Crisis? What crisis? Cross-cultural psychology’s appropriation of cultural psychology

Abstract

Whereas cross-cultural psychology and cultural psychology have been distinguished as separate projects for decades, talk about their possible collaboration is becoming increasingly common. Several scholars have described their differences as essentially non-oppositional and the latest Handbook of Cultural Psychology combines articles from both research traditions. This paper scrutinizes these consolidating efforts first by tracing historically how the two accounts of culture (cultural and cross-cultural) developed, and second, by examining whether their long-standing epistemological premises allow for the kind of collaboration advocated by some scholars. We argue that attempts to combine the disciplines come primarily from cross-cultural psychologists who appear increasingly challenged by cultural and indigenous psychological approaches. Attempts at a merger have been twofold: on the one hand, cross-cultural psychologists who seek to preserve the status of their discipline have expanded its scope to include cultural theorists; on the other hand, cross-cultural scholars persuaded by cultural theories are creating a new blend of 'experimental cultural psychology' that seeks to accommodate both programs. These proposals, in our view, exemplify a cross-cultural discipline in crisis, struggling to account for a growing cultural psychology. We conclude that the overlapping interests between cross-cultural and cultural scholars make this a propitious time for cross-disciplinary dialogue.

Cultural psychology for a new era of citizenship politics

“…Accordingly, moving on to our second point (b), critical psychological studies are needed to question and avoid reproducing the unequal circumstances that lead to their formation. As a member of a broader "sociocultural turn" in the social sciences, cultural psychology assumes social epistemological principles that deliberately oppose positivist and individualist science (Ellis & Stam, 2015). 4 Whereas social scientists originally founded their disciplines in pursuit of objective knowledge about social phenomena, scholars of the sociocultural turn (e.g., Geertz, 1973;Gergen, 1973) severely undermined such principles emphasizing instead the situated character of knowledge, observing knowledge as collectively produced and normatively constituted by historically situated practitioners (Fuller, 2002;Kirschner & Martin, 2010).…”

“…Based on this we argue that psychological studies of migration need to consider more explicitly how the politics of citizenship shape the life opportunities of diverse migrant groups. For decades psychological studies of immigrants focused on universal acculturation processes without systematically examining the way changing sociopolitical circumstances unequally constitute migrant experiences (Bhatia & Ram, 2001;Ellis & Stam, 2015). More recently, social scientists interested in the psychological impact of immigration restrictions have documented how unequal immigration conditions adversely impact immigrant lives (e.g., Menj ıvar & Kanstroom, 2014;Sua´rez-Orozco, Sua´rez-Orozco, & Todorova, 1995).…”

Towards a Cultural Psychology: Meaning and Social Practice as Key Elements

“…However, the recognition of differences between approaches does not mean, as Poortinga (1997) remarks, that they should be considered as incompatible. Instead, they should be viewed as different contributions to the construction of Cultural Psychology (Ellis & Stam, 2015;Gülerce, 2015). Despite the discrepancies between theorists, they all share a central tenet: "Cultural Psychology is, first of all, a designation for the comparative study of the way culture and psyche make each other up" (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993, p. 498).…”

Finding Universals and Appreciating Differences: Philosophy and Method in Cross-Cultural Psychological Science

“…Cross-cultural psychology has a long history (e.g., Lonner, 2015), but the search for universals, called the "generalist" approach, has been rightly criticized by advocates of multicultural research (e.g., Hall, Yip, & Zarate, 2016). Indeed, cross-cultural researchers who are generalists tend to use quantitative statistics and publish their findings in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology; in contrast, multicultural researchers tend to use qualitative or mixed-methods designs and publish their studies in culture and psychology (Ellis & Stam, 2015). We need to remember these historical trends.…”

“…Multiculturalism and cultural diversity have become the zeitgeist for clinical and counseling psychology training and research (Arredondo et al, 1996;Bardone-Cone et al, 2016;Ellis & Stam, 2015;Sue, Zane, Hall, & Berger, 2009;Wadsworth et al, 2016aWadsworth et al, , 2016b. Recently the American Psychological Association reiterated its call for diversity training in its Multicultural Guidelines (APA, 2003) with a newer set of recommendations for clinical supervision of health service psychologists (APA, 2014).…”