摘要
基于大量实证研究文献和方法论文献,文章系统展示了"关键节点"应用近30年来的发展情况,并提出了评估相关应用的标准。文章认为,一项好的应用型研究应该兼具比较视野和反事实思维,并以过程追踪的方式着重阐述从关键节点到最终结果的因果过程。一项研究若不致力于因果解释,其对"关键节点"的应用将停留于历史常识;对于因果解释型研究来说,"关键节点"的合理应用可能构成理论创新的一部分,但始终无法替代理论化工作本身;不当的应用则会进一步凸显业已存在的理论化缺陷,最终削弱一项研究的说服力。因此,研究者必须充分认识到关键节点的工具性,既要考察分析工具与研究问题的匹配程度,也要避免把运用"关键节点"等同于理论创新。
Based on an extensive review of empirical research and methodological literature,we present systematically the development and use of"Critical Junctures"(CJ)from 1991 to 2018,and propose several criteria for evaluating related empirical research.We argue that good empirical research should engage with both comparative and counterfactual thinking,and focus on tracing the causal process between a critical juncture and a final outcome.Specifically,if researchers lack a clear sense of causal explanation,their application of CJ will just retell historical common knowledge;for researchers in pursuit of causal explanation,an appropriate use of CJ could constitute a part of theoretical innovation.However,using CJ is never a substitute for the work of theorizing itself.Even worse,improper application will further highlight defects in theory-building that already exist,and ultimately weaken research’s explanatory power.Therefore,researchers must be fully aware of the instrumentality of CJ framework,not only to investigate the degree-of-matching between analytical tool and research question,but also to avoid equating CJ application with theoretical innovation.
作者
曹航
马天航
Cao Hang;Ma Tianhang(School of International Relations&Public Affairs,Fudan University,Shanghai)
出处
《经济社会体制比较》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第3期180-191,共12页
Comparative Economic & Social Systems
关键词
关键节点
因果解释
路径依赖
比较历史分析
历史制度主义
Critical Juncture
Causal Explanation
Path Dependence
Comparative-Historical Analysis
Historical Institutionalism
