This paper discusses the ways in which Hofstede’s model of
‘dimensions of (‘national’) culture’ – and similar models developed in a
functionalist paradigm – are problematically used to classify people. It briefly
surveys critiques of Hofstede’s research method, but focusses on the dangers of
attempting to develop models of culture within a functionalist paradigm. Although
such models may be parsimonious and rapidly applied, I argue that they are a
poor fit for CATaC investigations of the dynamic and reciprocal interactions
between human cultures and technology. Instead, I contend, we must abandon this
paradigm, and embrace methodologies that permit meaningfully explorations of
the multiple and dynamic conditions influencing the field of cultural practices in
human societies. I discuss the merits of ‘articulation’ as theory and method, and
offer Hacking’s theory of “dynamic nominalism” as one example.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:BVAU.2429/1335 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Macfadyen, Leah P. |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds