Acculturation Research Critiques and Alternative Research Designs

Abstract

Dictionary definitions concur that “acculturation” means second-culture acquisition, but “acculturation” began as a Eurocentric concept that inferior peoples improve themselves by imitating superior peoples. Shadows of this persist despite the acceleration of acculturation research from nine studies per decade in the 1920s to the current rate of more than 6000 per decade. Reviews of this research have noted confused findings and lack of utility. Critics either (1) advocate for qualitative methods because culture, identity, and human experience are too complex for psychometric methods, or (2) recommend new models and new forms of quantitative analysis, or (3) fault research for poor social science practices. Rudmin (2006) has argued that academics’ shared liberal ideology causes collective confirmation bias that shapes research to promote advocacy of bicultural integration. Many future research designs and projects are proposed, including emic studies of rural-urban migration in China and the development of single-case measures of acculturative competence.

A Meta-Analysis of Acculturation and Enculturation: Bilinear, Multidimensional, and Context-Dependent Processes

“…Acculturation can occur in any intercultural contact (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010), when “groups of individuals sharing different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact” (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, p. 149). Rudmin, Wang, and de Castro (2017) therefore defined acculturation as a learning process of second-culture acquisition; through this definition, they intended to eliminate intercultural inequality by highlighting that second-culture acquisition applies to either party in contact (Rudmin et al, 2017). However, in practice, the significance and magnitude of second-culture acquisition may vary across individuals and groups.…”

Untitled

“…In the fusion model, there is interaction, mutual learning between di erent cultures, and there are cultural mixtures, which will produce a new culture with inner diversity (Bastide, 1973;Castro, 2014aCastro, , b, 2015Castro, , 2016aHerskovits, 1967;Frazier, 1942). The Freyre's (1986Freyre's ( /1933Rudmin, Wang & Castro, 2016), and the Ortiz's theories are examples of the fusion model. The intercultural model was not described here.…”

A review on the early The American Journal of Sociology

“…In the multicultural approach, just the minority is described as learning, and both cultures are interacting with the larger society. In the fusion model, there is interaction, mutual learning among different cultures, and there are cultural mixtures, which will produce a new culture with inner diversity (Rudmin, Wang & Castro, 2016). Castro added the intercultural model , 2014a, b, 2015, 2016aCastro & Rudmin, 2016).…”

“…In the fusion model, there is interaction, mutual learning among different cultures, and there are cultural mixtures, which will produce a new culture with inner diversity (Rudmin, Wang & Castro, 2016). Castro added the intercultural model , 2014a, b, 2015, 2016aCastro & Rudmin, 2016). In the intercultural model, at private and individual levels the minority may change or maintain its cultural legacy, because of the laissez-faire point of view.…”

“…Another problem is that Social Sciences were often perceived as progressive and humanistic. However, the reality was more complex than expected and Social Sciences were also backwards, and what is considered nowadays as liberal had also backward elements (Rudmin, Wang & Castro, 2016).…”