Talk:Cultural analysis
| This article was nominated for deletion on 4 December 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
??
The information on this page seems strangely vague and unverified.
Yes it does.
Am thinking that cultural analysis is a specialised form of research that takes place within the context of other disciplines, many other disciplines, not just sociology or even its close neighbours. For example, in geography cultural analysis is, perhaps, best understood as cultural geography? But anyway, cultural analysis is an activity that is carried out across the disciplinary spectrum.
Perhaps cultural analysis can be defined as 'the analytical study of culture', possibly a bit circular but it is flexible, allowing any discipline that engages in the analytical study of culture to be included as a contributor to the joint project of cultural analysis. 'Joint' does not mean unified or coherent! This may be one reason the description of cultural analysis as a 'discipline' feels a little bit awkward, it implies a coherence that, as a field, it does not actually have.
Possibly the reason why this page is difficult to flesh out is that cultural analysis means different things to different people and disciplines. Many different theories and methods frame the work of cultural analysis and many different schools of thought could be said to be conducting cultural analysis (e.g. Annales may be a candidate for being described as a form of cultural analysis). A lot of the time these different approaches are seriously at odds and the field is the subject of deep epistemological and philosophical disagreements. Think of the so-called Culture/Science Wars.
Ms-bookish (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
TNT?
@AndreJustAndre, you suggested the possibility of "TNT" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_analysis. Could you perhaps elaborate? Having just unsuccessfully nominated the whole article for deletion, I'm at least somewhat disqualified from editorial judgments about large-scale cuts. Currently the only source, a university website, does not even fully support the sentence to which it is affixed, and I'm not sure what standard, other than sourcing, could be neutrally employed. Thanks! Patrick (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just meant that AFD isn't cleanup and this seems to be a notable topic but the whole article should probably be rewritten mostly from scratch. This might be a good source to use. Andre🚐 21:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.