CBM Elements I

Author(s):  
Patricia A. Young

Elements (E1-E25) facilitate content development. These Elements are intended to be comprehensive in providing the fundamental total of which all culture is composed. Most of those things that formulate a culture are included in the 25 Elements. The tangibles and intangibles define the Elements. Tangibles have material qualities and intangibles nonmaterial qualities (see Table 7.1). The meanings of the terms culture and society can overlap, but they should be viewed separately within the space of design. A society is a group of people who share commonalities that are understood by all and collectively inhabit a particular physical area (Germain & Bloom, 1999; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1999). Every society has a culture or ways of being, doing and thinking. This culture shapes societies behavior (Ember & Ember, 1996; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). In understanding a culture, there must also be an understanding of its past and present histories and the histories of its people (Kim & Park, 2006). The Elements are divided into three sections: the anthropology of culture, the psychology of culture, and the science of culture. These divisions are consistent with research in the disciplines of cultural anthropology, cultural psychology, and science; however, there are modifications to provide application of these concepts as design constructs. An overview of each section is provided as context for the Elements. Then each design factor is defined, described, and illustrated through relevant cross-cultural examples. A set of guiding questions for the design process are offered that are specific to the culture and the target audience.

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danilo Silva Guimarães

Chinese psychologists present important considerations on the individualism-collectivism dichotomy, which has become a dominant reference in cross-cultural studies since the 80s. They observe that cross-cultural psychology has failed to define the concepts of collectivism and individualism in a precise manner, making it difficult to measure accurately intercultural differences. I argue that culture is a fundamental dimension of human experience. It guides us by means of verbal and nonverbal semiotic resources, actions, and personal aspirations. It also offers us symbolic resources for reflecting on these actions and aspirations, thus constituting points of view, relatively singular ways of being and of acting, either reflectively or not. The points of view that develop from different cultural traditions establish horizons that define the limits and propose the ways for people to inhabit the world with others. Furthermore, the conceptions that emerge from each culturally grounded point of view are not easily interchangeable, given that they belong to diversely built language systems. For this reason, psychological theorizations must take into account their own cultural background, as a condition for understanding the misconceptions and misunderstandings that take place when cultures exert their exotic views over one another.


1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don S. Massey

Contrary to popular belief, conducting thorough cross-cultural psychological assessments does not simply mean using culture-free or culture-fair tests. It is a highly refined art which demands considerable skill and expertise on the part of the clinician. Pre-requisite knowledge in the fields of cultural anthropology, linguistics, and cross-cultural psychology is often required before appropriate interpretation of assessment results can be made. In the absence of a framework for practise, a practical model is presented which incorporates an experimental, problem-solving and clinical approach to cross-cultural assessment. Several features of this versatile model are discussed in relation to both the assessment and interpretive process. A multidisciplinary strategy that includes both informal and formal assessment methods is advocated. Specific recommendations for future practise are provided, including the need for greater networking among professionals in the variety of disciplines involved in cross-cultural assessment.


Author(s):  
Станислав Витальевич Мажинский

Статья посвящена такому актуальному и дискуссионному явлению как национальный характер. В рамках статьи рассматривается развитие концепции национального характера в период существования школы «культура и личность». Основная проблематика концепции заключалась в ее обоснованности и применении не только в рамках культурной антропологии, но и в социологии и психологии. В ранний период существования школы «культура и личность» (1927–1945 гг.) Э. Сэпиром и Р. Бенедикт закладываются основы школы, а также складываются основные направления методологического развития концепции — появляются такие подходы как «базовая личностная структура» А. Кардинера и «модальная личность» К. Дюбуа, а также поднимается проблематика исследований национального характера в контексте достоверности результатов и работе со сложными социальными структурами и нациями в целом. В рамках раннего периода показано влияние Второй мировой войны на развитие концепции национального характера и указаны причины востребованности исследований в рамках национального характера. В поздний период деятельности школы (1946–1969 гг.) происходит усиление критики со стороны социологов и психологов не только национального характера, но и подхода «культура и личность» за недостаточность эмпирических данных. Особое внимание в этот период уделяется развитию подходов, изучающих личностные характеристики представителей наций. Одновременно с этим формируется методологическая база кросс-культурных исследований и образуется задел для создания кросс-культурной психологии. В рамках всей статьи показаны две волны критики национального характера, итогом которых в конце 1960-х стало отрицание существования национального характера как явления национальной жизни представителями научного сообщества того времени, а школа «культура и личность» испытывала кризис и пришла в упадок. Приведены оценки исследований того времени в отношении развития национального характера в рамках школы «культура и личностность», а также предложения по выходу из методологического кризиса. The article is devoted to such a topical and controversial phenomenon as national character. The article examines the development of the concept of national character during the existence of “culture and personality” school. The main problematic of the concept was connected with its validity and application not only within the framework of cultural anthropology, but also in sociology and psychology. During the early “culture and personality” school (1927–1945) E. Sapir and R. Benedict laid the foundations of the school, as well as the main directions of the methodological development of the concept — such approaches as the “basic personality structure” by A. Kardiner and “modal personality” by K. Du Bois, the problem of research of a national character in the context of the reliability of the results and work with complex social structures and nations in general is raised. Within the framework of the early period, the influence of the Second World War on the development of the concept of national character is shown and the reasons for the demand for research within the framework of the national character are indicated. In the later period of the school's activity (1946–1969), there is an increase in criticism from sociologists and psychologists not only of a national character, but also of “culture and personality” approach for the lack of empirical data. During this period, special attention is paid to the development of approaches that study the personal characteristics of representatives of nations. At the same time, a methodological basis for cross-cultural research is being formed and the groundwork for creating cross-cultural psychology is being formed. Throughout the article, two waves of criticism of the national character are presented, the result of which in the late 1960s was the denial of the existence of national character by a significant number of scientists as a phenomenon of national life, and “culture and personality” school experienced a crisis and fell into decay. Various assessments of the studies of that time on the development of national character within the framework of the “culture and personality” school are shown, as well as proposals for a way out of the methodological crisis.


1996 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-397
Author(s):  
Terri Gullickson ◽  
Pamela Ramser

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document