Talk:Emic and etic

message: "An "etic" account is a description of a behavior in terms familiar to the observer."   isn't in accordance with "making universal claims will rely on etic accounts." --> if the scientist rely on his/her own observations ("etic" according to the first sentence), s/he cannot make universal claims because he'll be acting on imposed etic (researcher imposing own perspective / emic on the subject) Towsonu2003 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed phrase 

message: I removed this
:Musicologist and semiologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez (1990: 61) describes an "'emic' approach" as "an analysis that reflects the viewpoint of the native informants" and an "'etic' approach" as "an analysis accomplished only by means of the methodological tools and categories of the researcher."
because it is unclear and can only confuse the reader.  Assuming Nattiez is correct in his definition of emic, the question is, how do we know what the emic view is?  In the social sciences, it is through the research of an investigator, using particular methodological tools.  Thus, his definition of etic does not serve to distinguish etic from emic.  In fact, both emic and etic together comprise methodological tools Nattiez refers to but only in relation to etic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nattiez 

message: I removed this fur further consideration:
:In cultural psychology, Emics are concepts that are unique to one culture and etics are concepts that can be found in most, if not all, cultures. Emic and Etic concepts are an example of the develpment of concepts for cultural and cross-cultural psychology during the post-1970 period.
What is "Cultural psychology?"  How do we know this view is significant?  Can we have a source?  Why is the definition so completely different from Pike? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the reference from Thomas Headland about diffusion of these terms into other disciplines...--Levalley (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultural psychology 

message: Can we have sources for this idiosyncratic use of the terms?  Evidence that this is widespread and not just one person's view? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please revise what you wrote so that it complies with our policies and guidelines, see WP:RS and WP:CS?  Please do not provide a link to a commercial site, please provide a proper citation and a proper reference.  You provide a good deal of information, please provide specific citations.  A textbook is a reliable source but it would be better if you had real books or articles you could cite as well.  Whose view is this?  Do all merketers use these terms, or just some?  Who in marketing invented these definitions? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  marketing? 

message: Wikifying and making sure citations are consistent, eliminating any red links, etc.  I'm trying.--Levalley (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The expansion is very good.  Thanks!  I have one concern: much of the tone of the expansion, especially in sentences like this - "There are no ethnographies (etic accounts) that do not rely on emic accounts, within anthropology" - seem to violate NPOV by suggesting that all anthropologists agree that the distinction between emic/etic is real/meaningful/useful/true.  I didn't think Chagnon used the distinction.  I am fairly sure Levi-Strauss did not.  It seems to me that the claims that all ethnography is etic, that all ethnographies include emic accounts, is POV and thus violates our NPOV policy.  Who is it that makes this claim?  We have to make clear that not all anthropologists agree. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  help needed 

message: This line, "There have been some famous mishaps when it comes to the etic approach, the most notable one being Euro Disney, which tried to imitate its American counterparts and failed," needs a citation. It is unclear how Disneyland Paris is meant to represent a failure of the Etic model. Is it meant to represent it as a cultural failure, a financial one, both? Who considers it a failure and why? How broadly is this view represented?
I post on the Disney forums so I know this example fairly well, which is why this line gives me pause. There are quite a few ways to judge the success or failure of Disneyland Paris, so anything referring to it needs to have some sort of reference to back up the conclusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.12.32 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etic example 

message: This sentence "The origin of the terms in linguistics, therefore, has come full circle with talk of a "syntax" of human culture, not dissimilar to Chomskyian views on syntax.[ref]" is oddly cited. The citation is to one of the works by Chomsky on syntax in language. He is not the one who made the claim that grammar is similar to human culture (at least not in the book cited). The reference should be to whoever is making this claim now. lxowle (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current use of the terms in anthropology 

message: I just removed this section because it violates some of our core policies, namely WP:V and WP:NOR.  There was no page number for the Abu Lughod citation, and it is not at all clear that she wrote anything about "emic" and "etic."  The rest of the passage was just editorialisng - what we ought to do.  That is not what encyclopedia articles are for. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms 

message: It would be nice to have pronunciations given, as well as derivations, for these two words.  One very fertile ground in which to hunt for examples of the difference between emic and etic might be wikipedia itself.  How does "reality" look to those who have "bought into" wikipedia culture, versus more "traditional" experts, or those who know reality primarily from a vocation?  
66.212.78.220 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Suggestions 

message: The article states that the distinction is about the source of data, but see http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm by James Lett for a discussion that explicitly rejects this view and argues it an epistemological distinction. 
I quote from there: 
"Despite that diversity and disagreement, it is possible to suggest a precise and practical set of definitions by focusing on emics and etics as epistemological concepts.  From that perspective, the terms “emic” and “etic” should be seen as adjectives modifying the implicit noun “knowledge.”  Accordingly, the distinction between emics and etics has everything to do with the nature of the knowledge that is claimed and nothing to do with the source of that knowledge (i.e., the manner by which it was obtained)."
 
"Emic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the members of the culture under study.  Am emic construct is correctly termed “emic” if and only if it is in accord with the perceptions and understandings deemed appropriate by the insider’s culture.  The validation of emic knowledge thus be- comes a matter of consensus--namely, the consensus of native informants, who must agree that the construct matches the shared perceptions that are characteristic of their culture.  Note that the particular research technique used in acquiring anthropological knowledge has nothing to do with the nature of that knowledge.  Emic knowledge can be obtained either through elicitation or through observation, because it is sometimes possible that objective ob- servers can infer native perceptions."
 
"Etic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the community of scientific observers.  An etic construct is correctly termed “etic” if and only if it is in accord with the epistemological principles deemed appropriate by science (i.e., etic constructs must be precise, logical, comprehensive, replicable, falsifiable, and observer independent).  The validation of etic knowledge thus becomes a matter of logical and empirical analysis--in particular, the logical analysis of whether the construct meets the standards of falsifiability, comprehensiveness, and logical consistency, and then the empirical analysis of whether or not the concept has been falsified and/or replicated.  Again, the particular research technique that is used in the acquisition of anthropological knowledge has no bearing on the nature of that knowledge.  Etic knowledge may be obtained at times through elicitation as well as observation, because it is entirely possible that native informants could possess scientifically valid knowledge."
Dan Suthers (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely, and glad that you posted that quote here. — ¾-10 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes James latt a reliable source?  The principle sources in the article, Pike and Goodenough, are from books published by major presses.  Pike coined the terms.  Goodenough is pretty notable.  How is Lett's view more significant than Pike or Goodenough?  This does not seem like a mainstream view, but one man's argument. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely true that Lett's thinking may be a divergence from that of Pike or Goodenough, but that doesn't make it irrelevant in the slightest. I don't see Dan's comment as saying "Lett's thinking needs to replace Pike's or Goodenough's in the article." I see it as "this viewpoint should also be included." This article can easily talk about multiple academics' views of the topic, and how they've evolved over decades. Some analogies to show what I mean: the article on psychoanalysis should definitely include the work of others besides Freud, and articles on generative grammar should definitely include the work of others besides Chomsky. DNA and Watson and Crick; quality assurance and W. Edwards Deming and Joseph M. Juran; relational databases and Edgar F. Codd. Personally I find Lett's points so obviously valid that it would be silly not to mention them here (e.g., "it is entirely possible that native informants could possess scientifically valid knowledge"). Hardly a fringe theory; more like the natural development of a scientific concept over decades by subsequent researchers. I also feel that Harris's view of the topic is entirely compatible with Lett's. To sum up, "room for all in this tent". — ¾-10 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not "room for all" in this tent.  We do not just add views we like.  We have encyclopedic standards.  It simply does not matter whether any one of us thinks his views are "obviously valid" or entirely "invalid." WP's policy is to present all significant views from reliable sources.  In addition to Pike and Goodenough the article also cites Harris, another significant view, and also from a reliable source, and that is why Harris's views are included, not because I or anyone else thinks they are "obviously valid."  I just haven't seen any evidence that this is a significant view, and a personal webpage is certainly not a reliable source.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. True that the idea won't uncontroversially belong here until it's published in a book or journal. That will happen eventually, if it hasn't already. I don't agree that a faculty page on a college's domain never qualifies as a WP:RS. But I agree with your main point above. — ¾-10 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: University web-pages I think count as self-published sources which are generally held to be non-notable.  besides, the point that this is an epistemological distinction was made by Mrvin hariss in several publications.  Now, I am no expert on Harris and don't have his book Cultural Materialism but if the point is that this is an epistemological distinction, that point has been made in a reliable source (a major publication) and one need only get that book from the library and read the relevant chapter (or chapters?) and add more to the account of Harris's view with appropriate referencing. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: About nature of knowledge not source of data

message: If the emic/etic dichotomy is based on (or is related to) the root dichotomy of phonetic/phonemic, then the connection to those terms ought to be explained. It is not made clear at all by the current article. Even something brief would raise the quality of the article.
:Good idea, go ahead! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  connection to phonemic and phonetic not made clear 

message: Did Margaret Mead use the terms "emic" and "etic", or has the section about her been an interpretation of her work, applying emic/etic? Pete unseth (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Mead -- relevant? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Emic and etic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130422004329/http://psychology.geckos.sis.org.cn:80/2011/10/using-one-or-more-examples-explain-emic-and-etic-concepts-akane/ to http://psychology.geckos.sis.org.cn/2011/10/using-one-or-more-examples-explain-emic-and-etic-concepts-akane/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emic and etic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024113220/http://www.simplypsychology.org/authoritarian-personality.html to http://www.simplypsychology.org/authoritarian-personality.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You can't cite a source like that without including the full bibliographical information.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are "Morris et al."?