본고에서는 무라야마와 아키바의 학문적 창의성을 주로 검토하였다. 두 사람의 조화나 불화 인간관계에 초점을 둔 것이 아니다. 연구 과정에서 선행 연구를 검토하고 수용하는 자세를 검토한 것이라 할 수 있다. 즉 연구자의 기본적인 자세를 다룬 것이다. 오히려 학설사적으로 볼 때 두 사람의 경쟁적(?) 연구가 상호 협력하여 좋은 연구 성과를 내었다고도 할 수 있다. 그러나 필자는 그것보다는 연구 과정에서 그들이 선행 연구나 정보를 어떻게 객관적으로 처리하였는가를 살폈다. 필자는 이전 아키바의 『조선 무속의 현지연구』를 번역하였고 이번에 무라야마의『조선의 무격』을 번역하면서 아키바의 연구와 중첩되는 많은 부분을 대조하여 보았다. 그리고 무라야마의 조사가 한창인 때에 아키바다카시가 그 조사에 합류하고 두 사람 연구의 관계 및 창의성이 모호하게 된 것이라고 느끼게 되었다. 특히 무라야마와 아키바의 조사 자료의 내용이나 이론이 공통되는 점이 많기 때문에 그 독창성이 누구의 것인지 불분명한 점이 많았다. 두 사람의 조사 연구에 초점을 두고, 조사와 이론화의 과정에 주시하고, 연구자의 창의성을 검토하였다.
Chijun Murayama and Takashi Akiba were the sociologists graduated from Tokyo Imperial University, and did almost at the same research on Korean shmanism in Korea under Japanese rule. However, at time, do the be doubled of two people for about ten years because Akiba came when Murayama previously came to Korea for about seven years and the investigation activity is done and the research investigation was started. It seems that it is imaginable that two persons influenced each other, and the influence from Murayama to Akiba was especially large. However, the relation in the scholarship is not clarified. In 1930 the survey on Korean shamanism of the entire Korean peninsula is investigated chiefly through the police of the Japanese Colonial Governor-general Office. It was almost settled in summer. As a result, it can be said that the whole content of Korean shamanism was clarified for the first time. The survey material of(Murayama’s) Japanese Colonial Governor-general Office was shared and used together with Akiba. In that sense, Akiba was also on the his study was very done by the collected data of Japanese Colonial Governor-general Office, too. While Murayama was arguing based on material by himself, Akiba should have participated after. Akiba’s time was doubled of with Murayama’s overall. A similar one to Murayama’s originality of main issues or the one that looks like had the majority to the theory and the content by Akiba generally. Even if Murayama quotes it, Akiba tends not to quote it. At the first time the division of their arguments was not clear originally. The originality in the research was considered almost same. I clarified the process that had come to research the shamanism while being enlightened the influence relation between two people, especially Akiba from Murayama immediately by this article. Akiba was actually seemed that he was stimulated, obtained a lot of idea, cooperation from the senior of this learning that it came to Korea earlier than he, being influenced was natural. The sociological study on shamans is nowdays disregarded while the researches by the Japanese researchers had been paid attention as mentioned. The author who are influenced from two has been studying shamanism in social anthropological perspectives.