British Nuclear Culture: Official and Unofficial Narratives in the Long 20th Century by Jonathan Hogg (review)
British Nuclear Culture: Official and Unofficial Narratives in the Long 20th Century by Jonathan Hogg (review)
复制标题
《英国核文化：漫长 20 世纪的官方和非官方叙事》乔纳森·霍格（Jonathan Hogg）（评论）
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Martin Ceadel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Martin Ceadel
特别是通过诸如流量分析、主题建模、网络分析和映射等计算方法。任何人开始一个新项目或建议学生的研究将受益于他们提供的可理解的介绍。除了描述新方法及其可能产生的好处外，艾伦和康奈利还对研究人员首次使用此类方法时可能面临的简单分析和陷阱提出了警告。第三版的许多新章节，如内森·J·西蒂诺的章节，向读者介绍了历史或其他学科的相关领域，这些领域可能对美国外交关系的写作有益。西蒂诺所概述的比较和边疆方法的主要优势之一是历史将美国视为不那么例外。乌萨马·马克迪西更强烈地警告说，强调跨国方法或将自己定位于“美国和世界”领域的学术可能会像早期对美国国际作用的方法一样成为例外主义者。与本书大部分内容的基调相反，马克迪西尖锐地认为，在将美国外交关系史的写作国际化和语境化方面仍有许多进展要做。如果读者质疑是否有必要将感官、情感和心理学分开，他们可能会发现每一种干预都是有道理的。特别是，安迪·罗特关于感官的章节描述了该领域发生的一些最有趣的方法论创新。同样，西蒂诺和艾米丽·罗森伯格的章节，考虑了边界和边界，以及其他想法，涵盖了不同的基础，尽管在他们的标题相似的术语。玛丽Dudziak的章“法律的历史作为外交关系史”提供了一个路线图，为学生和建立学者的工作将受益于更多的参与与法律。除了每一个人的贡献的总和，这本书证明了该领域的强大，多样性和创新的状态。与第一版开始时编辑们对该领域停滞的防御性语气或他们在第二版中表达的谨慎乐观不同，弗兰克·科斯蒂廖拉和迈克尔·霍根在第三版的导言中自信地断言，外交关系史现在处于“方法创新的前沿，同时保留了对政治，经济，文化，和世界事务中的军事力量”（第2页）。
of research—particularly through computational methods such as traffic analysis, topic modeling, network analysis, and mapping, to name a few. Anyone beginning a new project or advising student research will benefit from the comprehensible introduction they offer. In addition to describing new methodologies and the benefits they might yield, Allen and Connelly also offer caution about unsophisticated analysis and pitfalls that researchers could face when using such methods for the first time. Many of the chapters new to the third edition, such as Nathan J. Citino’s, introduce readers to related fields in history or other disciplines that could be beneficial to those writing on U.S. foreign relations. One of the main advantages of the comparative and frontier-borderlands approaches outlined by Citino would be history that treated the United States as less exceptional. Ussama Makdisi warns even more forcefully that scholarship emphasizing transnational approaches or locating itself within the field of “the United States and the world” risks being just as exceptionalist as earlier approaches to the role of the United States internationally. In contrast to the tone of much of the volume, Makdisi stridently argues that much progress remains to be made in internationalizing and contextualizing the writing of U.S. foreign relations history. Readers questioning the need for separate chapters on senses, emotions, and psychology will likely find that each intervention is warranted. In particular, Andy Rotter’s chapter on the senses describes some of the most interesting methodological innovations taking place in the field. Similarly, Citino’s and Emily Rosenberg’s chapters, which consider borderlands and borders, among other ideas, cover distinct ground despite the similar terminology in their titles. Mary Dudziak’s chapter on “legal history as foreign relations history” offers a roadmap for students and established scholars whose work would benefit from greater engagement with the law. Beyond the sum of each individual contribution, the book testifies to the state of the field—strong, diverse, and innovative. Rather than the defensive tone struck by the editors at the outset of the first edition regarding the stasis of the field or the cautious optimism they expressed in the second edition, Frank Costigliola and Michael Hogan confidently assert in their introduction to the third edition that foreign relations history is now at “the forefront of methodological innovation while retaining its solid grounding in the analysis of political, economic, cultural, and military power in world affairs” (p. 2).