Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology*

Transcription

1 Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2000) 3: Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology* Kuo-Shu Yang Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, and Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University Comprehensive comparison and conceptual analysis of cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies in terms of their aims and theoretical and methodological perspectives lead to the conclusion that the first two are special cases of the third. Two basic types of indigenous psychology are distinguished on the basis of conceptual analysis: monocultural indigenous psychologies (including monocultural cultural psychologies) and cross-cultural indigenous psychologies (including both cross-cultural psychology and cross-cultural cultural psychology). Corresponding to these two types of indigenous psychology are two basic ways to conduct indigenous research, namely, the monocultural indigenous approach and the cross-cultural indigenous approach. Both approaches require achievement of the condition of indigenous compatibility, which stresses the sufficient congruity of the researcher s theory, methods, and results with the studied psychological or behavioral phenomenon and/or its sociocultural context. Finally, several ways to integrate research findings obtained by the monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches are delineated and discussed with respect to their function in creating an indigenously derived global psychology. Over the past several decades there has been an important revolutionary development in the field of psychology arising in parallel to the cognitive revolution of the 1960s. Although not related to the politically oriented Cultural Revolution, which occurred in China from 1966 to 1977, it may also be termed the cultural revolution. The general purpose of this academic cultural revolution has been to a further understanding of psychological functioning by observing the formation, structures, and processes of mind and behavior in diverse cultural contexts. Under this general trend, various groups of researchers have been relating culture to mind and behavior with a multitude of specific goals, theoretical stances, and methodological perspectives. As a result, three separate culture-related psychologies have arisen: cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous. Each has its own intellectual ancestors and traditions and a unique history of development (Jahoda & Krewer, 1997; Kim, 1990; Sinha, 1997). This paper consists of three main parts. First, cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies are comprehensively compared and an argument is offered for the unification of all three psychologies under the heading of indigenous psychology. Second, the two

2 242 Kuo-Shu Yang different types of indigenous approaches, monocultural and cross-cultural, are formally proposed and discussed. Finally, the ways of deriving a balanced, genuine global psychology from indigenous psychologies are systematically explored and relevant recommendations are offered. Comparison and unification of cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies This section consists of two parts. In the first part, the three types of psychology are compared. In the second, the argument for unification of these three types under the category of indigenous psychology is presented. Comparison of the three psychologies Of the three, cross-cultural psychology is by far the most prominent. As a subdiscipline of mainstream psychology (or more accurately, as a branch of personality, social, and cognitive psychology), cross-cultural psychology was institutionalized during the 1960s (Klineberg, 1980; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990) as a means of testing Western-originated theories in other cultures. It has been defined as the study of similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning in various cultural and ethnic groups; of the relationship between psychological variables and sociocultural, ecological, and biological variables; and of current changes in these variables (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992, p. 2). From this and other definitions, three related goals for cross-cultural psychology have been identified: testing the generality of existing psychological knowledge and theories (most originating in Western cultures) in other (usually non-western) cultures (the transport and test goal), exploring other cultures in order to discover psychological variations that are not covered in existing knowledge and theories (the exploration and discovery goal), and, ultimately, generating a universal psychology by assembling and integrating the results obtained from the first two goals (the integration goal) (Berry & Dasen, 1974; Berry et al., 1992). As a subdiscipline of mainstream psychology, cross-cultural psychology adopts natural science as its theoretical and methodological model. The main purpose of cross-cultural psychology is to search for universal laws of psychological functioning applicable to people in diverse societies through use of a scientific, positivistic paradigm similar to that used in the natural sciences. Under this model, various theoretical orientations and methodological perspectives have been discussed and formulated in the literature of cross-cultural psychology (e.g., Berry, 1976; Berry et al. 1992; Brislin, 1983; Greenfield, 1997; Jahoda, 1992; Lonner, 1980; Lonner & Adamopaulas, 1997; Poortinga, 1997; Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998; Triandis, 1978; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). For the sake of comparison, the major theoretical and methodological features are summarized in the left column of Table 1. Following a different course, cultural psychology has grown not only out of dissatisfaction with cross-cultural psychology (Cole, 1995; Eckensberger, 1995), but also out of anthropologists desire to understand the person (Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Shweder & Sullivan, 1990). This is why the methodology of cultural psychology reflects the integration of psychology and anthropology, as well as active dialogue between the two fields (Greenfield, 1997, p. 306). Or, to be more specific, cultural psychology has tried to synthesize, or at least combine, some of the virtues of general psychology, cross-cultural

3 Two indigenous approaches 243 psychology, psychological anthropology, and ethnopsychology, while seeking to disencumber itself of their vices (Shweder, 1990, p. 17). Cultural psychology is still far from a unitary theoretical system (Jahoda & Krewer, 1997; Lucariello, 1995). Various cultural psychologists have conceptualized their discipline by emphasizing different aspects of their theoretical and methodological endeavor. R.A. Shweder is the cultural psychologist who has been most enthusiastic about producing definitions for this renewed field. He has defined cultural psychology as the study of the way cultural traditions and social practices regulate, express, transform, and permute the human psyche, resulting less in psychic unity for humankind than in ethnic divergences in mind, self, and emotion (Shweder, 1990, p.1), and as the study of the way culture and psyche make each other up, resulting in the formation of the custom complex, which is a unit of analysis for characterizing the way multiple, diverse psychologies emerge out of the abstract potentialities of a universal mind (Shweder et al., in press, p.13). Other theorists have given definitions quite different from Shweder s. Thus Boesch (1991) viewed cultural psychology as the study of human behavior or action in its specific cultural coining, or within its systemic anchoring, with a constellation-orientation rather than a variableorientation. Berry (1994) considered cultural psychology as the attempt to understand individual psychological functioning in the cultural context in which it developed (p. 120). In Shweder s own words, the aim for cultural psychology is to imaginatively conceive of subject-dependent objects (intentional worlds) and object-dependent subjects (intentional persons) interpenetrating each other s identities or setting the conditions for each other s existence and development, while jointly undergoing change through social interaction (Shweder, 1990, p.25). In other words, cultural psychologists attempt to study the mentality-laden cultural practices developed, promoted, enacted, and enforced by the I s (the subjects, agents, individuals, and selves) of particular groups, the practice-related mental states that the I s think, feel, value, and use to carry out the normal practices of their society, as well as the mutually constitutive interactions between the two (Shweder, 1990; Shweder et al., in press). Cultural psychologists generally reject natural science as their theoretical and methodological model in favor of the status of a human or cultural science requiring sympathetic understanding. Although cultural psychologists using a human science model do not deny the assumption of psychic unity in psychological functioning or the possibility of identifying universal or pan-human characteristics, they do tend to question whether a focus on such universals is theoretically fruitful or productive (Miller, 1997; Shweder, 1990). Without enthusiasm in the search for universals, cultural psychologists prefer to set the developing of culture-bound knowledge systems by constructing theories within as well as across specific cultures as the primary goal for cultural psychology. With these and other basic ideas in mind, leading cultural psychologists such as Boesch (1991), Cole (1995), Eckensberger (1995), Edwards (1995), Greenfield (1997), Miller (1997), Ratner (1997), and Shweder (1990; Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Shweder & Sullivan, 1990) have proposed or advocated specific views on various theoretical and methodological issues. Their major views corresponding to those of cross-cultural psychology are listed in the middle column of Table 1. Finally, as pointed out by Enriquez (1989, 1990), Kim and Berry (1993b), Sinha (1993, 1997), and Yang (1993, 1999), indigenization of psychological research has become an academic movement among psychologists and scholars in related disciplines in several developing and developed societies (especially non-western ones). This indigenization movement, which reflects a worldwide concern for making psychological knowledge

4 244 Kuo-Shu Yang Table 1. Comparison of cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychology Cross-cultural psychology Cultural psychology Indigenous psychology A. Aim, scope, and focus 1. To generate a universal psychology by testing, broadening, and integrating psychological theories in diverse cultural contexts. 2. A subdiscipline of mainstream psychology. 3. Study of psychological and behavioral similarities is emphasized over differences. B. Theoretical orientations 1. To generate a culture-bound knowledge system by developing theories within and across specific cultures. 2. A psychology and anthropology hybrid field. 3. Study of psychological and behavioral differences is emphasized over similarities. 1. To generate monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous psychologies and then a universal psychology if possible. 2. Includes both cross-cultural and cultural psychologies as well as other fields of mainstream and non-mainstream psychologies. 3. No such preference. 4. Natural science model. 4. Human or cultural science model. 5. Behavioral manifestations are signs of universal psychological processes. 6. Culture and behavior (or mind) considered distinguishable from each other in terms of independent vs. dependent variable. 7. Psychological and behavioral processes and structures are separate, discrete, or even isolated entities. 8. Context-free definitions of psychological and behavioral concepts preferred. 9. Universal explanations more important than local explanations. 5. Behavioral manifestations have an existence of their own. 6. Culture and behavior (or mind) considered mutually constitutive and indistinguishable from each other. 7. Psychological and behavioral processes and structures are constellations. 8. Context-bound definitions of psychological and behavioral concepts preferred. 9. Local explanations more important than universal explanations. 4. Both models acceptable. 5. Both views acceptable. 6. Both views acceptable. 7. Both views acceptable. 8. Both kinds of definitions acceptable. 9. Both kinds of explanations equally important. C. Methodological perspectives 10. Cross-cultural comparison. 10. Monocultural and crosscultural analysis. 11. Cross-cultural equivalence of concept, construct, or measure assumed as a basis of comparison. 10. Monocultural and crosscultural analysis. 11. No such assumption made. 11. Such assumption either made or not, depending upon the researcher s theoretical and methodological perspectives. 12. Etic strategy advocated. 12. Emic strategy advocated. 12. Both monocultural emic and cross-cultural etic strategies advocated.

5 Two indigenous approaches 245 Table 1. (Continued) 13. Quantitative (especially experimental and psychometric) methods preferred. 14. Separable variables are the appropriate level of analysis. 15. Researcher viewed as observer with little or no impact on the observed phenomenon. 16. Concepts mainly determined by researchers as experts from their own academic points of view. 17. Representative sample of subjects or respondents drawn as target persons for measurement or assessment. 18. Subjects or respondents treated as sources of information. 13. Qualitative and interpretive (descriptive, narrative, discursive, and ethnographic) methods preferred. 14. Cultural systems in which behavior occurs are the appropriate level of analysis. 15. Researcher viewed as observer with impact on the observed phenomenon. 16. Concepts mainly determined by actors as intentional agents with the native point of view. 17. Typical cases or knowledgable informants relied upon as target persons for interview and observation. 18. Typical cases or knowledgeable informants treated as objects of friendly interaction and observation. 13. Both kinds of methods acceptable. 14. Both levels of analysis acceptable. 15. Both views acceptable. 16. Concepts determined either by the researcher or by the actor. 17. Both kinds of target persons acceptable. 18. Both acceptable. culturally appropriate (Sinha, 1997), is a direct reaction to the time-honored domination of Western (especially American) mainstream psychology and of Western-oriented crosscultural psychology as applied to non-western societies (Enriquez, 1989, 1990, 1993; Sinha, 1981, 1993, 1997; Yang, 1982, 1993, 1997a). It represents non-western psychologists selfreflective realization that they have been completely wrong in regarding North-American psychology, which Berry et al. (1992) and Triandis (1997) considered an indigenous psychology, as the universal human psychology. In this respect, Triandis (1997) is right when he says that the current (world) psychology is one of the indigenous psychologies the one from the West. Various theorists have defined indigenous psychology in different ways. Enriquez (1990) regarded indigenous psychology as a system of psychological thought and practice rooted in a particular cultural tradition. Kim and Berry (1993a) defined indigenous psychology as the scientific study of human behavior (or mind) that is native, that is not transported from other regions, and that is designed for its people (p. 2). For Berry et al. (1992), it is a behavioral science that matches the sociocultural realities of one s own society (p. 381). Ho (1998) viewed indigenous psychology as the study of human behavior and mental processes within a cultural context that relies on values, concepts, belief systems, methodologies, and other resources indigenous to the specific ethnic or cultural group under investigation (p. 93). Yang (1993, 1997b) defined it as an evolving system of psychological knowledge based on scientific research that is sufficiently compatible with the studied phenomena and their ecological, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts. No matter how these psychologists define indigenous psychology, the definitions all express the same basic goal of developing a scientific knowledge system that

6 246 Kuo-Shu Yang effectively reflects, describes, explains, or understands the psychological and behavioral activities in their native contexts in terms of culturally relevant frames of reference and culturally derived categories and theories. The primary goal of indigenous approaches is to construct a specific indigenous psychology for each society with a given population or a distinctive culture. After that, the specific knowledge system and its various research findings may be used to develop the indigenous psychologies of progressively larger populations defined in terms of regional, national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, or geographical considerations. Finally, the highest indigenous psychology, a universal, or more properly a global, psychology for all human beings on the earth will be formed by integrating lower-level indigenous psychologies. This largest psychology is indigenous in the sense that it is constructed only for earth dwellers rather than for people, if any, on any other planet. Triandis (1997) regarded indigenous psychologies as special cases of the universal psychology. By indigenous psychologies he meant those at the elementary level, rather than the indigenously derived global psychology. In other words, lower-order indigenous psychologies are special cases of the highest indigenous psychology on earth a balanced, genuine global psychology. Beyond the imperative requirement of indigenization, no other restraints need to be imposed upon activities of indigenous research and theory construction for the development of an indigenous psychology. Psychologists in any society may legitimately strive to construct an indigenous psychology for their people that is as comprehensive in scope as the current indigenous American psychology. They may also construct an indigenous psychology composed not only of mainstream psychology, but also subdisciplines with other radically different theoretical, methodological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives. For example, some indigenous-oriented Chinese psychologists have set their hearts on developing an indigenous Chinese psychology comparable to the North American one in scope and depth. Indigenous psychology in this sense is much broader than indigenous psychology in Heelas (1981) anthropological sense, in which it is considered distinct from specialist or expert psychology (i.e., mainstream psychology). Kim and Berry (1993a) have pointed out that the indigenous approach is not opposed to scientific (including experimental) methods and that it does not preclude the use of any particular method. They have also asserted that the indigenous approach does not assume the inherent superiority of one particular theoretical perspective over another on a priori grounds. Yang (1993, 1999) has recommended that the principle of multiple paradigms be adopted. Under the principle, different indigenous psychologists in the same society may be encouraged to apply different or even conflicting paradigms, such as those distinguished by Guba and Lincoln (1994), to their own research. This rule has been actually practiced among indigenous psychologists in Chinese societies (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and mainland China) for some years. Applying this principle, either the natural science or the human science model may be applied as the basic perspective. Since both models are acceptable in indigenous psychology, the major theoretical and methodological features of the crosscultural and cultural approaches listed in the first and second columns of Table 1 are all applicable to the indigenous approach, the major features of which are shown in the third column. These features are acceptable as long as they are applied in a manner such that research results compatible with the studied phenomenon with or without its sociocultural context can be obtained effectively at certain levels of abstraction. It is in this sense that culturally unbiased cross-cultural and cultural psychologies may be regarded as special cases of indigenous psychology. This idea is in dissonance with the current view that both cultural and indigenous psychologies are special cases of cross-cultural psychology, as indicated by

7 Two indigenous approaches 247 the fact that chapters on topics of cultural and indigenous psychologies are included in Berry et al. s (1997) recent authoritative handbook of cross-cultural psychology and Berry et al. s (1992) widely adopted textbook of cross-cultural psychology. Unification of the three psychologies I will further clarify, in a more systematic way, my contention that indigenous psychology is broader and more inclusive than cross-cultural and cultural psychologies. With the realization that all psychologies, including the indigenously derived global one, should be indigenous, the idea that cross-cultural and cultural psychologies are part of indigenous psychology is only natural. Table 2 illustrates this point clearly. It shows eight kinds of specific psychologies defined by combinations of three bipolar theoretical and methodological characteristics: indigenous vs. Westernized approach, monocultural vs. cross-cultural strategy, and natural science vs. human science model. Of the eight kinds of potential psychologies, two (A 1 B 2 C 2 and A 2 B 2 C 2 ) may be discarded for the reason that they are logically possible but actually implausible. Among the rest, monocultural, indigenous, mainstream psychologies (A 1 B 1 C 1 ) and cross-cultural, indigenous, mainstream psychology (A 2 B 1 C 1 ) conceptually denote the specific mainstream psychologies being developed or to be developed with indigenous approaches. Corresponding to the two kinds of indigenous mainstream psychologies are the two kinds of Westernized mainstream psychologies. Monocultural, Westernized, mainstream psychologies (A 1 B 2 C 1 ) are equivalent to the current Westernized (especially Americanized) psychologies prevailing in non-western societies, of which the Westernized Chinese psychology being practiced by most local psychologists in Chinese societies is a conspicuous example. Under the academic movement of indigenization, these Table 2. Systematic depiction of cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies A 1 A 2 Monocultural strategy Cross-cultural strategy B 1 B 2 B 1 B 2 Indigenous Westernized Indigenous Westernized approach approach approach approach C 1 A 1 B 1 C 1 A 1 B 2 C 1 A 2 B 1 C 1 A 2 B 2 C 1 Natural science model Monocultural, Monocultural, Cross-cultural, Cross-cultural, (positivist, mainstream indigenous, Westernized, indigenous, Westernized, perspective) mainstream mainstream mainstream mainstream psychologies psychologies psychology psychology C 2 A 1 B 1 C 2 (A 1 B 2 C 2 ) A 2 B 1 C 2 (A 2 B 2 C 2 ) Human science model Monocultural, (Monocultural, Cross-cultural, (Cross-cultural, (phenomenological, indigenous, Westernized, indigenous, Westernized, cultural perspective) cultural cultural cultural cultural psychologies psychologies) a psychology psychology) a a Logically possible but actually implausible Means expected to transform into

8 248 Kuo-Shu Yang monocultural Westernized mainstream psychologies are expected to gradually transform into monocultural, indigenous, mainstream psychologies (A 1 B 1 C 1 ), as indicated by an arrow in Table 2. The second kind of Westernized psychology is the cross-cultural, Westernized, mainstream psychology (A 2 B 2 C 1 ), which essentially corresponds to the currently practiced cross-cultural psychology. The current cross-cultural psychology is Westernized, or at least Western-dominant, in the sense that studies in this subdiscipline have usually been based upon Western concepts, theories, methods, tools, and findings, especially in the imposed-etic type of research. This obvious element of imposition has been powerfully persistent in cross-cultural research since the 1970s, as vividly revealed by the transport and test goal of cross-cultural psychology (Berry & Dasen, 1974). Up to now, the direction of transporting and testing has been from Western to non-western societies, the latter being internationally peripheral in military, political, and economic power and influence as defined in Wallerstein s (1974, 1980) world system theory. Even Western cross-cultural psychologists (Berry et al., 1992; Nisbet, 1971) themselves have repeatedly admitted the dangers of scientific ethnocentrism and the seriousness of scientific colonialism in Westernized cross-cultural research. To get rid of this long-lasting undesirable state of affairs, the only sensible thing for cross-cultural psychologists to do is to transform the current Westernized cross-cultural mainstream psychology into a cross-cultural, indigenous, mainstream psychology (A 2 B 1 C 1 ). The other two kinds of indigenous psychologies are cultural psychologies. Monocultural, indigenous, cultural psychologies (A 1 B 1 C 2 ) are conceptually equivalent to the cultural psychologies being developed or to be developed with the monocultural indigenous approach within societies. Cross-cultural, indigenous, cultural psychologies (A 2 B 1 C 2 ) are conceptually equivalent to the cultural psychologies being developed or to be developed with the cross-cultural indigenous approach (to be defined in the next section) across various societies. In sum, the six kinds of psychologies defined in Table 2 map out some of the major divisions of psychological science with regard to theoretical and methodological perspectives. Some of them (A 1 B 1 C 1,A 1 B 1 C 2,A 2 B 1 C 1, and A 2 B 1 C 2 ) are methodologically and culturally adequate, while others (A 1 B 2 C 1 and A 2 B 2 C 1 ) are methodologically and culturally biased. Among the four adequate ones, A 1 B 1 C 1 and A 2 B 1 C 1 combined constitute the indigenous mainstream psychologies; A 1 B 1 C 2 and A 2 B 1 C 2 combined constitute the current cultural psychologies; A 1 B 1 C 1 and A 1 B 1 C 2 together compose the monocultural indigenous psychologies; and A 2 B 1 C 1 and A 2 B 1 C 2 together compose the cross-cultural indigenous psychologies. Finally, the indigenously derived global psychology is to be generated by integrating all the four kinds of adequate psychologies. As special cases of indigenous psychology, cross-cultural and cultural psychologies can be meaningfully integrated into indigenous psychology, and the three should be unified to create a psychological science that is highly compatible, not only in the empirical but also in the theoretical and methodological aspects, with psychological and behavioral phenomena with or without their ecological, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts in various cultures all over the world. To conclude this section, I would like to make two additional comments. First, although most previous definitions of indigenous psychology provided by such investigators as Berry, Enriquez, Ho, Kim, and Yang are primarily for monocultural indigenous psychologies, a broader definition may be advanced that is applicable to not only monocultural but also cross-cultural indigenous psychologies (including the indigenously derived global psychology). With the principle of multiple paradigms in mind, indigenous psychology

9 Two indigenous approaches 249 may be defined as an evolving system of psychological knowledge based on monocultural and cross-cultural scientific research using any appropriate methodological or theoretical stance that is sufficiently compatible with the studied phenomena and/or their ecological, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts for a given population of people demarcated in terms of cultural, regional, societal, national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, or geographical considerations. Under the umbrella of this broad definition, all empirically, methodologically, and theoretically compatible psychologies should be indigenous psychologies, which have been collectively labeled appropriate psychology by Sinha (1997) or as the route to appropriate psychology by Azuma (1984). Indigenous psychologies for progressively larger populations in the world may be organized into a pyramid with the most specific indigenous psychologies at the bottom and the indigenously derived global psychology at the top (Yang, 1993). Second, the two related systematic conceptual analyses (Tables 1 and 2) were made under the above comprehensive definition of indigenous psychology. These analyses offer us useful schemes to conceptualize the relative positioning of the three psychologies in terms of certain methodological and theoretical features or aspects. My assertion that indigenous psychology is more inclusive than cross-cultural and cultural psychologies is based mainly upon their relative coverage (methodological, theoretical, and empirical) rather than their importance. My analyses are made purely at the conceptual level for a heuristic purpose. To say that the latter two are part of the former does not mean that the former has conquered the latter two. Instead, psychologists from the three approaches should cooperate. They should orchestrate their efforts to contribute equally towards the ultimate common goal of developing an indigenously derived global psychology by conducting research in mutually supplementary and complementary ways. Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches Table 2 indicates that the indigenous approach can be implemented with either a monocultural or cross-cultural strategy. Thus there are two possible major approaches for indigenous psychological research, namely, the monocultural indigenous (MCI) approach and the cross-cultural indigenous (CCI) approach. In each, researchers may adopt either the natural science or the human science model, depending upon their preferred theoretical orientation. Since these two approaches represent the major ways to conduct research for the development of all types of indigenous psychologies, it is necessary to describe their purposes, characteristics, and procedures in this section before discussing the problem of integrating lower-level indigenous psychologies to construct higher-level ones in the next. The monocultural indigenous approach The MCI approach has most often been applied by psychologists conducting indigenous research and working towards establishment of an indigenous psychology in their own societies. To most indigenous psychologists, it is the only effective way to function as an indigenous researcher. The main purpose of the MCI approach is to study the psychological and behavioral functioning of people in a given culture in order to develop an evolving system of psychological knowledge specific to that culture. For this purpose, the investigators research activities (including topic selection, conceptual analysis, research design, and theory construction) must be sufficiently congruous with the native people s

10 250 Kuo-Shu Yang studied psychological or behavioral elements, structures, mechanisms, or processes as rooted in their ecological, economic, social, cultural, or historical contexts. To develop a monocultural indigenous psychology efficiently, each empirical study has to be conducted in a manner such that the researcher s concepts, theory, methods, tools, and results adequately represent, reflect, or reveal the natural elements, structure, mechanism, or process of the studied phenomenon embedded in its context. Yang (1993, 1997b, 1999) has termed this condition of congruity, which is indispensable for indigenous psychological research, indigenous compatibility (IC). For the present purpose, three major kinds of IC may be meaningfully distinguished: context-independent, context-dependent, and reflective. Context-independent IC stresses the congruity of the researcher s theory, methods, and results with the studied psychological or behavioral phenomenon itself, without taking its context into direct consideration. This decontextualized IC, also called focal IC (Yang, 1997b, 1999), has most often been illustrated by empirical studies in American mainstream psychology, the largest indigenous psychology in the world. In studies emphasizing contextindependent IC, the studied psychological or behavioral phenomenon itself is observed and assessed as naturally embedded in its original context, although the context itself is just implicitly assumed to be there without actually identifying and directly observing and assessing its content or relationship to the phenomenon. Conceptually and empirically, research activities are directly focused only on the phenomenon, while the context is a silent given. Because researchers do not pay much attention to the context, they can only try to make research activities sufficiently compatible with the focused phenomenon. For this reason, context-independent IC, or phenomenon-focusing IC (or simply focal IC) may also be called implicit-context IC. In contrast, context-dependent IC places emphasis on the congruity of the theory, methods, and results with the studied phenomenon-in-context as a whole, rather than with the phenomenon in isolation from its context. This kind of IC has been especially relied upon by indigenous psychologists with a cultural psychological perspective, although it may also be of use to indigenous psychologists functioning in the tradition of mainstream psychology. Reflective IC requires that the native researcher s theory and methods are fully congruent with his or her own relevant native psychological characteristics known through an intuitive or self-reflective process. Since native researchers native psychological characteristics tend to be similar to those of other members of their society from whom the research sample is drawn, reflective IC definitely benefits the other two kinds of IC. The concept of IC enhances conceptualization of indigenous research and indigenous psychology. Indigenous research may be defined as any study, or any series of studies, with a sufficient level of IC, no matter what theoretical and methodological perspectives are actually adopted. Furthermore, indigenous psychology may be defined as a comprehensive evolving system of psychological knowledge accumulated and integrated on the basis of theoretical, methodological, and empirical accomplishments of indigenous research. More directly, it is a system of psychological knowledge based upon the accumulation and integration of theoretical, methodological, and empirical accomplishments of research with a sufficient degree of IC. Westernized psychology, on the other hand, is a kind of psychological knowledge system formed in a non-western society on the basis of research with no or low IC. In such a psychology, native investigators research activities usually fail to reflect their native subjects psychological and behavioral characteristics and contexts, simply because they uncritically, simple-mindedly, or even blindly apply Western (especially American) psychological concepts, theories, methods, and tools in their studies.

11 Two indigenous approaches 251 I do not want to leave the impression that the concept of IC is applicable only to indigenous psychologies in Heelas (1981) anthropological sense, or only to indigenous psychologies like cultural, folk, and common-sense psychologies, all of which adopt the actor s point of view. Rather, the concept is equally applicable to the mainstream psychology, or expert psychology as Shweder (1990) put it, which is practiced in almost all psychology departments all over the world. It should also be mentioned that the concept of IC, as a general criterion for judging the degree of indigenousness of approach, research, and psychology, is not only applicable at the monocultural level but also at the cross-cultural level. Since IC is the hallmark of indigenous psychological research, the most important problem for indigenous psychologists is how to achieve a sufficient degree of IC in their research. Yang (1993, 1997a) has made a comprehensive overview of ways to increase the indigenousness of psychological research. He proposed seven Don ts and ten Dos as effective measures for indigenizing psychological research in non-western societies. The seven Don ts remind non-western psychologists not to do seven things in order to avoid decreasing the indigenousness of their studies, some of which are given here as examples: 1. Don t uncritically or habitually apply Western psychological concepts, theories, methods, and tools to your research before thoroughly understanding and immersing yourself in the phenomenon being studied. 2. Don t overlook Western psychologists important experiences in developing their own indigenous psychologies, which may be usefully transferred to the development of non- Western indigenous psychologies. 3. Don t think in terms of English or any other foreign language during the various stages of the research process in order to prevent distortion or inhibition of the indigenous aspects of contemplation involved in doing research. More importantly, the ten Dos remind non-western psychologists to do things in order to increase the indigenousness of their research. Some of these Dos are provided as examples: 1. Do tolerate ambiguous or vague states and suspend decisions as long as possible in dealing with theoretical, methodological, and empirical problems until something indigenous emerges in your mind during the research process. 2. Do be a typical native in the cultural sense when functioning as a researcher, and let your native ideas, tacit knowledge (in Polanyi s sense), and ways of thinking be fully reflected in your research activities of conceptualizing, theorizing, designing, datacollecting, and interpreting. 3. Do take the studied psychological or behavioral phenomenon and its sociocultural context into careful consideration whenever conceptualizing a phenomenon or designing a study. 4. Do give priority to the study of culturally unique psychological and behavioral phenomena or characteristics of people in your society, especially during the early stage of the development of an indigenous psychology in a non-western society. 5. Do base your research on the intellectual tradition of your own culture rather than on that of a Western culture. The adequate ways to achieve IC and a sufficient level of IC are the major characteristics of the MCI approach. Such an approach is a powerful tool for turning a Westernized psychology into an indigenous one (Yang, 1993, 1997a). It also is the most

12 252 Kuo-Shu Yang Approach Research Psychology A. Monocultural indigenous Monocultural indigenous Monocultural approach (emphasizing psychology (including! indigenous! monocultural indigenous monocultural mainstream research compatibility) and cultural psychologies) & j The indigenously Through cross-indigenous derived global approach (Enriquez) (universal) # psychology % B. Cross-cultural indigenous Cross-cultural indigenous Cross-cultural approach (emphasizing psychology (including! indigenous! cross-cultural indigenous cross-cultural mainstream research compatibility) and cultural psychologies)! Means leads to Figure 1. Sequential relationships among the indigenous approach, indigenous research, and indigenous psychology effective way to create a full-fledged monocultural indigenous psychology for people in a given society. Such a psychology will enable native psychologists to understand, explain, and predict their own people s behavior better and to prevent and solve their society s social problems more efficiently (Enriquez, 1989; Sinha, 1997; Yang, 1993). Moreover, such a psychology serves the higher purpose as a basis for the development of a genuine global psychology (Berry & Kim, 1993; Yang, 1993; Enriquez, 1989, 1993). The above discussion indicates that there is a set of sequential relationships among the indigenous approach, indigenous research, and indigenous psychology at the monocultural level. This sequence is summarized in row A of Figure 1. As will be made clear in the next section, the same is true of the relationships among the indigenous approach, research, and psychology at the cross-cultural level (row B). The cross-cultural indigenous approach Traditional cross-cultural psychology has been continuously plagued with two fundamental problems: scientific ethnocentrism (mainly Euro-American) and cross-cultural equivalence. In all probability, the current global psychology is widely filled with strong ethnocentric elements reflecting specific psychological and behavioral characteristics of people from the industrialized Euro-American countries where indigenous psychologies are most developed. The ethnocentrism of Western psychologists has influenced the choice of research topics, the formulation of theories, and the design of instruments for studies conducted in non- Western cultures. Given the pervasive influence of ethnocentrism in cross-cultural research, Nisbet (1971) commented that the comparative method itself is profoundly ethnocentric. Ways to reduce this ethnocentrism have been suggested, including Campbell s (1970) multiple cultures, multiple researchers design, but the situation has not substantially improved. This lack of significant improvement may be why Berry et al. (1992) made the following pessimistic comment: We acknowledge that until alternative approaches, focusing on other research topics and theories, and rooted in other cultures, have been formulated and extensively tested, psychology will unfortunately remain a Western, ethnocentric, and incomplete science (p. 10).

13 Two indigenous approaches 253 An even more persistently annoying problem is that of cross-cultural equivalence. Following in the footsteps of American mainstream psychologists (Segall et al., 1998), cross-cultural psychologists have been preoccupied with quantitative comparisons in terms of scores on measures of separate and pure constructs or variables. This preoccupation is why the quantitatively oriented concept of equivalence has become a major concern in cross-cultural research. Recently van de Vijver and Leung (1997) distinguished three levels of equivalence: construct (structural), measurement unit, and scalar. Construct or structural equivalence refers to the similarity of psychometric properties of datasets from different cultures. It ensures that the same construct is measured across cultures. Measurement unit equivalence requires that the unit of measurement is identical across cultures, but that the origin of the scale is not. Scalar equivalence is achieved when the measure of a construct has an identical unit as well as a common origin across cultures. Conceptually speaking, these psychometrically oriented definitions of equivalence are sound. Practically, however, it is extremely difficult to demonstrate construct equivalence (the basis of the other two levels of equivalence) empirically through traditional methods of cross-cultural research (Poortinga, 1979). Various kinds of cultural and construct-bias factors can make construct equivalence untenable. In many cross-cultural studies, construct equivalence is just assumed without offering any relevant empirical evidence. In others, equivalence is inadequately claimed by giving only partial evidence that does not rule out the possibility of committing one or more of the construct biases listed by van de Vijver & Poortinga (1997). The concept of true etic is at the heart of construct equivalence. In order to achieve construct equivalence to the extent that measurement unit equivalence and even scalar equivalence can be tested, cross-cultural psychologists have become obsessed with a strong concern for devising methods for identifying true etics, which are supposed to be good candidates for constructs or concepts with cross-cultural equivalence. Sophisticated approaches have been proposed, including the derived etic (Berry, 1989), combined eticemic (Triandis, 1972, 1978; Hui & Triandis, 1985), decentering (Werner & Campbell, 1970), and convergence (Campbell, 1986) procedures. These procedures have been characteristically applied in several problematic ways. First, they emphasize the measuring instrument used predominantly over the cultures involved; that is, they are much more tool-oriented than culture-oriented. Second, domination by a Western psychologist as the principal investigator in the application of these procedures has made the influence of Euro-American ethnocentrism highly likely. Third, these procedures were mainly designed and used to construct instruments for the measurement of decontextualized psychological or behavioral characteristics. Fourth, they were designed and used to construct instruments for the measurement of quantitative psychological constructs or variables rather than for the assessment of qualitative psychological or behavioral patterns and constellations. Fifth, to some degree they have all suffered from the potential effects of the imposed-etic or pseudo-etic elements contained in the measuring instrument. The cross-cultural indigenous (CCI) approach, however, is a general research procedure free from all these specific problems. It may therefore be considered as a better way to do appropriate cross-cultural research in the sense that it solves the twin fundamental problems of scientific ethnocentrism and cross-cultural equivalence that have troubled traditional cross-cultural psychology ever since it was institutionalized in the 1960s. Before making further comments on the CCI approach, I will first describe its essential features.

14 254 Kuo-Shu Yang 1. Choosing a cross-culturally relevant research topic. During the initial incubating stage, two or more researchers from different cultures, preferably with similar theoretical and methodological perspectives and comparable academic status, discuss the possibility of conducting a cross-cultural study in a certain research area using an indigenous approach. They exchange ideas on potential research topics which they consider interesting and important and choose one as a research theme that is indigenously relevant and significant for people in all participating societies. 2. Formulating cross-culturally fair research guidelines. Once the research topic is chosen, all members of the team meet to formulate a set of general principles for directing indigenous research activities in member societies during subsequent stages. Guiding rules should be established as a basis for designing specific indigenous studies on the same topic. The rules should specify the purposes of the planned overall research, the comprehensive definitions of the core concepts, the delimitation of the topical domain, the sub-domains of the topical content, the characteristics of subjects or informants, and the methods of data collection and analysis. The guiding principles should allow flexibility for adjusting the research concept, content, and method, and collaborators should be granted the necessary freedom to adapt the general research design to suit the unique circumstances of their respective societies such that they can adequately design a separate indigenous study for their own culture on the same planned topic. 3. Designing and executing cross-culturally appropriate qualitative research. Based on the agreed general guiding principles, participating researchers, who usually have ample explicit and implicit (tacit) knowledge of their own cultures, design their own qualitative studies that will fully unravel the concrete details of the psychological and behavioral phenomena and their contexts as covered in the domain of the research topic. All kinds of qualitative procedures, including depth interview, semi-structured interview, open-ended questionnaire, and available qualitative data may be used for data collection at this stage. While at least one common qualitative method should be adopted for use in all involved studies, additional methods are optional. The qualitative data-collection procedures must be designed and carried out such that responses of the various studied psychological or behavioral subdomains are systematically and sufficiently covered without serious representation bias (under-representation or over-representation). All the data-collection procedures must be carried out in local languages by native investigators. The fundamental principle for conducting research at this stage is to maximize the monocultural indigenous compatibility of conceptualization, research design, and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. 4. Presenting and discussing the indigenous qualitative research data. Once the individual qualitative studies are completed in all participating societies, all collaborators reconvene to present the detailed results of each study in both written and oral forms and to discuss them systematically and thoroughly. On the basis of all the presentations and discussions, the team can then identify the unique aspects of the studied psychological and behavioral characteristics and their contexts for each culture, the common aspects across all participating cultures, and the less common aspects found only in some of them. At least two levels of psychological and behavioral aspects may be distinguished, namely, dimensional (variables, constructs) and configurational (patterns, constellations).

15 Two indigenous approaches 255 Next, the team must decide how to proceed with subsequent steps. The members should reach a consensus on what the most important cross-cultural research questions are for further investigation, and on what the most cross-culturally fair methods are for effectively answering those questions. Based on the consensus, the outline of a more focused project for further research is formulated, discussed, and finalized as the foundation for drafting the full-scale project. 5. Designing cross-culturally appropriate, focused, and refined research. According to the project outline, a detailed proposal of the focused and refined study sufficiently appropriate in all major theoretical and methodological aspects to all the involved cultures is drafted by one or more collaborators and then discussed and finalized by all of them. Any individual collaborator may also design a special focused and refined indigenous study for further exploration of particular important unique psychological or behavioral characteristics found in the previous qualitative investigation (stages 3 and 4), which other collaborators might not wish to pursue. 6. Conducting cross-culturally appropriate, focused, and refined research. To carry out the research effectively, cross-culturally fair tools and procedures should be developed to collect data for comparison. For example, if a comprehensive quantitative study is to be conducted, the researchers might develop at least one cross-culturally balanced and fair instrument measuring all the common, less common, and unique aspects of the studied psychological and behavioral characteristics with or without their contexts that were systematically identified by all the indigenous qualitative studies. Within such an instrument, those of the common, less common, and unique aspects that involve people in a particular culture X are all indigenous elements for that culture, and thus can be treated as a useful tool for local (monocultural) indigenous research. All other aspects contained in the balanced instrument are the less common and unique ones involving the other cultures, and therefore are imposed-etic elements for culture X. These imposed-etic elements may elicit unnatural, distorted, or even artificial (unreal) responses, mainly reflecting semantic or logical rather than psychological or behavioral meanings and structures, or mainly made in terms of the processes of cross-cultural accommodation and ethnic affirmation (Bond & Yang, 1982; Yang & Bond, 1980). To get rid of the problem of imposed-etic elements, a more defensive way to do the quantitative cross-cultural comparisons is to compare the results only in terms of the common aspects identified in all the specific indigenous qualitative studies and the less common aspects identified in only some of them. If a qualitative, instead of quantitative, study is to be done, one or more comprehensive interview schedules, basically unstructured or semi-structured, may be developed to collect descriptive data covering the major common, less common, and unique aspects of the studied psychological and behavioral characteristics with or without their contexts as systematically identified by all the specific indigenous qualitative studies. The data to be collected will be qualitatively analyzed for cross-cultural comparisons mainly in terms of concrete and discrete characteristics or phenomena (including patterns, constellations, and fabrics) with or without their contexts. Both quantitative and qualitative procedures of data collection may be used in the same study at this stage. The fundamental principle for conducting research at this stage is to maximize the crosscultural indigenous compatibility of conceptualization, research design, and data collection, analysis, and interpretation.