Comparative Historical Analysis: A Revival in Social Sciences

このQ&Aのポイント
  • Comparative historical analysis has a long and distinguished history in the social sciences. From the founders of modern social science to eminent scholars in the early twentieth century, this mode of investigation has played a central role.
  • After a period of neglect, comparative historical research has recently experienced a dramatic reemergence, asserting itself at the center of today’s social sciences.
  • Comparative historical analysis is defined by its focus on causal analysis, processes over time, and systematic and contextualized comparison. It is not inherently committed to a single theoretical orientation or method of data analysis.
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

訳出願い 長文

Comparative Historical Analysis, James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyerからの引用です。 下記の部分の和訳が上手くいきません。皆様の知恵をお貸しください。 よろしくお願いいたします。 Comparative historical analysis has a long and distinguished history in the social sciences. Those whom we now regard as the founders of modern social science,from Adam Smith to Alexis de Tocqueville to Karl Marx, all pursued comparative historical analysis as a central mode of investigation. In doing so, they continued a tradition of research that had dominated social thought for centuries. Even when social science began to organize itself into separate disciplines in the early twentieth century, comparative and historical investigation maintained a leading position, figuring prominently in the research of such eminent scholars as Otto Hintze, Max Weber, and Marc Bloch. Only by the mid-twentieth century did other approaches to social knowledge partially eclipse comparative historical research, going so far as to threaten its permanent decline. After some period of neglect, however, recent decades have witnessed a dramatic reemergence of the comparative historical tradition. Although important problems of analytic procedure and methodology remain,this mode of investigation has reasserted itself at the center of today’s social sciences. These recent advances derived from earlier developments. By the late 1970s and early 1980s,it was already clear that comparative historical research was experiencing a revival across the social sciences. In her concluding chapter in Vision and Method in Historical Sociology,for example, Theda Skocpol (1984a) pointed out that this kind of research was well beyond its days as an isolated mode of analysis carried out by a few older scholars dedicated to the classical tradition. Now, almost two decades later, few observers would deny that comparative historical research is again a leading mode of analysis, widely used throughout the social sciences. This volume seeks to assess the achievements of comparative historical research over the last thirty years, discuss persistent problems, and explore agendas for the future. we begin that task by delineating the distinctive features of this mode of analysis. We suggest that comparative historical analysis is best considered part of a long-standing intellectual project oriented toward the explanation of substantively important outcomes. It is defined by a concern with causal analysis, an emphasis on processes over time, and the use of systematic and contextualized comparison. In offering this definition, we intentionally exclude other analytical and methodological traits that are often associated with comparative historical analysis but that we do not consider part of its core features. For example, although many comparative historical analyses offer explanations based on social and political structures and their change, the research tradition is not inherently committed to structural explanation or any other single theoretical orientation. Likewise, while most work in the field employs qualitative forms of data analysis, comparative historical analysis is not characterized by any single method of descriptive and causal inference.

  • 英語
  • 回答数3
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)
回答No.3

この巻では、過去30年間にわたる比較歴史的調査の成果を評価し、持続性のある問題点について検討し、将来の課題を検証するなどしていきます。まずこの分析方法の際立った特徴をまとめることから始めます。 我々は比較歴史的分析は実質的重要な結果の説明へと向かう為の、長期にわたる知的プロジェクトにおける最良の熟慮部分であると示唆いたします。これは、原因分析、時間をかけたプロセスの重要視、体系的かつ背景、状況などを考慮に入れた比較法の採用などの関係により定義されるものです。この定義を提示することで我々は、時々比較歴史的分析と関連づけられ、しかし我々がその基本的特徴部分を認めていないその他の分析的かつ方法論的特性といったものを意図的に排除します。例えば多くの比較歴史的分析が社会的政治的構造とその変化をベースにした説明を提示しているのに、調査における慣習では本質的に構造学的解釈やそれ以外のたった一つの理論的方向付けも行いません。同様に、その分野のほとんどの作業がデータ分析の質的構造を採用するのに対し、比較歴史的分析では、たった一つだけの記述的および因果推論的方法によって特徴づけることはしません。 _________________________ 最後の段落です。大変難しい内容を読み続けるのはすごいです。

hetaeigo1989
質問者

お礼

ありがとうございます! 読んでるうちに、内容がわけわからなくなってしまって。。。 本当にありがとうございます

その他の回答 (2)

  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)
回答No.2

これら最近の進歩は以前の結果から派生したものでした。1970年後半から1980年前半までには、比較歴史的調査が社会科学の枠をこえて復活していたことはすでに明らかでした。例えば、「歴史社会学の構想と戦略」(※1)の最終章で、シーダ・スコチポル(1984年著)はこの種の調査は、古い伝統にその身を捧げた数人の年上の学者によって実施された単独の分析法の頃よりはるかにすぐれていると指摘していました。さて、約20年後、比較歴史的調査が再び主なる分析方法として、社会科学全般にわたって広く使われていることを否定する観察者はほとんどいません。 ※1:小田中直樹氏によって翻訳され、木鐸社から1995年に出版されています。下記参照。 http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F%E7%94%B0%E4%B8%AD%E7%9B%B4%E6%A8%B9 ________________ 真ん中の段落のみの訳です。

  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)
回答No.1

比較歴史的分析は社会科学(※1)において長く、際立った歴史をもっています。アダムスミスからアレクシ・ド・トクヴィルそしてカールマルクスまで、今私たちが現代社会学の創始者と見なしている人物は皆、研究の中核的方法として比較歴史的分析を追及しました。そうすることで、彼らは何世紀にもわたって社会思想を支配してきた調査研究の伝統を持続したのでした。20世紀初頭、社会学それ自体が独立した分野を作りはじめた時でさえ、比較調査と歴史調査はオットー・ヒンツェ、マックス・ウエーバー、マルク・ブロックといった著名な学者たちの調査研究の中で重要な位置を占めることにより、主導的な地位を保持しました。唯一20世紀半ばまで、その決定的後退をうながすものとして比較歴史調査を部分的にしのぐ社会的知識への別ないくつかのアプローチがありました。しかしながら、しばらくの停滞期の後、最近の数十年、比較歴史的伝統は劇的な復活を成しえました。分析手順と方法論に関する重要な問題は残ってはいるものの、この調査法は今日の社会科学の中心に再び戻りました。 ※1:複数形の場合、経済学、歴史学、政治学、心理学、人類学などの総称として「社会科学」となります。 __________________ 最初の段落のみです。 一度に訳せないので、何度かにわけて訳したいと思います。

関連するQ&A

  • 社会学の論文の一部です。訳出お願いいたします。

    引用元はJohn H. GoldthorpeのThe uses of history in sociologyの一部です。 全体的にうまく訳せないので、よろしくお願いします。 To take up again the question of the uses of history in sociology may well appear regressive. For to do so implies, of course, making a distinction between history and sociology which would now be widely regarded as untenable. Thus, for example, Philip Abrams, in his highly influential book, Historical Sociology, has advanced the argument that since ‘history and sociology are and always have been the same thing’, any discussion of the relationship of one to the other must be misguided; and Abrams in turn quotes Giddens to the effect that ‘There simply are no logical or even methodological distinctions between the social sciences and history -appropriately conceived’.’ As Abrams is indeed aware, the position he adopts is in sharp contrast with that which would have been most common among sociologists two decades or so previously. At this earlier time, sociologists were for the most part anxious to differentiate their concerns from those of historians. For example, much use was made of the distinction between ‘idiographic’ and ‘nomothetic’ disciplines. History was idiographic: historians sought to particularise through the description of singular, unique phenomena. Sociology was nomothetic: sociologists sought to generalize through formulating theories that applied to categories of phenomena.’ However, all this was in the period before the British sociological community (anticipating Sir Keith Joseph) lost its nerve over the idea of ‘social science’- before, that is, the so-called ‘reaction against positivism’ of the late 1960s and 1970s created a new mood in which political radicalism went together with intellectual conservatism. My first contribution to the debate on ‘history and sociology’ dates back to this prelapsarian time, and was in fact a critique of the idiographic-nomothetic distinction.” My remarks were not especially well received by either historians or sociologists, and this present contribution may, I fear, prove similarly uncongenial. For what I would now think important is that attempts, such as that of Abrams and Giddens, to present history and sociology as being one and indistinguishable should be strongly resisted.” To avoid, if possible, being misunderstood, let me stress that I do not seek here to reestablish the idiographic-nomothetic distinction, or at least not as one of principle. # I do not believe, for example, that sociologists can ever hope to produce theories that are of an entirely transhistorical kind; nor that historians can ever hope to produce descriptions that are free of general ideas about social action, process and structure. However, good grounds do still remain for refusing to accept the position that any distinction drawn between history and sociology must be meaningless. この文の that are以下の ”of ”の使い方もご指導のほどよろしくお願いします。 # I do not believe, for example, that sociologists can ever hope to produce theories that are of an entirely transhistorical kind:

  • 文法と和訳を教えて下さい

    •Comparative analysis in which zebrafish were used were not carried out, as we wanted first to get a picture as thorough as possible of the cichilid's behavior and associated issues at altered gravity. Comparative analysis in zebrafish~ではダメですか?

  • 英語 訳出願い

    自分で訳したものの、すっきり読めないので、訳出願います。 よろしくお願いします。 ’UNDERSTANDING REALITY TELEVISION’の一部です。 As we embark upon a new century of broadcasting, It is clear that no genre form or type of programing has been as actively marketed by producers, or more enthusiastically embraced by viewers, than reality-based TV. This quote seems a pertinent way in which to open a book that seeks to 'understand Reality TV'. It emphasizes how the formats, images, and convention of Reality TV have stitched themselves into the very fabric of television, its economic structures, schedules and viewing cultures. Reality TV has rapidly come to occupy a place at the forefront of contemporary television culture – a position from which it seems to 'speak' particular clearly to the ways in which broadcasters are seeking to attract audiences in the multichannel landscape, the ways in which television is harnessing its aesthetic and cultural power and, as an increasingly multimedia experience, the ways in which it resonates so extensively in the cultural sphere. This collection seeks to respond to the complex, contested and often controversial terrain of 'popular factual programming' (CORNER,2001) with the broad aim of considering its economic, aesthetic, political and cultural implications for understanding contemporary 'television' as an object of study. It is certainly the case that this terrain continued to evolve, shift and change in the process of producing this collection, which thus offers an investigation of the field at a particular point in time (television’s rhetoric of the perpetual present of course always renders stopping the 'flow' an impossibility). At the same time, however, this book also seeks to contribute to the longer-term project of understanding and studying what CORNER has described as television's 'greatly expanded range of popular images of the real'.

  • 訳出お願いします。

    For a long time Kristin and I have been interested in how films tell stories. We are fascinated by the principles that govern different storytelling traditions. For the sake of simplicity, we have called the principles norms. The term implies a standard craft competence, along with a diminution of collective decistion-making. Norms are preferred alternatives within a tradition. A norm is not single and inflexible law; (#)it is best seen as a roughly bounded set of options. Within any cluster of norms, there are always different ways to do something. Film scholars occasionally object to the term norm. Doesn't the norm suggest that we want to celebrate the normal and consign the non- or abnormal to some sort of lower status? But we are not suggesting that. Both Kristin and i have studied and praised filmmakers who do things differently. As historians we are simply studying principles of storytelling, as they have crystallized in norms that shape certain filmmaking trends. A researcher who studies norms of height in a population isn't implying that unusually tall or short people are second-class citizens. 長い間、私とクリスティンはどのように映画が物語を伝えるのかということに興味を持っている。私たちは異なる物語を語る様式(伝統)を支配する原則に魅了された。簡略化のため、その原理を基準(標準)と呼びます。共同の意思決定という側面を伴い、その表現は標準的な言語能力の手法という意味を含む。様式(伝統)の中で、基準は代わるものを好む。その基準は、単独で柔軟性のない規範ではない。つまり、おおまかな境界を持つ選択としてみられる。いくつかの基準の中で、いつも何かをするために違う方法で行う。映画学者は時々、normという表現に反対する。normは、私たちが標準(普通)を祝いたい、低い地位へ普通ではないものを渡したいと提案していすか?そうではありません。クリスティンと私は、異なる手法で映画制作者を勉強(研究)し、賞賛してきた。歴史家として、私たちは物語を伝える原理を簡単に研究してきたし、彼らは映画の傾向を形作った基準を結晶化してきた。集団の中の基準を研究している調査員は、普通でない高低がある人は2級市民であるという意味を含まないと言う。 normというのは、the principles that govern different storytelling traditionsということですか? (#)の部分の文法構造はどうなっているのかの説明もお願いします。

  • 和訳お願い致します.

    Mental Evolution in Animals(1883). In the family of the sciences Comparative Psychology may claim nearest kinship with Comparative Anatomy; for just as the latter aims at a scientific comparison of the bodily structures of organisms, so the former aims at a similar com parison of their mental structures. Moreover, in the one science as in the other, the first object is to analyze all the complex structures with which each has respectively to deal. When this analysis, or dissection, has been completed for as great a number of cases as circumstances permit, the next object is to compare with one another all the structures which have been thus analyzed; and, lastly, the results of such comparison supply, in each case alike, the basis for the final object of these sciences, which is that of classifying, with reference to these results, all the structures which have been thus examined.

  • 大大大至急!!訳してください

    訳お願いします In everyday terms,however,to socialize simply means to mingle socially with other people. In means making friends, getting along with classmates and colleagues, going out to puds and parties. In other words, socializing plays a crucial role in all our lives.Just how important a role it plays has been underscored by several recent sociological and neurological research project. One,carried out by social scientists and psychologists at the University of Michigan,has found that socializing actually makes us smarter. the authors of the study, who published their findings in the Personality and Social Psycholgy Bulletin,conclude that frequent social interaction exercises peoples brains ,giving us higher levels of cognitive performance.

  • この英文の和訳お願いします。 難しいです。

    翻訳サイトだと意味がおかしくなるので質問しました。 Later in this book I will describe information gained from other sources. Twelve old people in the sample were kind enough to keep a diary of their activities for a week in the spring of 1955. Four of these diaries are reproduced in an appendix. Special surveys were made of the social and family background of old people seeking help from the social services: a sample group of some 200 people originating in East London who spent the last period of their lives in L.C.C homes; and finally, 400 people being visited by home helps in Bethnal Green. The object of these surveys was, first, to explore the respective functions of relatives and of the social services in helping to meet the needs of old people, and second, to pinpoint those groups who make the heaviest demands on statutory and voluntary provision. In presenting the results I have tried throughout to keep individual people in the forefront. The research worker is so anxious to establish patterns, uniformities, and systems of social action that he is tempted to plan questionnaires that can be filled in simply and to confine his report largely to classificatory lists and tables of statistics. The uniqueness of each individual and each family is probably the fundamental difficulty about this. However those to be studied are selected, whether on grounds of likeness in age, situation, occupation, or class, once one meets them and behavior, relationships, attitude and interpretation. Standard questions, prepared beforehand, mean different things to different people; they are sometimes appropriate, sometimes inappropriate; by themselves they do not provide an adequate means of thoroughly investigating subjects as complex as this. Before one can apply or interpret the reliability of answers to set questions, one needs a fair idea of the most important relationships, activities, and characteristics of each person approached, important, that is, as they are judged by him. Too many of the principal features of social life might otherwise be missed or misrepresented. Although I believe with conviction that the methods of interviewing should be flexible and that reports on social research should convey the quality and diversity of individual and social behavior, I am not suggesting that the search for patterns of behavior, through statistical analysis and correlation, is not important. I am submitting only that once a social inquiry moves beyond simple description and measurement, for instance, of facts of a basically demographic kind, the build-up of statistics and indices of behavior becomes a subtle and complicated process that can only proceed in the context of a wide knowledge of the societies concerned. And such knowledge cannot be gained unless there is direct and continuous acquaintance with the people who are being studied.

  • 英語 長文の和訳を教えてください。

    the second shock was an economic shock and the direct result of a combination of american economic problem: a growing trade imbalance with japan and a dollar that had become too highly valued in the rest of the world. a package of economic policies was announced by president nixon in august that led to an immediate 10% reduction in the value of the dollar (which meant that japanese goods would be more expensive in the u.s) and a temporary 10% tax on imports. the shift in the japanese-american relationship was not only caused by the increased power of japan; america's dominant position in the world was also undergoing serious changes. the watergate scandals and the loss of the war in vietnam combined to cause the american people to lose faith in themselves and to question america's role as the leader of the western bloc. the oil crisis of 1973 added to this malaise by decreasing america's economic ability to support its overseas defense commitments. many congressmen questioned why the u.s was spending money to defend japan when it was increasingly obvious that increased japanese economic strength was one cause for the economic recession in the u.s. 長いですがよろしくお願いします!

  • of 抽象名詞の後の語のつなげ方 to について

    主語 is of use. などはよくみるのですが、その後を続ける時、今はtoをつなげようとしているのですが、 ①The research is of use to ~の後は名詞がくるのでしょうか?動詞の原形がくるのでしょうか? google scholarで調べると ②A tradition existed that her advice was of use to our father in his household, and when, last year, ③BCR/ABL value obtained by FISH was of use to predict cytogenetic response when residual disease was above 2 to 3% ④development of these disciplines. While much of this research was of use to nursing, ⑤The results suggested that electron microscopy was of use to help establish a diagnosis of gangliosidosis … などと、名詞の時もあれば原型不定詞の時もあります。これにはルールはありますか?どちらでも大丈夫ということでしょうか? 教えてください。

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    " Thus it is that philosophy can supply no demonstrative refutation of idealism, even of the most extravagant form. Common sense, however, universally feels that analogy is here a safer guide to truth than the sceptical demand for impossible evidence; so that if the objective existence of other organisms and their activities is granted — without which postulate comparative psychology, like all the other sciences, would be an unsubstantial dream— common sense will always and without question conclude that the activities of organisms other than our own, when analogous to those activities of our own which we know to be accompanied by certain mental states, are in them accompanied by analogous mental states."