RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    재현적 증거에서 존재론적 증거로 = 세 현장연구 사례를 중심으로

    한글로보기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    This paper highlights the ways in which natives employ the concept of ‘evidence’ in the field and attempts to explore new possibilities of its concept. Although evidences are consistently located in questions that anthropologists encounter during their research, its concept itself has been rarely discussed in earnest. By focusing on three cases of fieldwork, which study debates and practices of scientists, medical doctors, and engineers, respectively, this paper looks at how those natives produce, use, and justify their evidences. As a result, the understanding of ‘their evidences’ has enabled anthropologists to reflect on how we imagine and make use of ‘our evidences.’ In this paper, while evidences that anthropologists have predominantly assumed are defined as ‘representational evidences,’ ‘ontological evidence (Holbraad 2008)’ is redefined and proposed as a new concept of evidence. Lastly, this paper shows that the concept of ‘ontological evidence’ not only negates hierarchies between natives` and researchers` evidences but also resolves confrontations between science and anthropology.
    번역하기

    This paper highlights the ways in which natives employ the concept of ‘evidence’ in the field and attempts to explore new possibilities of its concept. Although evidences are consistently located in questions that anthropologists encounter during ...

    This paper highlights the ways in which natives employ the concept of ‘evidence’ in the field and attempts to explore new possibilities of its concept. Although evidences are consistently located in questions that anthropologists encounter during their research, its concept itself has been rarely discussed in earnest. By focusing on three cases of fieldwork, which study debates and practices of scientists, medical doctors, and engineers, respectively, this paper looks at how those natives produce, use, and justify their evidences. As a result, the understanding of ‘their evidences’ has enabled anthropologists to reflect on how we imagine and make use of ‘our evidences.’ In this paper, while evidences that anthropologists have predominantly assumed are defined as ‘representational evidences,’ ‘ontological evidence (Holbraad 2008)’ is redefined and proposed as a new concept of evidence. Lastly, this paper shows that the concept of ‘ontological evidence’ not only negates hierarchies between natives` and researchers` evidences but also resolves confrontations between science and anthropology.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼