|
|||||
|
|
| 跨学科视角下“地缘政治”概念及其研究范式 | |
| 引用本文： | 安宁,蔡晓梅.跨学科视角下“地缘政治”概念及其研究范式[J].地理科学,2020,40(9):1412-1420. |
| 作者姓名： | 安宁 蔡晓梅 |
| 作者单位： | 1. 广州大学地理科学与遥感学院华南人文地理与城市发展研究中心，广东 广州 510006 2. 广东省城市与移民研究中心，广东 广州 510006 3. 华南师范大学旅游管理学院，广东 广州 510631 |
| 基金项目： | 国家自然科学基金项目（41701149，41871127，41630635）、广东省自然科学基金团队项目（2018B030312004）、南方海洋科学与工程广东省实验室（珠海）项目（99147-42080011）资助 |
| 摘 要： | 分析1982—2019年中国核心学术刊物和著作，梳理地理学和政治学对于“地缘政治”概念和研究范式的不同理解。研究发现：① 地理学和政治学有很多相似之处，包括对“地缘战略”等概念的关注，对“大国安全与崛起”等议题的探讨，以及在分析框架中对案例和质性分析方法的强调等；② 地理学和政治学有各具特色，地理学衍生“地缘环境”等概念，政治学也衍生“地缘安全”等概念；地理学在议题上更具空间和系统思维，对海洋地缘政治等话题更偏好，而政治学更强调时事性，侧重于分析时事政治及其地缘政治逻辑等；在分析框架上，地理学受计量革命的影响深远，对质性和定量分析都有所关注，而政治学对案例分析和质性分析的依赖度更高。这些发现说明了当前学科分工并没有改变地理学中的“地缘政治”概念和政治学中的“地缘政治”概念源出一脉的事实，同时也发现，其中的差异正是学科壁垒形成关键所在。 |
| 关 键 词： | 地缘政治 跨学科 地理学 政治学 研究范式 |
| 收稿时间： | 2019-08-13 |
Debates on the Concept of ‘Geopolitics’ and Its Research Paradigm From An Interdisciplinary Perspective |
|
| An Ning,Cai Xiaomei.Debates on the Concept of ‘Geopolitics’ and Its Research Paradigm From An Interdisciplinary Perspective[J].Scientia Geographica Sinica,2020,40(9):1412-1420. | |
| Authors: | An Ning Cai Xiaomei |
| Institution: | 1. School of Geographical Sciences and Remote Sensing, Centre for Human Geography and Urban Development, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, Guangdong, China 2. Guangdong Provincial Center for Urban and Migration Studies, Guangzhou 510006, Guangdong, China 3. School of Tourism Management, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong, China |
| Abstract: | Through the literature analysis of ‘geopolitics’ in Chinese core academic journals and books from 1982 to 2019, this paper investigates the different understanding of concept and research paradigm related to ‘geopolitics’ in two different disciplines, geography and politics. It mainly has two conclusions. First, there are many similarities between the two disciplines’ understanding of ‘geopolitics’, including the joint attention to the concepts of ‘geo-strategy’, ‘critical geopolitics’ and ‘emotional geopolitics’, the joint discussion on the issue of ‘security and rise of big powers’, ‘regional geography’ and ‘energy geopolitics’, as well as the common emphasis on case analysis and qualitative analysis methods in the analytical framework. The second is that the two disciplines also have their own characteristics. For example, in the discipline of geography, it has derived the concepts of ‘geo-environment’, ‘geo-economic’ and ‘geo-culture’, while the political science also discusses the notions of ‘geo-security’, ‘currency politics’ and ‘intelligence geopolitics’. Moreover, geography has more spatial and systematic thinking on issues, preferring the topics such as marine geopolitics and major international projects, while political science emphasizes current affairs and focuses on analyzing current affairs politics and the behind geopolitical logic. Furthermore, on the analytical framework, geography is deeply influenced by the measurement revolution, with which both qualitative and quantitative analysis are concerned, while political science is more dependent on case study and qualitative analysis. These similarities and differences, on the one hand, indicate that the current division of discipline does not completely change the fact that ‘geopolitics’ originates from the same source while on the other hand, it also points out that these differences are the key to the formation of current disciplinary boundaries. By examining the mainstream genealogy of ‘geopolitics’, this paper attempts to clarify an interdisciplinary ‘geopolitical’ research system, in order to serving for the country’s development and social progress. |
| Keywords: | geopolitics interdisciplinary geography politics research paradigm |
| 点击此处可从《地理科学》浏览原始摘要信息 | |
| 点击此处可从《地理科学》下载免费的PDF全文 | |