| （1.School of Physical Education，Zhengzhou University，Zhengzhou 450001，China；2.International Korfball Development and Research Center，Zhengzhou University，Zhengzhou 450001，China) Abstract: The author probed into and corrected problems existing in Comparability, the results show that Compara-bility interpreted “comparability” from the perspective of concept analysis, and neglected the fact that comparative researchers’ subjective judgment formation is subjected to the influence of historical environments; in the “radical” and “conservative” historical inertia, it is difficult to seek for a rational method for solving the issue of “comparabil-ity”. The author of Comparability one-sidedly understood Bereday’s thoughts about comparative study, overly relied on “scientific empiricism”, thus neglected the combination of “scientific empiricism” and “historical humanism” in methodology, deduced “comparability” from such a single dimension as “background comparability”, exaggerated the restricting function of “background comparability”, ignored the “goal setting” function of “comparability” in “background comparability”, slipped into “conservative” theoretical tendency to a certain extent, and somewhat lost fairness in evaluating some sports comparative study. This study believed that considering the issue of ‘comparabil-ity” should return to the scope of methodology that combines scientific empiricism and historical humanism, and the symbiotic relationship between dialectical cognition researchers’ subjective judgment and background restriction, and value the importance of methodology, basic strategies and specific methods to the rational cognition of the issue of “comparability”.
Key words: comparative sports；comparability；subjective judgment；background restriction；methodology |
