Emic vs. etic

The terms emic and etic originate from ethnolinguistics. They describe two opposing, scientific-methodological research perspectives. In the social sciences and in comparative as well as intercultural research, scholars can also proceed emically or etically.

External and internal perspective

The emic perspective is based on a culturally appropriate internal view – it attempts to look at phenomena through the eyes of those affected, thus creating the humanities ideal of ‚perspectivity‘. The emic approach intends to uncover the functionally relevant aspects within a culture.

In the emic approach, on the other hand, researchers take a standpoint outside the culture under study and attempt to conform to the natural science ideal of ‚objectivity‘. In this way, universally valid standards of comparison are to be found (cf. Helfrich-Hölter 2013, 27).

On the emergence of the conceptualizations

The two terms were first used by the American linguist and anthropologist Kenneth Pike in his book Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (1967). The German words emisch and etisch were derived from the English terms emic and etic. These originate from linguistics – phonetics describes sound features that can be used to describe the sound inventory of all languages, while phonemics identifies those sound features that contribute to meaning differentiation within the language under study. Later, the pair of terms was taken up and modified by Harris.

The aim of the etic approach is to investigate the influence of culture on individual action and thought. It is considered as an ‚independent‘ variable e.g. in the form of school conditions or educational styles, which influences the ‚dependent‘ variables (learning, action).

According to the emic approach, however, culture is a factor located within the individual, i.e. an integral part of human thought and action.

Differences of the approaches

The two approaches can also be related to reasons and causes of certain actions. The causes of action do not necessarily have to be conscious to the person concerned and can thus be examined from the etic perspective. If, on the other hand, the reasons for one’s own actions and thinking are explained by the person concerned himself, he is researching from the emic perspective.

Lohmeier gives the following example of the emic approach: a Catholic Northern Irishman investigating Troubles in his home country and belonging to the researched field. In contrast, a Protestant Northern German conducting a similar project in a Catholic-majority town in Northern Ireland would be an example of the etic approach (cf. Lohmeier 2017, 31).

Emic vs. etic?

Etic and emic perspectives are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other. Jacobs and Helfrich-Hölter refer to Berry in this regard: for a comparative etic study of two cultures, each must be analyzed emically. According to his view, at the beginning of a comparative cultural study, researchers follow a concept that has its origin in their own culture, i.e., is emic (cf. Jacobs 2000; Helfrich-Hölter 2013).

Due to the imposed-etic approach, it also becomes an emic concept within the foreign culture by transferring the observations from one culture to the other. Through modification, an emic concept can also be created for the foreign culture, so that emic studies are conducted in parallel in both cultures. If the concepts studied show overlap, a cross-cultural comparison is possible (cf. Jacobs 2000, 132).

Literature

Harris, Marvin (1976): History and Significance of the Emic/ Etic Distinction. In: Annual Review of Anthropology. 5th ed. New York: Columbia University, 329-350.

Helfrich-Hölter, Hede (2013): Comparative cultural psychology. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Jacobs, Gabriele (2000): Cultural differences in justice perceptions of European managers: a comparative study of personnel decisions in the banking sector. Münster: LIT.

Lohmeier, Christine (2017): Between „gone native“ and „one of us“: reflections on etic and emic positioning on the research field. In: Scheu, Andreas M. (Ed.): Evaluating qualitative data: strategies, procedures and methods of interpreting non-standardized data in communication studies. Münster: Springer, 29-39.

Pike, Kenneth (1967): Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. The Hague [et al:] Mouton.