Metodološki problemi komparativnih istraživanja kultura Ričarda Nizbeta
Methodological issues in the comparative research of culture by Richard Nisbett
Апстракт
Rezultati studija međukulturnih i međunacionalnih razlika decenijama pronalaze primenu u sferi upravljanja i poslovanja, dok se u naučnim krugovima brojnih disciplina čije se metode primenjuju u ovim multidisciplinarnim analizama često raspravlja o validnosti prikazanih procesa istraživanja i zaključivanja. Oslanjajući se na objavljene kritičke radove, pre svega na kritiku nacionalnih modela Gerta Hofstedea (Geert Hofstede), u ovom radu razmatramo metodološke karakteristike komparativnih psiholoških istraživanja Ričarda Nizbeta (Richard Nisbett) predstavljenih u studiji The Geography of Thought - How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why. Razmatramo tri aspekta metodologije istraživanja: 1. ključne pretpostavke na kojima je izgrađena hipoteza - definiciju kulture/nacije, poimanje prirode razmišljanja i percepciju veze između pripadnosti kulturi i načina razmišljanja; 2. način uzorkovanja - veličinu uzorka i kriterijume odabira subjekata; i 3. način zaključivanja - opravdano...st generalizacije i tumačenja korelacija. Sumirajući metodološke probleme analiziranih istraživanja, razmatramo moguće načine njihovog rešavanja u budućim studijama.
The results of studies of cultural and national differences have been applied in the area of management and business for decades, but there are still significant debates among researchers about the scientific validity of such research. Based on the existing body of critical analyses, especially the critique of Geert Hofstede's national models, we consider certain methodological characteristics of the comparative psychological research of Richard Nisbett presented in his study entitled The Geography of Thought - How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why. We focus on three main areas: 1. key underlying assumptions of the hypothesis - definition of culture/nation, perception of the nature of cognition and the relation between cultural heritage and cognition; 2. sampling - sample size and criteria for selecting subjects; and 3. validity of conclusions - generalization and interpretation of correlations. The main methodological problems observed in this paper are: an unjustifie...d deterministic and causal perception of culture and the relationship between culture and cognition; a simplified perception of culture as homogenous and territorially unique; tracking only one variable; imprecise and inconsistent definition of populations; unspecified sample sizes and statistical relevance; lack of interpretation in a contemporary context. We believe that most issues could be overcome by conducting pilot studies, in order to justify the initial assumptions in the hypothesis and sampling. As for the lack of information, we believe it is important to include such data even in scientific publications for a wider audience, especially in the case of potentially controversial topics.
Кључне речи:
Richard Nisbett / metodologija / kulturološke razlike / komparativna istraživanjaИзвор:
Анали Филолошког факултета, 2012, 24, 1, 113-124Издавач:
- Београд : Филолошки факултет
Институција/група
Filološki fakultet / Faculty of PhilologyTY - JOUR AU - Gledić, Jelena PY - 2012 UR - https://repff.fil.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/740 AB - Rezultati studija međukulturnih i međunacionalnih razlika decenijama pronalaze primenu u sferi upravljanja i poslovanja, dok se u naučnim krugovima brojnih disciplina čije se metode primenjuju u ovim multidisciplinarnim analizama često raspravlja o validnosti prikazanih procesa istraživanja i zaključivanja. Oslanjajući se na objavljene kritičke radove, pre svega na kritiku nacionalnih modela Gerta Hofstedea (Geert Hofstede), u ovom radu razmatramo metodološke karakteristike komparativnih psiholoških istraživanja Ričarda Nizbeta (Richard Nisbett) predstavljenih u studiji The Geography of Thought - How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why. Razmatramo tri aspekta metodologije istraživanja: 1. ključne pretpostavke na kojima je izgrađena hipoteza - definiciju kulture/nacije, poimanje prirode razmišljanja i percepciju veze između pripadnosti kulturi i načina razmišljanja; 2. način uzorkovanja - veličinu uzorka i kriterijume odabira subjekata; i 3. način zaključivanja - opravdanost generalizacije i tumačenja korelacija. Sumirajući metodološke probleme analiziranih istraživanja, razmatramo moguće načine njihovog rešavanja u budućim studijama. AB - The results of studies of cultural and national differences have been applied in the area of management and business for decades, but there are still significant debates among researchers about the scientific validity of such research. Based on the existing body of critical analyses, especially the critique of Geert Hofstede's national models, we consider certain methodological characteristics of the comparative psychological research of Richard Nisbett presented in his study entitled The Geography of Thought - How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why. We focus on three main areas: 1. key underlying assumptions of the hypothesis - definition of culture/nation, perception of the nature of cognition and the relation between cultural heritage and cognition; 2. sampling - sample size and criteria for selecting subjects; and 3. validity of conclusions - generalization and interpretation of correlations. The main methodological problems observed in this paper are: an unjustified deterministic and causal perception of culture and the relationship between culture and cognition; a simplified perception of culture as homogenous and territorially unique; tracking only one variable; imprecise and inconsistent definition of populations; unspecified sample sizes and statistical relevance; lack of interpretation in a contemporary context. We believe that most issues could be overcome by conducting pilot studies, in order to justify the initial assumptions in the hypothesis and sampling. As for the lack of information, we believe it is important to include such data even in scientific publications for a wider audience, especially in the case of potentially controversial topics. PB - Београд : Филолошки факултет T2 - Анали Филолошког факултета T1 - Metodološki problemi komparativnih istraživanja kultura Ričarda Nizbeta T1 - Methodological issues in the comparative research of culture by Richard Nisbett EP - 124 IS - 1 SP - 113 VL - 24 UR - conv_788 ER -
@article{ author = "Gledić, Jelena", year = "2012", abstract = "Rezultati studija međukulturnih i međunacionalnih razlika decenijama pronalaze primenu u sferi upravljanja i poslovanja, dok se u naučnim krugovima brojnih disciplina čije se metode primenjuju u ovim multidisciplinarnim analizama često raspravlja o validnosti prikazanih procesa istraživanja i zaključivanja. Oslanjajući se na objavljene kritičke radove, pre svega na kritiku nacionalnih modela Gerta Hofstedea (Geert Hofstede), u ovom radu razmatramo metodološke karakteristike komparativnih psiholoških istraživanja Ričarda Nizbeta (Richard Nisbett) predstavljenih u studiji The Geography of Thought - How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why. Razmatramo tri aspekta metodologije istraživanja: 1. ključne pretpostavke na kojima je izgrađena hipoteza - definiciju kulture/nacije, poimanje prirode razmišljanja i percepciju veze između pripadnosti kulturi i načina razmišljanja; 2. način uzorkovanja - veličinu uzorka i kriterijume odabira subjekata; i 3. način zaključivanja - opravdanost generalizacije i tumačenja korelacija. Sumirajući metodološke probleme analiziranih istraživanja, razmatramo moguće načine njihovog rešavanja u budućim studijama., The results of studies of cultural and national differences have been applied in the area of management and business for decades, but there are still significant debates among researchers about the scientific validity of such research. Based on the existing body of critical analyses, especially the critique of Geert Hofstede's national models, we consider certain methodological characteristics of the comparative psychological research of Richard Nisbett presented in his study entitled The Geography of Thought - How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why. We focus on three main areas: 1. key underlying assumptions of the hypothesis - definition of culture/nation, perception of the nature of cognition and the relation between cultural heritage and cognition; 2. sampling - sample size and criteria for selecting subjects; and 3. validity of conclusions - generalization and interpretation of correlations. The main methodological problems observed in this paper are: an unjustified deterministic and causal perception of culture and the relationship between culture and cognition; a simplified perception of culture as homogenous and territorially unique; tracking only one variable; imprecise and inconsistent definition of populations; unspecified sample sizes and statistical relevance; lack of interpretation in a contemporary context. We believe that most issues could be overcome by conducting pilot studies, in order to justify the initial assumptions in the hypothesis and sampling. As for the lack of information, we believe it is important to include such data even in scientific publications for a wider audience, especially in the case of potentially controversial topics.", publisher = "Београд : Филолошки факултет", journal = "Анали Филолошког факултета", title = "Metodološki problemi komparativnih istraživanja kultura Ričarda Nizbeta, Methodological issues in the comparative research of culture by Richard Nisbett", pages = "124-113", number = "1", volume = "24", url = "conv_788" }
Gledić, J.. (2012). Metodološki problemi komparativnih istraživanja kultura Ričarda Nizbeta. in Анали Филолошког факултета Београд : Филолошки факултет., 24(1), 113-124. conv_788
Gledić J. Metodološki problemi komparativnih istraživanja kultura Ričarda Nizbeta. in Анали Филолошког факултета. 2012;24(1):113-124. conv_788 .
Gledić, Jelena, "Metodološki problemi komparativnih istraživanja kultura Ričarda Nizbeta" in Анали Филолошког факултета, 24, no. 1 (2012):113-124, conv_788 .