Everyone is good for the New Year, and the New Year’s, the flood of blessings, I will not say. Continue to introduce the relevant knowledge of sociology.
In the last two articles, about the tax reforms in China’s Ming and Qing Dynasties to reflect the logic of Chinese government governance, a friend asked me why my article focused on historical review, rather than introducing cutting-edge research. Some friends even told me directly: “Everything should be transferred by conditions such as time and place.”
Thank you for your questions and suggestions.
But for the above problems, I am a little bit smirking.
Let’s talk about it, Methods, methods, methods. Research methods are too important for any subject research. The conclusions of the same research questions using different research methods are likely to be completely different. Because the method often determines the research perspective and action of a researcher. The current mainstream research methods in sociology are indeed quantitative, moving closer to the direction of economic data. Most of China’s current data uses cross-sectional data, which is explained by data from a certain point in time, or has a follow-up survey, but it tracks up to three, five, and ten years. In addition, statistical methods are very problematic, and most of the existing sociological statistics are still borrowed from economic model analysis.
This has led to problems. Such short-term data does not necessarily apply to statistical methods of social problems. Is the research done reliable?
This is not to deny the quantitative research method, any method must be flawed, just like any theory has a short board.
Therefore, the research methods of sociology are not single. Mainstream does not mean the best in all research.
A review of history is one of the methods of sociological research.
According to the existing subject classification, history should be classified as humanities, and sociology should be social science. However, the position of the social sciences has always been relatively embarrassing at least in the division of disciplines. You say that it is scientific and not as accurate as the natural sciences; you say that it is humanistic, and it is mixed with too many statistical and experimental research methods.
So, at this stage, at least for sociology, the two orientations are like two legs, and nothing can be lost.
Again, the mainstream does not mean the best on all research issues.
With regard to the relationship between history and sociology, British historian Peter Burke has a book, “History and Social Theory,” which is devoted to the integration of the two methods. History requires the analysis and interpretation of social theory. Sociology needs a historical review, otherwise it will not explain the inertia and root causes of people’s social behavior. As the author mentioned in the book, scholars from two disciplines did not communicate, that is, “the dialogue between the scorpions.”
I didn’t make it clear, blame me.
The first two articles will cover the history of tax reform, and the second will talk about the logic of Chinese government governance. Everyone thought that I was really talking about history and reviewing history. Didn’t you think about it, not only the perspective of sociological historical research, but also the history scholars’ just talking about historical events? Why does history emphasize so-called historical views? In fact, historical view is a theoretical thinking that determines how you look at the problem. So I said in the previous article that I am using the theory of “organizational sociology” to explain China’s tax reform, and how to reflect the governance logic of the Chinese government from such reforms.
For the sake of “Soul Soul – 1768 Magical Panic”, this book is worthy of our filming, but in the midst of the applause, have we noticed the analytical framework of this book? The theoretical analysis of Kong Feili’s post-books clearly starts from Weber’s bureaucratic analysis, and uses China’s unique “Karisma”-style authoritarian family governance model to transition to “legal authority”. Is the author still describing historical events? He also pointed out that Weber’s theory explained the insufficiency of this problem, and then developed into the opposition between “conventional power” and “monarch power”, and this point can be used to see the present in the “sports governance” in organizational sociology. In addition, the “soul event” can be explained by the theory of “organizing bureaucrats”, and can also be analyzed from the perspective of “religion” and “cultural moral panic”, and it can be another book.
Therefore, I said that when I send a data analysis article, someone will look at it.
What else should I say?
Welcome to the WeChat public account, direct WeChat search: