Methodology in Cultural Psychology

In the book, Cohen does not simply explain how methodology works in cultural psychology, he also points out the techniques and approaches that can be invalid, out of date, or simply dogmatic. In the book, methodology is explained in a more critical approach.
For example, making distinctions between cultures simply as individualistic or collectivistic is not enough. Classifying cultures in the context of individualism or collectivism may not conform with reality, as it is a scale more than a “one or the other” feature. Cultures may differentiate between themselves beyond collectivism or individualism.
Another example can be given in the context of causality. Most researchers may tend to point out cultural effects on a psychological phenomenon while not delving into the features or structures within that particular culture that cause the phenomenon. Also, in some of these studies, even though it does not mean there is no causality, culture may take part as a mediator, not as an independent variable.
There is also the factor of generalizability. Methods can be formed both as a top-down and a bottom-up process. In the top-down situation, the generalizability of the study will probably be low, as it takes a more surfaced approach. The problem with bottom-up methods is that even though they may be efficient for one culture, this causes a low level of replicability. As the article says, conclusions such as “This won’t work in Japan” could be made.
The book also points out that while examining a cultural effect, one must also analyze the factors that affect/form that culture. These factors can be geographic, economic, historical, etc. One can say that to successfully conduct a cultural psychology study, one must also delve into anthropology.
It is pointed out in the book that every cultural psychological study needs to form a unique bond with the studied culture. To be more specific, cultural research must adapt to the features of the studied culture. The second article also adds to this point. The article offers a new approach called the “cross-indigenous approach”. This alternative approach offers a stronger and more detailed adaptation to the culture. This approach does not limit itself to the cultural features, it delves into the different groups in a culture, thereby increasing the representativeness of a study by focusing on more microstructures.
In our textbook analysis homework the previous week, we also mentioned that cultural effects should be studied more deeply. If it is stated that a phenomenon occurs from cultural differences, the structures or functionality of these cultural features should be analyzed to give more detailed and explanatory answers. It was a joy to see a similar point of view in the book and the article. These sources also helped me see how cultural psychology differs from other psychological areas not only contextually, but also methodologically.