本文探討過去半世紀多以來民族音樂學的多元比較取徑，並且以筆者的研究經驗為例，提出「比較作為反身性實踐」的概念與實作策略。二次世界大戰過後，首先建制於北美的民族音樂學，受到人類學「文化相對論」典範的影響，不再延續19世紀末以降歐陸比較音樂學的傳統。大多數民族音樂學者認同音樂文化的研究，不能只是在檔案館或研究室裡進行資料分析與比對，而必須培養相關的音樂能力，並且對其所處脈絡進行長期的田野調查，藉此深入探究。儘管如此，這不表示民族音樂學者不再進行比較研究。筆者承續晚近民族誌研究者對於既有比較研究的批判與反思，主張有意義的比較－包括外顯比較－仍然是民族音樂學、人類學與相關文化分析領域知識生產的重要方法。筆者分析晚近英語世界與臺灣地區所出版之民族音樂學研究，指出至少有五種不同的比較取徑。筆者繼而以自身與其他民族誌研究者的比較經驗為依據，主張民族誌視野下的比較，與其說是指出事物之間異同所在的事實陳述，不如說是研究者透過反身性實踐，試圖創造不同脈絡之間連結方式的意義建構。在其中，研究者探索、銘刻自身所關注的可比較性，並且經歷視域變容的過程。文末筆者提出三種轉化比較為反身性實踐的策略，並且說明研究者如何能藉此重新理解比較個案與它們所共同牽涉到的研究主題，在知識建構的「建林」過程中，亦逐漸「見林」。

This article explores the diverse modes of comparison in Ethnomusicology, and proposes the notion and strategies of “comparison as reflexive practice,” based on the author’s ethnographic and comparative study of the institutionalization of Finnish pelimanni and Taiwanese Hakka music. Deeply shaped by the cultural relativism of Anthropology, Ethnomusicology shifted the traditional paradigm of Comparative Musicology while being institutionalized as an academic discipline in postwar North America. Since then, most ethnomusicologists have recognized the importance of fieldwork for the study of music culture; they have emphasized that researchers cannot merely sit in the armchair comparing or contrasting archival data produced by other researchers, but have to learn to play the music they study and conduct ethnographic research to gain deeper understanding of the research subject. Nevertheless, this “ethnographic turn” doesn’t mean that ethnomusicologists stop doing comparison or denying the usefulness of comparison. I discuss recent criticism and reflection on existing comparative research in Ethnomusicology, Anthropology and other neighboring fields of cultural analysis. In addition, I analyze comparative studies in Ethnomusicology, arguing that at least five modes of comparison are prominent across these studies. Furthermore, based on my own research experience as well as other ethnographers’ commentaries on comparison, I suggest comparison in the ethnographer’s eye is not just about identifying similarities and differences between cases in comparison. In contrast, it entails a complicated process of theory construction through which a researcher creates meaningful ties across different contexts. I indicate comparison takes place in ethnographers’ exploration and inscription, through which they construct comparabilities across contexts and the horizon of both the research subject and the cases in comparison transforms. In addition, I propose a series of strategies useful for turning comparison into reflexive practice, analyzing the ways by which they help unveil assumptions that have been taken for granted, recontextualize and connect cultural practices and social actions/interactions apart from each other, and facilitate researchers’ efforts to “see the forest for the trees” in the process of knowledge construction.