跨文化伦理话语的变迁:历时元分析

IF 1 Q3 COMMUNICATION Journal of Multicultural Discourses Pub Date : 2020-08-10 DOI:10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887
Dominic Busch
{"title":"跨文化伦理话语的变迁:历时元分析","authors":"Dominic Busch","doi":"10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Contemporary epistemological debates on how to research interculturality frequently draw on either side of a schism between positivist and essentialist approaches vs. critical and poststructuralist paradigms. The debate lives from its retrospective either-or character dividing the history of research on interculturality into a first epoch of epistemological naiveté and a more recent age of ethical consideration and reflection. This dichotomy however is too simplistic, and it blurs our views from perceiving a more complex present and past reality. This study assumes that research on interculturality has always built on normative orientations from social discourse and that this discourse has been under permanent change. Accordingly, it assumes that there has not been a paradigm shift or break in research but that this shift has only been used as a hegemonic instrument in inner-disciplinary discourses. This study re-traces this changing discourse of intercultural ethics using a grounded theory approach to central literature from the field. Since the 1960s, four epochs of different normative orientations have been identified from pragmatism via modesty and then a new hope up to a most recent epoch of new explorations. This results in a more complex picture of the normative discourse on interculturality beyond the positivism-poststructuralism debate.","PeriodicalId":45223,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multicultural Discourses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The changing discourse of intercultural ethics: a diachronic meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Dominic Busch\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Contemporary epistemological debates on how to research interculturality frequently draw on either side of a schism between positivist and essentialist approaches vs. critical and poststructuralist paradigms. The debate lives from its retrospective either-or character dividing the history of research on interculturality into a first epoch of epistemological naiveté and a more recent age of ethical consideration and reflection. This dichotomy however is too simplistic, and it blurs our views from perceiving a more complex present and past reality. This study assumes that research on interculturality has always built on normative orientations from social discourse and that this discourse has been under permanent change. Accordingly, it assumes that there has not been a paradigm shift or break in research but that this shift has only been used as a hegemonic instrument in inner-disciplinary discourses. This study re-traces this changing discourse of intercultural ethics using a grounded theory approach to central literature from the field. Since the 1960s, four epochs of different normative orientations have been identified from pragmatism via modesty and then a new hope up to a most recent epoch of new explorations. This results in a more complex picture of the normative discourse on interculturality beyond the positivism-poststructuralism debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Multicultural Discourses\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Multicultural Discourses\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multicultural Discourses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2020.1803887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当代关于如何研究跨文化性的认识论辩论,经常在实证主义和本质主义方法与批判和后结构主义范式之间产生分裂。这场辩论源于它的非此即彼的回顾性,它将跨文化研究的历史划分为认识论上的幼稚时代的第一个时代和伦理思考和反思的更近的时代。然而,这种二分法过于简单,它模糊了我们对更复杂的现在和过去现实的看法。本研究假设跨文化研究一直建立在社会话语的规范性取向上,并且这种话语一直处于永久变化之中。因此,它假设在研究中没有范式的转变或突破,而这种转变只是在学科内部话语中被用作霸权工具。本研究使用扎根的理论方法对该领域的中心文献重新追溯了这种不断变化的跨文化伦理话语。自20世纪60年代以来,已经确定了四个不同规范取向的时代,从实用主义到谦虚,然后是新希望,直到最近的新探索时代。这导致了超越实证主义与后结构主义之争的关于跨文化的规范性话语的更为复杂的图景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The changing discourse of intercultural ethics: a diachronic meta-analysis
ABSTRACT Contemporary epistemological debates on how to research interculturality frequently draw on either side of a schism between positivist and essentialist approaches vs. critical and poststructuralist paradigms. The debate lives from its retrospective either-or character dividing the history of research on interculturality into a first epoch of epistemological naiveté and a more recent age of ethical consideration and reflection. This dichotomy however is too simplistic, and it blurs our views from perceiving a more complex present and past reality. This study assumes that research on interculturality has always built on normative orientations from social discourse and that this discourse has been under permanent change. Accordingly, it assumes that there has not been a paradigm shift or break in research but that this shift has only been used as a hegemonic instrument in inner-disciplinary discourses. This study re-traces this changing discourse of intercultural ethics using a grounded theory approach to central literature from the field. Since the 1960s, four epochs of different normative orientations have been identified from pragmatism via modesty and then a new hope up to a most recent epoch of new explorations. This results in a more complex picture of the normative discourse on interculturality beyond the positivism-poststructuralism debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
The media and civil protests in Africa: contextualising Nigerian press coverage of #EndSARS Enchronic cultural discourse analysis: a semio-cultural study of national identity discourse of Saudi Founding Day A rhetorical-political framework for multilingual and translingual scholarship Interfacing the cultural dialectics of commodification and resistance: Nubian spatial/narrative repertoires as markers of hybrid diaspora culture Revisiting translation as transculturation: from ancient Chinese origin ‘Djargron’ to global representation ‘Dragon’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1