Synergy in Understanding Culture and Justice: Emic and Etic Integration | Exams Literature

^ Academy ol Maaagem»nt Review

1999,

Vol. 24. No. 1781-796.

VIEWS FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE:

INTEGRATING EMIC AND ETIC INSIGHTS

ABOUT CULTURE AND lUSTICE JUDGMENT

MICHAEL W. MORRIS

Stanford University

KWOK LEUNG

Chinese University of Hong Kong

DANIEL AMES

University of California at Berkeley

BRIAN LICKEL

University of California at Santa Barbara

We analyze forms ol synergy between emic and etic approaches to research on culture

and cognition. Drawing on the justice judgment literature, we describe dynamics

through which the two approaches stimulate each other's progress. Moreover, we

delineate ways in which integrative emic/etic Irameworks overcome limitations of

narrower frameworks in modeling culture and cognition. Finally, we identify advan-

tages of integrative frameworks in guiding responses to the diverse justice sensitiv-

ities in international organiiKations.

In the study of cognition in organizations, and

in social science more broadly, there are two

long-standing approaches to understanding the

role of culture: (1) the inside perspective of eth-

nographers, who strive to describe a particular

culture in its own terms, and (2) the outside per-

spective of comparativist researchers, who at-

tempt to describe differences across cultures in

terms of a general, external standard. Pike (1967)

designates these approaches the emic and etic

perspectives, respectively, by analogy to two

approaches to language: phonemic analysis of

the units of meaning, which reveals the unique

structure of a particular language, and phonetic

analysis of units of sound, which affords com-

parisons among languages. The emic and etic

perspectives are often seen as being at

odds—as incommensurable paradigms. In this

article we argue that these two approaches to

culture are complementary. Drawing on the jus-

tice judgment literature, we delineate forms of

synergy between the two research perspectives

that go beyond those identified previously (e.g.,

Berry, 1990; Brett, Tinsley, lanssens, Barsness, &

Lytle, 1997). We first analyze ways in which emic

and etic research programs have stimulated

each other's progress. Then we analyze advan-

tages of frameworks integrating emic and etic

accounts—both as middle-range theories of cul-

ture and cognition and as applied guides to

responding to diverse justice concerns in inter-

national organizations.

EMIC AND ETIC PERSPECTIVES

The emic and etic perspectives have equally

long pedigrees in social science. The emic or

inside perspective follows in the tradition of

psychological studies of folk beliefs (Wundt,

1888) and in cultural anthropologists' striving to

understand culture from "the native's point of

view" (Malinowski, 1922). The etic or outside per-

spective follows in the tradition of behaviorist

psychology (Skinner, 1938) and anthropological

approaches that link cultural practices to exter-

nal,

antecedent factors, such as economic or

ecological conditions, that may not be salient to

cultural insiders (Harris, 1979).

The divide between these two approaches

persists in contemporary scholarship on culture:

in anthropology, between interpretivists (Geertz,

1976,

1983) and comparativists (Munroe & Mun-

roe,

1991), and in psychology, between cultural

psychologists (Shweder, 1991) and cross-cultural

781

Exhibit B.08i

Partial preview of the text

Download Synergy in Understanding Culture and Justice: Emic and Etic Integration and more Exams Literature in PDF only on Docsity!

^ Academy ol Maaagem»nt Review 1999, Vol. 24. No. 1781-796.

VIEWS FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE:

INTEGRATING EMIC AND ETIC INSIGHTS

ABOUT CULTURE AND lUSTICE JUDGMENT

MICHAEL W. MORRIS

Stanford University

KWOK LEUNG Chinese University of Hong Kong

DANIEL AMES University of California at Berkeley

BRIAN LICKEL University of California at Santa Barbara

We analyze forms ol synergy between emic and etic approaches to research on culture and cognition. Drawing on the justice judgment literature, we describe dynamics through which the two approaches stimulate each other's progress. Moreover, we delineate ways in which integrative emic/etic Irameworks overcome limitations of narrower frameworks in modeling culture and cognition. Finally, we identify advan- tages of integrative frameworks in guiding responses to the diverse justice sensitiv- ities in international organiiKations.

In the study of cognition in organizations, and in social science more broadly, there are two long-standing approaches to understanding the role of culture: (1) the inside perspective of eth- nographers, who strive to describe a particular culture in its own terms, and (2) the outside per- spective of comparativist researchers, who at- tempt to describe differences across cultures in terms of a general, external standard. Pike (1967) designates these approaches the emic and etic perspectives, respectively, by analogy to two approaches to language: phonemic analysis of the units of meaning, which reveals the unique structure of a particular language, and phonetic analysis of units of sound, which affords com- parisons among languages. The emic and etic perspectives are often seen a s being at odds—as incommensurable paradigms. In this article we argue that these two approaches to culture are complementary. Drawing on the jus- tice judgment literature, we delineate forms of synergy between the two research perspectives that go beyond those identified previously (e.g., Berry, 1990; Brett, Tinsley, lanssens, Barsness, & Lytle, 1997). We first analyze ways in which emic and etic research programs have stimulated each other's progress. Then we analyze advan-

tages of frameworks integrating emic and etic accounts—both as middle-range theories of cul- ture and cognition and as applied guides to responding to diverse justice concerns in inter- national organizations.

EMIC AND ETIC PERSPECTIVES

The emic and etic perspectives have equally long pedigrees in social science. The emic or inside perspective follows in the tradition of psychological studies of folk beliefs (Wundt,

and in cultural anthropologists' striving to understand culture from "the native's point of view" (Malinowski, 1922). The etic or outside per- spective follows in the tradition of behaviorist psychology (Skinner, 1938) and anthropological approaches that link cultural practices to exter- nal, antecedent factors, such as economic or ecological conditions, that may not be salient to cultural insiders (Harris, 1979). The divide between these two approaches persists in contemporary scholarship on culture: in anthropology, between interpretivists (Geertz, 1976, 1983) and comparativists (Munroe & Mun- roe, 1991), and in psychology, between cultural psychologists (Shweder, 1991) and cross-cultural

781

782 Academy oi Management Review^ October

psychologists (Smith & Bond, 1998). In the liter- ature on international differences in organiza- tions, the divide is manifest in the contrast be- tween classic studies based on fieldwork in a single culture (Rohlen, 1974), as opposed to sur- veys across many {Hofstede, 1980). Likewise, in the large body of literature on organizational culture, there is a divide between researchers employing ethnographic methods (Gregory, 1983; Van Maanen, 1988) and those who favor comparative survey research (Schneider, 1990). The conceptual assumptions with which Pike (1967) defined the emic and etic dichotomy are summarized in Table 1. Emic accounts describe thoughts and actions primarily in terms of the actors' self-understanding—terms that are often culturally and historically bound. For example, emic studies of justice perceptions in North American organizations today might center on such constructs as "age-ism" and nondiscrlmi- nation, whereas studies of Japanese workplaces might be couched in qualitatively different con- structs, such as amae and gimu (see Kashima & Callan, 1998). In contrast, etic models describe phenomena in constructs that apply across cul- tures. For example, a country's level on the cul- tural dimension of individualism-collectivism might be linked to the prevalence with which managers reason about justice in terms of the equity rule (i.e., rewards received should be pro- portional to contributions). Along with differing constructs, emic and etic researchers tend to have differing assumptions about culture. Emic researchers tend to assume that a culture is best understood as an intercon- nected whole or system, whereas etic research- ers are more likely to isolate particular compo- nents of culture and state hypotheses about their distinct antecedents and consequences. Al- though, of course, the emic/etic contrast is, in practice, a continuum, this dichotomy has played a central role in the metatheory debates in many social science disciplines (see Head- land, Pike, & Harris, 1990).'

' Some scholars have used the terms emic and etic in ways that depart irom Pike's definitions (see Headland et al.. 1990). A narrower usage refers to the contrast between cul- ture-specific versus culture-general constructs. This misses the essence of the distinction, because culture-specific con- structs do not necessarily resonate with cultural insiders' self-understandings, A broader usage refers to the underly- ing interests of understanding versus control (Habermas,

Etic and emic approaches traditionally have been associated with differing research meth- ods. As Table 1 summarizes, methods in emic research are more likely to involve sustained, wide-ranging observation of a single cultural group. In classical fieldwork, for example, an ethnographer immerses him or herself in a set- ting, developing relationships with informants and taking on social roles (e.g., Geertz, 1983; Kondo, 1990). Yet, emic description also can be pursued in more structured programs of inter- view and observation (e.g., Goodenough, 1970). Methods in etic research are more likely to involve brief, structured observations of several cultural groups. A key feature of etic methods is that observations are made in a parallel manner across differing settings. For instance, matched samples of employees in many different coun- tries may be surveyed to uncover dimensions of cross-national variation in values and attitudes (e.g., Hofstede, 1980), or they may be assigned to experimental conditions in order to test the mod- erating influence of cultural setting on the rela- tion among other variables (e.g., Earley, 1989). In sum, although the two perspectives are defined in terms of theory, rather than method, the per- spectives lend themselves to differing sets of methods.^ Given the differences between emic and etic approaches to culture, it is not surprising that researchers taking each perspective have ques- tioned the utility of integrating insights from the other tradition. A common tendency is to dismiss insights from the other perspective based on perceived conceptual or methodological weak- nesses (see reviews of this tendency in particu- lar research areas by Harris, 1979, and Martin & Frost, 1998). On one side, emic accounts based on ethnographic observation are often dis- counted on the basis of inconsistency across

1971). Although there may be a correlation in some research areas between the emic versus etic perspective and orien- tations toward control (e.g., in studies of "organizational culture"; Martin & Frost, 1996), there is no necessary link and no strong correlation in the literature on national culture— our focus. ^The association between perspectives and methods is not absolute. Sometimes, in emic investigations of indige- nous constructs, data are collected with survey methods and analyzed with quantitative techniques (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Yang, 1986). Likewise, ethnographic observation and qualitative data are sometimes used to support arguments from an etic perspective (Nelsen & Barley, 1997: Sutton, 1994).

Synergy in Understanding Culture and Justice: Emic and Etic Integration, Exams of Literature

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Synergy in Understanding Culture and Justice: Emic and Etic Integration and more Exams Literature in PDF only on Docsity!

VIEWS FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE:

INTEGRATING EMIC AND ETIC INSIGHTS

ABOUT CULTURE AND lUSTICE JUDGMENT

MICHAEL W. MORRIS

EMIC AND ETIC PERSPECTIVES