The emic and etic debate

I have written about this pair of research approaches before (here), but felt that there might be a bit more to say. 

These terms relate to two opposite approaches used in field research to assist us in gathering our data. We can either take an emic approach "from the perspective of the individual within a particular social group" or an etic approach "from the observations and interpretations of the outside researcher" (Carducci & Nave, 2020, p. 14). The terms arise from the work of "Kenneth Pike (1954) to describe phonetic similarities and differences in language, but has since been transformed to describe various culturally specific or universal aspects of human behavior" (Carducci & Nave, 2020, p. 14).

"Within cross‐cultural psychology the term etic is used to describe universal psychological truths that are fixed across all cultures. Emic refers to the cultural differences of psychological aspects that are specific to particular cultures. This approach has led to extensive testing of the tools researchers use when gathering data within and between cultures. Harry Triandis was an early proponent of testing the validity and reliability of psychological measures for clear and identifiable differences (Triandis & Marin, 1983). His work found that scales designed for a specific culture were more likely to find cultural differences than those that were created with the assistance of members of all of the cultures being studied. Research in this area has highlighted the importance of creating equivalent measures in order to determine which psychological principles can be considered universal, and which should be considered culturally specific" (Carducci & Nave, 2020, p. 14).

Further clarification can be found when considering the phenomena we are researching:

"The emic approach explores Indigenous psychological phenomena (i.e. personality) and the extent to which it is related to the culture in question. The emphasis is on the singular culture and the cultural context of the psychological processes, the relativist tradition. The etic approach attempts to understand behavior and relationships across cultures so as to delineate universal patterns of behavior (i.e. personality), much like the structural universalist paradigm advocates. Etic inquiries espouse Western research traditions and the utility of Western models and positivistic methods in the study of culture and personality. Consequently, etic studies are mainly concerned with the trait approach to the understanding of culture and personality" (Carducci & Nave, 2020, p. 97).

Both approaches have benefits and limitations, and perhaps the 'debate' is best explored as if it were a continuum. There is no reason why we cannot take a mixed methods approach in order to more fully explore our actual and potential biases and limitations. 

Lastly, in career practice we need to remember that many assessments "which are often considered to be culture‐free, actually contain bias or take an emic approach to culture" (Carducci & Nave, 2020, p. 146).

Sam

References:

Carducci, B. J., & Nave, C. S. (2020). The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, Personality Processes and Individuals Differences. John Wiley & Sons.