可能淪為其他人文與社會學科的輔助學科：迄今為止其他人文與社會學科對於當代事件與現象的詮釋更為成功，儘管對於當代事件與現象的詮釋在傳統上均交付給歷史領域。本文主張：當代史學研究的弱點在於史學的方法論和理論與實證研究分離，以致於難以面對因現代性的來臨而出現的複雜現象。為能連結理論與實踐，本文作者建議在歷史研究中挪用所謂的「接地理論」－根據數據所發展出來的理論，並採用比較的途徑與個案研究為其主要方法。本文包含兩部分：在第一部作者指出當代人文及社會學科所提出的理論，何以未能支應歷史的變化；在第二部分作者草擬了「接地理論」的方法論。

In this text I am going to argue that unless it opens itself to discussions that dominate contemporary social and human sciences, and unless protection of the specificity of historical research is undertaken, there is a real risk that history might be reduced to the status of an auxiliary science of other human and social sciences that have thus far been more successful in interpreting contemporary events and phenomena which have traditionally been consigned to the field of history. I claim that the weak points of contemporary historical studies are methodology and theory separated from empirical research in such a way that they are unable to capture complex phenomena which have emerged with the advent of modernity. In order to link practice and theory, I propose to appropriate for historical research what has been called ”grounded theory”-theory developed out of data, and which uses comparative approaches and case studies as its main methods. The text contains two parts: in part one, I indicate ways in which theories in contemporary human and social science have failed to deal with historical change and in part two, I sketch a methodology of grounded theory.

1. Bloch, Marc,Putnam, Peter(trans.)(1992).The Historian's Craft.Manchester:Manchester University Press.
2. Chakrabarty, Dipesh(2009).The Climate of History: Four Theses.Critical Inquiry,35(2)
3. Charmaz, Kathy(2006).Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
4. Collingwood, R. G.(1994).The Idea of History.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
5. Crutzen, Paul J.(2002).Geology of Mankind.Nature,415
6. D''Alleva, Anne(2005).Methods and Theories of Art History.London:Laurence King Pub..
7. Foltz, Richard C.(2003).Does Nature Have Historical Agency? World History, Environmental History, and How Historians Can Help Save the Planet.the History Teacher,37(1)
8. Fukuyama, Francis(2002).Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution.New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
9. Glaser, Barney G.,Strauss, Anselm L.(1967).The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research.New York:Aldine de Gruyter.
10. Holton, Judith A.(2007).The Coding Process and Its Challenges.The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory,Los Angeles:
11. Joyce, Patrick(2010).What is the Social in Social History?.Past and Present,206(1)
12. Kelle, Udo(2007).Different Approaches in Grounded Theory.The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory,Los Angeles:
13. LaCapra, Dominick(2009).History and Its Limits: Human, Animal, Violence.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
14. Palladino, Paolo(2003).Plants, Patients and the Historian: (Re)membering in the Age of Genetic Engineering.New Brunswick, New Jersey:Rutgers University Press.
15. Skinner, Quentin(1983).Machiavelli on the Maintenance of Liberty.Politics,18
16. Skinner, Quentin(2002).On Encountering the Past. An Interview with Quentin Skinner by Petri Koikkalainen and Sami Syrjämäki 4.10.2001.Finish Yearbook of Political Thought,6
17. Smail, Daniel Lord(2008).On Deep History and the Brain.Berkeley:University of California Press.
18. Spiegel, Gabrielle M.(2009).The Task of the Historian.American Historical Review,114(1)
19. Spiegel, Marjorie(1997).The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery.New York, NY:Mirror Books.
20. Steinberg, Ted(2002).Down to Earth: Nature, Agency, and Power in History.American Historical Review,107(3)