美国主流政治学期刊的中国政治研究:脉络、议题、方法、前景
|
摘要
海外的中国政治研究已经走过百年历程。国外学者开展中国政治研究的视角、方法和路径对于本土的中国政治研究具有重要的参考和借鉴意义。对美国主流政治学期刊的中国政治研究的梳理分析发现,一方面,美国期刊中的中国政治研究在过去的一百多年经历了前所未有的转变并取得了较好的学术效果。这首先表现在研究议题从比较单一的宏观主题向更加丰富的中观和微观层次主题转型。其次,开展中国政治研究的方法也从简单的描述性分析发展为多元化的但以定量分析为主的方法论取向。另一方面,美国期刊中的中国政治研究也遭遇了发展的瓶颈。这体现在美国的中国政治研究与中国本土的中国政治研究之间存在着鸿沟("向东"鸿沟),与美国的主流比较政治学之间也存在着鸿沟("向西"鸿沟)。美国主流政治学期刊中的中国政治研究的发展前景取决于如何跨越两大鸿沟,进而实现新的学科定位并做出新的理论贡献。
Chinese politics study in other countries has been existed for morethan a hundred years.Foreign scholars' perspectives,methods and approaches to study Chinese politics can generate important experiences and lessons for domestic scholars in China. This paper conducts a systematic analysis of Chinese politics research papers in leading American political science journals. On the one hand,Chinese politics research published by American journals has underwent unprecedented changes in the past century with quite satisfying results. Firstly,research issues have transformed from monotonous macro topics to meso and micro topics. Secondly,original research methods based on descriptive analysis have evolved into a new methodological orientation characterized by quantitative analysis. On the other hand,we find that Chinese politics research in American journals has faced new development bottlenecks. This is exemplified by the gap between America's Chinese politics research and China's Chinese politics study( also known as the "eastern gap") and the gap between America's Chinese politics research and America's mainstream comparative politics( also known as the"western gap"). The prospect of Chinese politics research in American leading political science journals depends on how to bridge these two gaps in order to find a new disciplinary niche and make innovative theoretical contributions.
Chinese politics study in other countries has been existed for morethan a hundred years.Foreign scholars' perspectives,methods and approaches to study Chinese politics can generate important experiences and lessons for domestic scholars in China. This paper conducts a systematic analysis of Chinese politics research papers in leading American political science journals. On the one hand,Chinese politics research published by American journals has underwent unprecedented changes in the past century with quite satisfying results. Firstly,research issues have transformed from monotonous macro topics to meso and micro topics. Secondly,original research methods based on descriptive analysis have evolved into a new methodological orientation characterized by quantitative analysis. On the other hand,we find that Chinese politics research in American journals has faced new development bottlenecks. This is exemplified by the gap between America's Chinese politics research and China's Chinese politics study( also known as the "eastern gap") and the gap between America's Chinese politics research and America's mainstream comparative politics( also known as the"western gap"). The prospect of Chinese politics research in American leading political science journals depends on how to bridge these two gaps in order to find a new disciplinary niche and make innovative theoretical contributions.
引文
(1)Ching-Chun Wang,“Why The Chinese Oppose Foreign Railway Loans”,American Political Science Review,Vol.4,No.3,1910.
(2)Frank Goodnow,“The Parliament of the Republic of China”,American Political Science Review,Vo.8,No.4 1914;Frank Goodnow,“Reform in China”,American Political Science Review,Vol.9,No.2,1915.
(3)Tuan-Sheng Chien,“War-Time Government in China”,American Political Science Review,Vol.36,No.5 1942.
(4)其中,迈阿密大学的Harold M.Vinacké的职称情况不是非常确定。
(5)Fu-wu Hou,A Short History of Chinese Communism,Completely Updated,Upper Saddle River :Prentice Hall,1973.这本书曾经作为美国西点军校学生了解中国的必读书。
(6)碍于本研究的时间跨度较长,有些作者的信息无法得到准确识别和检验,有6%的文章第一作者的职称无法准确辨认。
(7)加里·金(Gary King)等人在2013年发表的论文获得了1160次引用,极大地提高了《美国政治科学评论》上中国政治研究论文的平均引用量。如果没有这篇论文,该期刊的中国政治研究论文平均引用量为66次,与另外两本期刊持平。
(8)Barrington Moore Jr,The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy,Boston:Beacon Press,1966;Seymour Martin Lipset,“Some Social Requisites of Democracy:Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”,American Political Science Review,Vol.53,No.1,1959;Samuel Huntington,Political Order in Changing Societies,New Haven:Yale University Press,1968;Theda Skocpol,States and Social Revolutions:A Comparative Analysis of France,Russia and China,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979.虽然已经过去了几十年,但是这些成果至今仍然是美国高校比较政治学课程的必读材料。
(9)Guillermo O'Donnell,Philippe C.Schmitter,Laurence Whitehead (eds.),Transitions from Authoritarian Rule:Southern Europe,Volume I-IV,Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1986;Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C.Schmitter,“Modes of Transition in Latin America,Southern and Eastern Europe”,International Social Science Journal,Vol.43,No.2,1991;Samuel Huntington,The Third Wave:Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century,Norman:University of Oklahoma Press,1993;Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan,Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:Southern Europe,South America,and Post-Communist Europe,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1996.
(10)Arend Lijphart,“Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”,American Political Science Review,Vol.65,No.3,1971.当然,比较政治学还包括其他研究方法,比如质性比较分析、访谈/民族志、反事实分析、过程追踪法,等等。
(11)Gary King,Robert O.Keohane,and Sidney Verba,Designing Social Inquiry:Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1994.这本书是政治学方法论领域最为著名的书籍,截止到目前它在学术界的引用量高达10709次。
(12)参见Henry Brady and David Collier eds,Rethinking Social Inquiry:Diverse Tools,Shared Standards,Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2010;James Mahoney,“Qualitative Methods and Comparative Politics”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.40,No.2,2007;Alexander L.George and Andrew Bennett,Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences,Cambridge:MIT Press,2005;James Mahoney,“After KKV:The New Methodology of Qualitative Research”,World Politics,Vol.62,No.1,2010.在美国政治学会的研究委员会(research session)组成中,政治方法论委员会主要是以倡导定量研究为主,对此,奉行质性研究方法的学者推动成立了质性和多元方法委员会(Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Session)相抗衡。每年夏季,雪城大学还召开质性和多元方法培训班,鼓励和推动方法论研究和使用的多元化。
(13)Gary Goertz and James Mahoney,A Tale of Two Cultures:Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences,Princeton:Princeton University Press,2012;James Mahoney,“Debating the State of Comparative Politics:Views from Qualitative Research”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.40,No.1,2007.
(14)推动混合研究是目前方法论发展的一个重要方向。Evan Lieberman,“Nested Analysis As AMixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research”,American Political Science Review,Vol.99,No.3,2005;Dirk Berg-Schlosser,Mixed Methods in Comparative Politics:Principles and Applications,London:Palgrave Macmillan,2012;Alberto Abadie,Alexis Diamond,and Jens Hainmueller,“Comparative Politics and The Synthetic Control Method”,American Journal of Political Science,Vol.59,No.2,2015;Macartan Humphrey,Alan M.Jacobs,“Mixing Methods:A Bayesian Approach”,American Political Science Review,Vol.109,No.4,2015;Ingo Rohlfing,“What You See and What You Get:Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.41,No.11,2008.国内学者也在积极关注这一方法论的发展趋势。参见唐世平:《超越定性定量之争》,《公共行政评论》,2015年第4期;张春满:《比较政治学中的混合研究方法》,《学术月刊》,2017年第9期。
(15)参见Dorothy Solinger,States' Gains,Labor's Losses:China,France,and Mexico Choose Global Liaisons,1980～2000,Ithaca:Cornell University Press,2009;Victoria Tin-bor Hui,War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
(16)在改革开放40周年之际,多位政治学者对本土中国政治研究进行了系统的回顾。参见俞可平:《中国政治学的主要趋势(1978～2018)》,《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2018年第5期;王中原、郭苏建:《中国政治学学科发展40年:历程、挑战与前景》,《学术月刊》,2018年第12期;郭苏建:《中国政治学科向何处去—政治学与中国政治研究现状评析》,《探索与争鸣》,2018年第5期;俞可平:《当代中国政治学的成就、趋势与挑战》,《天津社会科学》,2019年第1期。
(17)Lily Tsai,“Bringing in China:Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.50,No.3,2017.
(18)Kellee Tsai,“China's Political Economy and Political Science”,Perspectives on Politics,Vol.11,No.3 2013;Lily Tsai,“Bringing in China:Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.50,No.3,2017;Kevin O'Brien,“Speaking to Theory and Speaking to the China Field”,Issues & Studies:A Social Science Quarterly on China,Taiwan,and East Asian Affairs,Vol.54,No.4,2018.
(19)Harry Harding,“The Study of Chinese Politics:Toward A Third Generation of Scholarship”,World Politics Vol.36,No.2,1984.
(20)中国政治研究的空心化问题被欧博文描述为“一句话就能概括的研究发现”。参见Kevin O'Brien,“Speaking to Theory and Speaking to the China Field”,Issues & Studies:A Social Science Quarterly on China,Taiwan,and East Asian Affairs,Vol.54,No.4,2018;Kevin O'Brien,“Studying Chinese Politics in An Age of Specialization”,Journal of Contemporary China,Vol.20,Issue.71,2011.
(21)ChunmanZhang,“How to Merge Western Theories and Chinese Indigenous Theories to Study Chinese Politics”?Journal of Chinese Political Science,Vol.22,No.2,2017;Zhongyuan Wang and Sujian Guo,“The State of the Field of Chinese Political Science:Glocalizing Political Science in China?” European Political Science,(onlinefirst)https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0179-2
(22)Lily Tsai,“Bringing in China:Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.50,No.3,2017.
(2)Frank Goodnow,“The Parliament of the Republic of China”,American Political Science Review,Vo.8,No.4 1914;Frank Goodnow,“Reform in China”,American Political Science Review,Vol.9,No.2,1915.
(3)Tuan-Sheng Chien,“War-Time Government in China”,American Political Science Review,Vol.36,No.5 1942.
(4)其中,迈阿密大学的Harold M.Vinacké的职称情况不是非常确定。
(5)Fu-wu Hou,A Short History of Chinese Communism,Completely Updated,Upper Saddle River :Prentice Hall,1973.这本书曾经作为美国西点军校学生了解中国的必读书。
(6)碍于本研究的时间跨度较长,有些作者的信息无法得到准确识别和检验,有6%的文章第一作者的职称无法准确辨认。
(7)加里·金(Gary King)等人在2013年发表的论文获得了1160次引用,极大地提高了《美国政治科学评论》上中国政治研究论文的平均引用量。如果没有这篇论文,该期刊的中国政治研究论文平均引用量为66次,与另外两本期刊持平。
(8)Barrington Moore Jr,The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy,Boston:Beacon Press,1966;Seymour Martin Lipset,“Some Social Requisites of Democracy:Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”,American Political Science Review,Vol.53,No.1,1959;Samuel Huntington,Political Order in Changing Societies,New Haven:Yale University Press,1968;Theda Skocpol,States and Social Revolutions:A Comparative Analysis of France,Russia and China,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979.虽然已经过去了几十年,但是这些成果至今仍然是美国高校比较政治学课程的必读材料。
(9)Guillermo O'Donnell,Philippe C.Schmitter,Laurence Whitehead (eds.),Transitions from Authoritarian Rule:Southern Europe,Volume I-IV,Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1986;Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C.Schmitter,“Modes of Transition in Latin America,Southern and Eastern Europe”,International Social Science Journal,Vol.43,No.2,1991;Samuel Huntington,The Third Wave:Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century,Norman:University of Oklahoma Press,1993;Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan,Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:Southern Europe,South America,and Post-Communist Europe,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1996.
(10)Arend Lijphart,“Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”,American Political Science Review,Vol.65,No.3,1971.当然,比较政治学还包括其他研究方法,比如质性比较分析、访谈/民族志、反事实分析、过程追踪法,等等。
(11)Gary King,Robert O.Keohane,and Sidney Verba,Designing Social Inquiry:Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1994.这本书是政治学方法论领域最为著名的书籍,截止到目前它在学术界的引用量高达10709次。
(12)参见Henry Brady and David Collier eds,Rethinking Social Inquiry:Diverse Tools,Shared Standards,Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2010;James Mahoney,“Qualitative Methods and Comparative Politics”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.40,No.2,2007;Alexander L.George and Andrew Bennett,Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences,Cambridge:MIT Press,2005;James Mahoney,“After KKV:The New Methodology of Qualitative Research”,World Politics,Vol.62,No.1,2010.在美国政治学会的研究委员会(research session)组成中,政治方法论委员会主要是以倡导定量研究为主,对此,奉行质性研究方法的学者推动成立了质性和多元方法委员会(Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Session)相抗衡。每年夏季,雪城大学还召开质性和多元方法培训班,鼓励和推动方法论研究和使用的多元化。
(13)Gary Goertz and James Mahoney,A Tale of Two Cultures:Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences,Princeton:Princeton University Press,2012;James Mahoney,“Debating the State of Comparative Politics:Views from Qualitative Research”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.40,No.1,2007.
(14)推动混合研究是目前方法论发展的一个重要方向。Evan Lieberman,“Nested Analysis As AMixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research”,American Political Science Review,Vol.99,No.3,2005;Dirk Berg-Schlosser,Mixed Methods in Comparative Politics:Principles and Applications,London:Palgrave Macmillan,2012;Alberto Abadie,Alexis Diamond,and Jens Hainmueller,“Comparative Politics and The Synthetic Control Method”,American Journal of Political Science,Vol.59,No.2,2015;Macartan Humphrey,Alan M.Jacobs,“Mixing Methods:A Bayesian Approach”,American Political Science Review,Vol.109,No.4,2015;Ingo Rohlfing,“What You See and What You Get:Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.41,No.11,2008.国内学者也在积极关注这一方法论的发展趋势。参见唐世平:《超越定性定量之争》,《公共行政评论》,2015年第4期;张春满:《比较政治学中的混合研究方法》,《学术月刊》,2017年第9期。
(15)参见Dorothy Solinger,States' Gains,Labor's Losses:China,France,and Mexico Choose Global Liaisons,1980～2000,Ithaca:Cornell University Press,2009;Victoria Tin-bor Hui,War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
(16)在改革开放40周年之际,多位政治学者对本土中国政治研究进行了系统的回顾。参见俞可平:《中国政治学的主要趋势(1978～2018)》,《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2018年第5期;王中原、郭苏建:《中国政治学学科发展40年:历程、挑战与前景》,《学术月刊》,2018年第12期;郭苏建:《中国政治学科向何处去—政治学与中国政治研究现状评析》,《探索与争鸣》,2018年第5期;俞可平:《当代中国政治学的成就、趋势与挑战》,《天津社会科学》,2019年第1期。
(17)Lily Tsai,“Bringing in China:Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.50,No.3,2017.
(18)Kellee Tsai,“China's Political Economy and Political Science”,Perspectives on Politics,Vol.11,No.3 2013;Lily Tsai,“Bringing in China:Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.50,No.3,2017;Kevin O'Brien,“Speaking to Theory and Speaking to the China Field”,Issues & Studies:A Social Science Quarterly on China,Taiwan,and East Asian Affairs,Vol.54,No.4,2018.
(19)Harry Harding,“The Study of Chinese Politics:Toward A Third Generation of Scholarship”,World Politics Vol.36,No.2,1984.
(20)中国政治研究的空心化问题被欧博文描述为“一句话就能概括的研究发现”。参见Kevin O'Brien,“Speaking to Theory and Speaking to the China Field”,Issues & Studies:A Social Science Quarterly on China,Taiwan,and East Asian Affairs,Vol.54,No.4,2018;Kevin O'Brien,“Studying Chinese Politics in An Age of Specialization”,Journal of Contemporary China,Vol.20,Issue.71,2011.
(21)ChunmanZhang,“How to Merge Western Theories and Chinese Indigenous Theories to Study Chinese Politics”?Journal of Chinese Political Science,Vol.22,No.2,2017;Zhongyuan Wang and Sujian Guo,“The State of the Field of Chinese Political Science:Glocalizing Political Science in China?” European Political Science,(onlinefirst)https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0179-2
(22)Lily Tsai,“Bringing in China:Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory”,Comparative Political Studies,Vol.50,No.3,2017.