David Yau Fai Ho

Indigenous Psychologies Asian Perspectives

To clarify the arguments for and against indigenization, the author constructs a metatheory of cross-cultural comparisons between theories, theorists, and cultures. This metatheory makes clear that cross-cultural psychology encompasses both indigenous and exotic theories; accordingly, indigenous psychologies may be regarded as a subdomain of cross-cultural psychology. The case for indigenization rests on acknowledging a critical point: The conceptualization of psychological phenomena is a psychological phenomenon in itself and is, therefore, subject to investigation. Illustrations are provided on how indigenous theorizing derived from Filipino and Confucian heritage cultures makes a conceptual and methodological contribution. To go beyond indigenization, methodological relationalism is explicated as a conceptual framework originating from Asia toward the realization of a universal psychology.

Guilt, Shame and Embarrassment: Revelations of Face and Self

The authors derive evidence on guilt, shame and embarrassment from (a) Chinese and Japanese cultural data on expressions of emotion, (b) empirical studies of losing face, and (c) multilingual-multicultural clinical experiences. A scheme that has transcultural applicability is proposed for differentiating guilt, shame and embarrassment. The evidence supports the conclusion that these three emotions are marked by qualitatively different attributes. Probes into emotional life serve to reveal aspects of face and self. Face defined both as self presented to others, and as self perceived by others, mirrors the duality of self. Two methodological issues are discussed: what is meant by ‘private experience’; and the need for an extended conception of selfhood.

Collective Representations As a Metaconstruct: An Analysis Based on Methodological Relationalism

The authors discem an emerging paradigmatic shift in psychology: from methodological individualism to methodological relationalism, which asserts that social behavior invariably takes place in relational contexts, regardless of socioeconomic or cultural variations. Informed by methodological relationalism, we revisit the debate over collective representations, regarded as a metaconstruct designating collective representations as members of a class of constructs. This class may be restricted to constructs designating shared meanings and reality (e.g. knowledge, beliefs and values) among a collectivity of individuals. The article is then devoted to a clarification of what is meant by shared meanings and reality and collectivity. A study of two particular collective representations, individualism and collectivism, follows. We present a method for obtaining variant estimates of three variables: (a) collective sharing, (b) representations of generalized others, and (c) collective nonconformity. Having outlined a procedure for approximating collective representations through a summation of individual representations, we pose a challenge to methodological holists to be more explicit in delineating the emergent properties of collective representations.

The Dialogical Self: Converging East–West Constructions

Prompted by the work of Hermans, we attempt to construct the dialogical self informed by Eastern traditions. To describe dialogical phenomenology, we turn to three resources: (a) Chinese intellectual traditions, (b) dreams and (c) daily life. Dialogical attributes are described: the dialogical self is capable of polyvocality, but also of achieving unity with diversity; metacognition is vital to its development. We attempt to clarify the relation between dialogics and dialectics: The dialogical self is capable of taking an active part in the interaction between inner and outer dialectics, and hence of participating in its own creation and transformation. Finally, we illustrate how the study of dialogical movements may be operationalized.

Review Essay: Restoring Quality to Qualitative Research

Seale, Gobo, Gubrium, and Silverman (2004) have made a serious indictment: too often the approach valued by qualitative researchers produces ‘low quality qualitative research and research results that are quite stereotypical and close to common sense’ (p. 2). If so, how do qualitative researchers respond, identify problems, and safeguard quality control in qualitative research? To answer this question, it is essential to review The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), because of its widely regarded status as an authoritative, comprehensive text in the field.