The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Thinking with Cases: Specialist Knowledge in Chinese Cultural History
Abstract
Case studies fascinate because they link individual instances to general patterns and knowledge to action without denying the priority of individual situations over the generalizations derived from them. In this volume, an international group of senior scholars comes together to consider the use of cases to produce empirical knowledge in premodern China. They trace the process by which the project of thinking with cases acquired a systematic and public character in the ninth century CE and after. Premodern Chinese experts on medicine and law circulated printed case collections to demonstrate efficacy or claim validity for their judgments. They were joined by authors of religious and philosophical texts. The rhetorical strategies and forms of argument used by all of these writers were allied with historical narratives, exemplary biographies, and case examples composed as aids to imperial statecraft. The innovative and productive explorations gathered here present a coherent set of interlocking arguments that will be of interest to comparativists as well as specialists on premodern East Asia. For China scholars, they examine the interaction of different fields of learning in the late imperial period, the relationship of evidential reasoning and literary forms, and the philosophical frameworks that linked knowledge to experience and action. For comparativists, the essays bring China into a global conversation about the methodologies of the human sciences. Contributors: Chu Honglam, Charlotte Furth, Hsiung Ping-chen, Jiang Yonglin, Yasuhiko Karasawa, Robert Sharf, Pierre-Étienne Will, WuYanhong, Judith T. Zeitlin.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The oldest surviving written records about the Chinese underworld show it to be a grim and unpleasant place generally referred to as the Yellow Springs, Nine Springs, or Dark City. 61”
From The Rise of Postmortem Retribution in China and the West (2010) · cites this paper as [61]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pseudo or perish: problematizing the ‘predatory’ in global health publishing
Allman, D. (2019) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2019.1606417 · Cited by 11
The Rise of Postmortem Retribution in China and the West
Bernstein, A. E., & Katz, P. R. (2010) · The Medieval History Journal · doi:10.1177/097194581001300202 · Cited by 9
Sharf, R. H. (2021) · Journal of the American Academy of Religion · doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfab029 · Cited by 9
Kim, Y. S. (2010) · East Asian Science Technology and Society An International Journal · doi:10.1007/s12280-010-9116-3 · Cited by 8
How a “New Legal History” Might Be Possible
You, C. (2013) · Modern China · doi:10.1177/0097700412471589 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Venue
- University of Hawaii Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Hawaii Press
- Published
- 2017-12-18
- OpenAlex
- W4239824782
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Hawaii Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Historical Legal Studies and Society
- Keywords
- case studies, traditional China, traditional Chinese medicine, Chinese law, evidential reasoning, historical narratives, knowledge and action, late imperial China, human sciences methodology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review