tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74549392325290266622024-03-20T18:42:42.081-07:00dissing emotionEric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-8052465751438068022013-01-29T18:41:00.002-08:002013-01-29T19:01:43.891-08:00"Emotions, by nature, lose their power when we understand them."My friend posted the following link and the quote from it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Emotions, by nature, lose their power when we understand them."<br />
<a href="http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/overcoming-the-loss-of-motivation-that-follows-a-surge-of-productivity/">Overcoming a Loss of Motivation</a></blockquote>
<br />
I completely disagree. <br />
<br />
Emotions, particularly primary emotions have the same power whether we understand them or not. If and when we understand them, however, we can use our rational abilities to either: diminish and compensate for the negative effects their power, or intensify and apply the positive effects how we wish. Well, to some extent, and most of the time.My own mental scenario would revolve around instances when my son is hurt or successful. Regardless of what I understand about my emotions, I will not feel less worried/joyful, just because I know <i>why</i> I feel that way. Indeed in both cases, I will try to channel that emotional energy in a positive way -- by running him to the hospital, or encouraging him to more successes with my positive emotional display. Which I think is what the article is trying to say, but in a way that pretends that we can eliminate negative emotions (and seems to ignore positive ones). The fact is these "primary/primal" emotions are to a large extent automatic, and what we feel is our autonomic nervous system kicking into action--for example, "fight or flight" impulses.<br />
<br />
Funny, the specific examples of negative emotions, e.g. depression, that he gives are actually cases of a perfectly predictable "rational" response to not meeting a goal. The problem was that the goals were set unrealistically high: becoming a famous blogger in 6 months, losing 20 pounds in a month. To a large extent the author is getting the cart before the horse. The unrealistic expectations caused the normal emotions, and the solution would be to start with more realistic expectations, which theoretically would have prevented the negative emotions and likely generated positive emotions.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with the deep principle of the argument in the article, but quibbling extensively over the details. This seems to be a case where the details do matter.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-86997131687201112022013-01-29T18:37:00.000-08:002013-01-29T18:37:38.554-08:00where to now?<ul>
<li>should I keep this blog going?</li>
<li>do i still have stuff to say about emotion?</li>
<li>do I have time to do this blogging thing?</li>
<li>how might that help?</li>
</ul>
thinking on those questions . . . <br /><br />
<br />Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-82832483329326222092013-01-29T18:35:00.001-08:002013-01-29T18:35:51.889-08:00completely donebtw. defense done. PhD awarded. :)<br />
<br />
[now to bust it into pieces and publish those bits]<br />
<br />
-e Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-70180324443630441422012-03-20T21:15:00.002-07:002012-03-20T21:15:24.404-07:00revisions donesent off the revisions to adrienne. the last step [other than fixing anything else she has left for me to do :) ... ] is to go through the thesis format check process. started looking at that yesterday, and will work on it more tonight or tomorrow :)Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-20256624468157335302012-03-17T14:47:00.001-07:002012-03-17T14:47:11.233-07:00doing revisionsharder than I thought. like pulling teeth, actually.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
so much wasted ego investment :)<br />
<br />
just write.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-39036306810932185002011-02-05T09:57:00.000-08:002011-02-05T10:01:33.543-08:004.1.1.3 Translation questions.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">One fundamental concern in a great deal of cross and intercultural research is the issue of translation, and this problem is exacerbated when dealing with issues of emotion which have a tendency to be more subjective (Pavlenko, 2005; Wierzbicka, 1999). Consequently, that issues of translation arose in determining the accuracy of the cross-cultural interpretations is unsurprising. At the most basic level is that cluster of words and phrases that “just don’t translate” to the target language. In addition, participants used a number of notions that have multiple correlates in the other language, and ultimately, the words do matter. Chulchulmaeda, danghok, heodoongdaeda, danghwang (confusion), noonchi, kangok, hogam (good feeling), brazenfacedness (need Korean word), chung (affection), are examples of emotion concepts appearing in this study from the Koreans participants for which the bi-cultural translator, a Korean native who has lived in the United States for more than 15 years while completing a Masters and PhD in counseling psychology and later as a practicing therapist, had difficulty finding satisfactory direct translations.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">My intention here is not to suggest a strong version of linguistic relativism to imply that the Western participants cannot perceive or understand the notion presented by the Koreans and codified in the Korean language, rather something more akin to what Kay and Kempton (1984) call “limited linguistic relativity and determinism” (p. 78). Indeed, that the Koreans have a single word or “catch phrase” to represent an emotional state, while the North Americans did not, does not imply at all that the non-native participants did not describe something close to the emotional state the Koreans did. For example, the Koreans considered their concept of noonchi to be both clearly represented in the first video clip and something uniquely Korean. Participant S explained, “I thought what the principal did was very Korean. He showed Korean work place culture where noonchi happens a lot where there is a manager.” Yet at least one North American participants recognized something comparable to noonchi. Participant H says of Teacher Kim, “he’s kind of trying to minimize the damage” and later, “like he was analyzing the situation.”<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">However, such analogues were not always seen in this study. Indeed, of the XX instances in which the Koreans used nine terms that “just don’t translate” well, only XX showed clear attempts to express something akin to the Korean term by the non-native participants. Thus, this study provides some support for the weak version of the linguistic relativity that when a culture/language does have a succinct word or phrase for a particular emotion, it does raise the presence of that notion. Simply put, having a word for something makes it easier to talk about that thing, which in turn increases the likelihood that people will talk about the notion, and ultimately to raise the level of that notion in the consciousness of the society. <br /><br /></p>Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-20488927365219254802011-02-05T09:55:00.000-08:002011-02-05T09:57:02.070-08:004.1.1.2 Researchers’ gut reactions.<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span></p> <style>@font-face { font-family: "바탕"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">While the participants’ judgments regarding the presence or absence of basic emotions is certainly revealing, one of the fundamental realities of intercultural communication is that, in very practical ways, a statistical analysis of interpretation accuracy of another culture is probably not sufficient to judge intercultural acuity.<span style=""> </span>Even intra-culturally, a wide range of subjective terms and phrases is used to describe one’s sensitivity to other’s intentions (or <i style="">lack</i> of sensitivity), In America, we often say someone “is savvy,” someone “gets it.” or, alternatively, someone “is clueless.” Arguably, a more holistic approach may prove more valuable.<span style=""> </span>Indeed, in the vernacular a “gut” reaction is exactly what we would rely on and importantly refers directly to the physical, autonomic, <i style="">emotional</i> response we have in these situations.<span style=""> </span>Of course, such a holistic analysis is by definition subjective, and the potential for bias is duly noted, yet simultaneously this holistic response is precisely the sort of comparison of expectations to reality that underlies many cross-cultural communication conflicts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">The primary researcher is clearly the individual most embedded within this data.<span style=""> </span>What was my initial gut reaction in analyzing the accuracy of the non-native interpretations?<span style=""> </span>In the moment, I generally thought that the non-natives did a fairly good job in interpreting the Korean emotional cues, based on the Korean focus groups, at one of the comparison phases for example I stated “[<i style="">your group</i>] didn’t disagree as much about them [the emotions expressed by two of the characters in the first scene].”<span style=""> </span>an in another instance “So, I can pretty much what you all said is <span style=""> </span>in that they had nearly the same emotions.” [MUST CHECK THIS AND MAKE CORRECT QUOTATION]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">However, while I felt that the non-natives were clearly “in the ballpark” I raised questions in the moment about the absolute precision of their interpretations “although they didn’t say that they were two peas in a pod the businessman and the middleman, say they saw almost the exact same expressions on both the businessmen and this man in the middle.” In addition, even at the during the focus groups, there was some serious questioning of the intensity of the emotions displayed.<span style=""> </span>In a few instances, the non-natives ratings of intensity differed substantially from the natives as we will see more clearly in other analysis.<span style=""> </span>Alternatively, during the focus groups, I pointed to a few clear examples of the non-natives missing a cue completely.<span style=""> </span>In one case I stated, “Mr. Kim was a little bit contemptuous of the other two people, I don’t know if you guys saw that at all.”<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">While my responses are the responses of a “first-culture American,” the Korean to English translator also reviewed all of the transcript was asked to offer a “first-culture Korean” interpretation. [Ask YOONHWA to complete this section.]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">Clearly, the non-natives were less than perfect in their interpretations--even though the primary researcher’s initial reaction was that they had done fairly well in interpreting the emotions displayed in the same manner as the native culture participants. Again, we are forced to consider the threshold question. How much misunderstanding is enough to cause difficulties in communication? Moreover, is it possible to train and educate individuals involved in cross-cultural situations in the required flexibility to overcome a moderate level of misunderstanding that would seem natural in most intercultural situations. </p>Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-69255216700361661592011-02-05T09:46:00.002-08:002011-02-05T09:53:25.901-08:004.1.1.1 Presence or absence ratings.<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>One of the clearest ways to compare the accuracy of the non-native’s ability to recognize emotions as seen by people native to the culture is to ask if they see the same emotions. In this study, Appendix XXX is the notetaking worksheet that the participants used in recording each participants judgment regarding the presence or absence of some basic emotions.<span style=""> </span>At the bottom of that sheet you can see that each primary character in each scene was to be rated on Ekman’s seven basic emotions.<span style=""> </span>The reason participants were limited to the seven basic emotions was to enable an apples to apples comparison <span style="">(Erkut, Alarcón, García Coll, Tropp, & Vázquez García, 1999)</span> of their intensity responses.<span style=""> </span>Consequently, these results provide another window for us to gauge the relative difference between the native culture participants’ judgments of the emotional intensity and the non-native participants’ judgments of the same emotions. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>The participants rated the intensity of each of the seven emotions [sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, anger, contempt, and enjoyment] on a modified Likert scale in which they first needed to indicate the presence or absence of that emotion in the display of that particular character in that particular scene. Thus, with seven emotions and three characters in each of the two clips, a total of forty-two emotions were evaluated. In evaluating the ratings, the results were looked at using two separate lenses, representing lower and higher standards of agreement. In the lower standard lens, a simple majority of responses–not quite a forced choice–in each national group, were considered to be agreement as to the presence or absence of the emotion. If there was an exact tie the results were considered unclear. Under the higher standard of measurement, if the 75% or more of the nationality group stated that the emotion was present or absent then that result was considered a clear indication of presence or absence. If the response was between 25 and 75% then the result was considered unclear. This analysis regarding the presence or absence of emotions could provide a variety of results: the two groups could disagree in a contradictory fashion [one group clearly seeing the emotion, while the other clearly did not see the emotion], or one group could have a clear response while the other group’s response was unclear, or the two groups could agree.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>When applying the simple majority standard to the forty-two cases to be evaluated, the Korean and North American groups agreed 86% of the time. In just less than 10% of cases, the two groups had contradictory results–one group stating that they saw the emotion, while the other group did not. While the other 4% of cases represented instances where one group was uncertain, while the other group perceived the emotion. <span style=""> </span>Eighty-six percent agreement would seem a fairly high level–indeed it exceeds the level at which Ekman set for his cross-cultural studies. When we apply the more stringent 75% standard of agreement in the monocultural groups–requiring 75% or more of the individuals in the cultural group to agree on the presence or absence of the emotion–the results have all large increase in the number of unclear responses.<span style=""> </span>Indeed, in about 35% of the cases one group’s response was unclear well the other group clearly saw an emotion or did not see that emotion.<span style=""> </span>However, the Korean and North American groups still agreed almost 65% of the time, including acute cases where both groups were unclear.<span style=""> </span>Perhaps more importantly, in no cases under this higher standard of contradictory results–where one group perceived an emotion, while the other one did not. This lack of strongly contradictory results seems particularly important, because if one culture clearly and strongly perceived emotion that the other culture clearly and strongly did not perceive, then we would find ourselves looking at a strong case of linguistic relativism indicating major difficulties in the intercultural communication of emotional cues.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>A strong case can be made for a fairly broad capability of the non-native participants in this study to, in the large majority of cases, accurately perceive the same basic emotions that the Koreans were perceiving. However, while this result was in line with Ekman’s research, and therefore not entirely surprising, the fact that a real range of questionable and contradictory understandings were found in this study raises an important question that this study was not designed to address: Is there a threshold point where the misinterpretation of displayed emotional cues results in problems for intercultural communication?<span style=""> </span>Is eighty percent accuracy enough for productive and civil interaction, or would a “one in a million” misinterpretation be sufficient to cause problems between individuals?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>In addition to determining the presence or absence of the emotions and when the Korean and North American groups are in agreement, the Likert scales can be used to explore differences in intensity ratings for observed emotions across the cultural groups.<span style=""> </span>This question of ability to interpret the intensity of emotions will be addressed later in this section of the chapter. </p>Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-84148756684925134382011-02-05T09:46:00.001-08:002011-02-05T09:46:46.762-08:004.1.1 Focus group discussions.<style>@font-face { font-family: "바탕"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">The use of focus groups is a fairly unique methodology in foreign language learning research and requires a slightly different conceptualization than other more common FL methods.<span style=""> </span>The examination of the textual data from audio recordings and transcripts in terms of accuracy raised four issues to consider: a holistic view of non-native accuracy, translation effects, word choice differences, and intensity variation. While examining the note-taking worksheets allows us to look at four separate, but interrelated issues: the breadth of responses, the worksheet as a frame, a statistical analysis of comparative accuracy and a separate statistical analysis of intensity differences.</p>Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-51737305935841912012011-02-05T09:43:00.000-08:002011-02-05T09:54:28.427-08:004.1 Accuracy of Non-native Interpretation of Intra-cultural Emotional Communication</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>The consideration of accuracy of non-natives’ interpretation of the emotional cues that native speakers use when communicating with one another is essential to determining if cross-cultural differences exist between these two national groups in terms of emotional cue interpretation. The literature offers two suggestions for how accurate the non-native speakers interpretations will be. Ekmans (???) and other’s (???) suggest that emotions and emotional cues are essentially universal, so there should be little difference in interpretations, while Mead (???) and other’s (???) expect that we will find striking differences. The data from this study offers two windows into the question of accuracy. The discussions of the focus groups provide one window into the accuracy of non-natives’ interpretations, while the notetaking worksheets provide another, and more traditional method of measuring the accuracy of non-native interpretations of any cross-cultural interpretive act.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-13444699868990098052011-02-05T09:41:00.000-08:002011-02-05T09:55:00.395-08:00chapter four intro</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.<br /><blockquote><br />• accuracy of non-native interpretation of intra-cultural emotional communication<br />• language used to talk about emotional communication <br />• different mechanisms/channels used in the interpretation process, <br />• emergent themes regarding emotional communication, <br />• inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.</blockquote>Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-74375293157266144172011-02-05T09:39:00.000-08:002011-02-05T09:41:02.975-08:00cleaning upwill spend the next couple of days posting the sections of chapter four in order . . . to let myself review them and know where the gaps are . . .Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-40012816207649073062010-11-09T18:02:00.000-08:002010-11-09T18:06:33.705-08:00squeezing inpage count moved to 16 for chapter four. target is 80. I want to keep doing 2 pp./day.<br /><br />...<br /><br />full draft done by the end of the year? <br /><br />...<br /><br />keep working: drop the steel and wooden balls . . . this one is made of glass . . .Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-53326242335475338102010-11-07T20:27:00.000-08:002010-11-07T20:28:12.139-08:00chapter four scribblingsChapter 4<br /><br /><br />Guiding Research Questions<br />The guiding research questions of this study are as follows:<br />• How well do North Americans interpret Korean’s intra-cultural cues for emotional communication?<br />• What sorts of mechanisms and channels do North Americans and Koreans rely on in interpreting emotional communication cues?<br />• Is the process of interpreting emotions intra-culturally different than the process inter-culturally?<br />• How might we teach these emotional communication cues?<br /><br />Four data analyses <br /><br />• Data sheets<br />• Transcript analysis<br />o Words, <br />o Themes<br />o Negotiations<br /><br /><br />Produce five sections:<br /><br />1. HOW WELL did North Americans INTERPRET Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication?<br /><br />2. What do the WORDS they used say about how we talk about emotions?<br /><br />3. What different MECHANISMS and CHANNELS do the various groups reference in describing how they interpreted emotions?<br /><br />4. What THEMES emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?<br /><br />5. How do their negotiations about interpreting emotional communication and display rules provide inferences about the SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of emotional communication?<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Chapter Four – Discussion<br />This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.<br />• accuracy of non-native interpretation of intra-cultural emotional communication<br />• language used to talk about emotional communication <br />• different mechanisms/channels used in the interpretation process, <br />• emergent themes regarding emotional communication, <br />• inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.<br />Accuracy of Non-native Interpretation of Intra-cultural Emotional Communication<br />The consideration of accuracy of non-natives’ interpretation of the emotional cues that native speakers use when communicating with one another is essential to determining if cross-cultural differences exist between these two national groups in terms of emotional cue interpretation. The literature offers two suggestions for how accurate the non-native speakers interpretations will be. Ekmans (???) and other’s (???) suggest that emotions and emotional cues are essentially universal, so there should be little difference in interpretations, while Mead (???) and other’s (???) expect that we will find striking differences. The data from this study offers two windows into the question of accuracy. The discussions of the focus groups provide one window into the accuracy of non-natives’ interpretations, while the notetaking worksheets provide another, and more traditional method of measuring the accuracy of non-native interpretations of any cross-cultural interpretive act.<br />Focus group discussions. The use of focus groups is a fairly unique methodology in foreign language learning research and requires a slightly different conceptualization than other more common FL methods. The examination of the textual data from audio recordings and transcripts in terms of accuracy raised four issues to consider: a holistic view of non-native accuracy, translation effects, word choice differences, and intensity variation. While examining the note-taking worksheets allows us to look at four separate, but interrelated issues: the breadth of responses, the worksheet as a frame, a statistical analysis of comparative accuracy and a separate statistical analysis of intensity differences.<br /> Presence or absence ratings. One of the clearest ways to compare the accuracy of the non-native’s ability to recognize emotions as seen by people native to the culture is to ask if they see the same emotions. In this study, Appendix XXX is the notetaking worksheet that the participants used in recording each participants judgment regarding the presence or absence of some basic emotions. At the bottom of that sheet you can see that each primary character in each scene was to be rated on Ekman’s seven basic emotions. The reason participants were limited to the seven basic emotions was to enable an apples to apples comparison (Erkut, Alarcón, García Coll, Tropp, & Vázquez García, 1999) of their intensity responses. Consequently, these results provide another window for us to gauge the relative difference between the native culture participants’ judgments of the emotional intensity and the non-native participants’ judgments of the same emotions.<br /> The participants rated the intensity of each of the seven emotions [sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, anger, contempt, and enjoyment] on a modified Likert scale in which they first needed to indicate the presence or absence of that emotion in the display of that particular character in that particular scene. Thus, with seven emotions and three characters in each of the two clips, a total of forty-two emotions were evaluated. In evaluating the ratings, the results were looked at using two separate lenses, representing lower and higher standards of agreement. In the lower standard lens, a simple majority of responses–not quite a forced choice–in each national group, were considered to be agreement as to the presence or absence of the emotion. If there was an exact tie the results were considered unclear. Under the higher standard of measurement, if the 75% or more of the nationality group stated that the emotion was present or absent then that result was considered a clear indication of presence or absence. If the response was between 25 and 75% then the result was considered unclear. This analysis regarding the presence or absence of emotions could provide a variety of results: the two groups could disagree in a contradictory fashion [one group clearly seeing the emotion, while the other clearly did not see the emotion], or one group could have a clear response while the other group’s response was unclear, or the two groups could agree. <br /> When applying the simple majority standard to the forty-two cases to be evaluated, the Korean and North American groups agreed 86% of the time. In just less than 10% of cases, the two groups had contradictory results–one group stating that they saw the emotion, while the other group did not. While the other 4% of cases represented instances where one group was uncertain, while the other group perceived the emotion. Eighty-six percent agreement would seem a fairly high level–indeed it exceeds the level at which Ekman set for his cross-cultural studies. When we apply the more stringent 75% standard of agreement in the monocultural groups–requiring 75% or more of the individuals in the cultural group to agree on the presence or absence of the emotion–the results have all large increase in the number of unclear responses. Indeed, in about 35% of the cases one group’s response was unclear well the other group clearly saw an emotion or did not see that emotion. However, the Korean and North American groups still agreed almost 65% of the time, including acute cases where both groups were unclear. Perhaps more importantly, in no cases under this higher standard of contradictory results–where one group perceived an emotion, while the other one did not. This lack of strongly contradictory results seems particularly important, because if one culture clearly and strongly perceived emotion that the other culture clearly and strongly did not perceive, then we would find ourselves looking at a strong case of linguistic relativism indicating major difficulties in the intercultural communication of emotional cues.<br /> A strong case can be made for a fairly broad capability of the non-native participants in this study to, in the large majority of cases, accurately perceive the same basic emotions that the Koreans were perceiving. However, while this result was in line with Ekman’s research, and therefore not entirely surprising, the fact that a real range of questionable and contradictory understandings were found in this study raises an important question that this study was not designed to address: Is there a threshold point where the misinterpretation of displayed emotional cues results in problems for intercultural communication? Is eighty percent accuracy enough for productive and civil interaction, or would a “one in a million” misinterpretation be sufficient to cause problems between individuals?<br /> In addition to determining the presence or absence of the emotions and when the Korean and North American groups are in agreement, the Likert scales can be used to explore differences in intensity ratings for observed emotions across the cultural groups. This question of ability to interpret the intensity of emotions will be addressed later in this chapter. <br />Researchers’ gut reactions. While the participants’ judgments regarding the presence or absence of basic emotions is certainly revealing, one of the fundamental realities of intercultural communication is that, in very practical ways, a statistical analysis of interpretation accuracy of another culture is probably not sufficient to judge intercultural acuity. Even intra-culturally, a wide range of subjective terms and phrases is used to describe one’s sensitivity to other’s intentions (or lack of sensitivity), In America, we often say someone “is savvy,” someone “gets it.” or, alternatively, someone “is clueless.” Arguably, a more holistic approach may prove more valuable. Indeed, in the vernacular a “gut” reaction is exactly what we would rely on and importantly refers directly to the physical, autonomic, emotional response we have in these situations. Of course, such a holistic analysis is by definition subjective, and the potential for bias is duly noted, yet simultaneously this holistic response is precisely the sort of comparison of expectations to reality that underlies many cross-cultural communication conflicts.<br />The primary researcher is clearly the individual most embedded within this data. What was my initial gut reaction in analyzing the accuracy of the non-native interpretations? In the moment, I generally thought that the non-natives did a fairly good job in interpreting the Korean emotional cues, based on the Korean focus groups, at one of the comparison phases for example I stated “[your group] didn’t disagree as much about them [the emotions expressed by two of the characters in the first scene].” an in another instance “So, I can pretty much what you all set in that they had nearly the same emotions.” [MUST CHECK THIS AND MAKE CORRECT QUOTATION]<br />However, while I felt that the non-natives were clearly “in the ballpark” I raised questions in the moment about the absolute precision of their interpretations “although they didn’t say that they were two peas in a pod the businessman and the middleman, say they saw almost the exact same expressions on both the businessmen and this man in the middle.” In addition, even at the during the focus groups, there was some serious questioning of the intensity of the emotions displayed. In a few instances, the non-natives ratings of intensity differed substantially from the natives as we will see more clearly in other analysis. Alternatively, during the focus groups, I pointed to a few clear examples of the non-natives missing a cue completely. In one case I stated, “Mr. Kim was a little bit contemptuous of the other two people, I don’t know if you guys saw that at all.” <br />While my responses are the responses of a “first-culture American,” the Korean to English translator also reviewed all of the transcript was asked to offer a “first-culture Korean” interpretation. [Ask YOONHWA to complete this section.]<br />Clearly, the non-natives were less than perfect in their interpretations--even though the primary researcher’s initial reaction was that they had done fairly well in interpreting the emotions displayed in the same manner as the native culture participants. Again, we are forced to consider the threshold question. How much misunderstanding is enough to cause difficulties in communication? Moreover, is it possible to train and educate individuals involved in cross-cultural situations in the required flexibility to overcome a moderate level of misunderstanding that would seem natural in most intercultural situations. <br />Translation questions. One fundamental concern in a great deal of cross and intercultural research is the issue of translation, and this problem is exacerbated when dealing with issues of emotion which have a tendency to be more subjective (Pavlenko, 2005; Wierzbicka, 1999). Consequently, that issues of translation arose in determining the accuracy of the cross-cultural interpretations is unsurprising. At the most basic level is that cluster of words and phrases that “just don’t translate” to the target language. In addition, participants used a number of notions that have multiple correlates in the other language, and ultimately, the words do matter. Chulchulmaeda, danghok, heodoongdaeda, danghwang (confusion), noonchi, kangok, hogam (good feeling), brazenfacedness (need Korean word), chung (affection), are examples of emotion concepts appearing in this study from the Koreans participants for which the bi-cultural translator, a Korean native who has lived in the United States for more than 15 years while completing a Masters and PhD in counseling psychology and later as a practicing therapist, had difficulty finding satisfactory direct translations.<br />My intention here is not to suggest a strong version of linguistic relativism to imply that the Western participants cannot perceive or understand the notion presented by the Koreans and codified in the Korean language, rather something more akin to what Kay and Kempton (1984) call “limited linguistic relativity and determinism” (p. 78). Indeed, that the Koreans have a single word or “catch phrase” to represent an emotional state, while the North Americans did not, does not imply at all that the non-native participants did not describe something close to the emotional state the Koreans did. For example, the Koreans considered their concept of noonchi to be both clearly represented in the first video clip and something uniquely Korean. Participant S explained, “I thought what the principal did was very Korean. He showed Korean work place culture where noonchi happens a lot where there is a manager.” Yet at least one North American participants recognized something comparable to noonchi. Participant H says of Teacher Kim, “he’s kind of trying to minimize the damage” and later, “like he was analyzing the situation.”<br />However, such analogues were not always seen in this study. Indeed, of the XX instances in which the Koreans used nine terms that “just don’t translate” well, only XX showed clear attempts to express something akin to the Korean term by the non-native participants. Thus, this study provides some support for the weak version of the linguistic relativity that when a culture/language does have a succinct word or phrase for a particular emotion, it does raise the presence of that notion. Simply put, having a word for something makes it easier to talk about that thing, which in turn increases the likelihood that people will talk about the notion, and ultimately to raise the level of that notion in the consciousness of the society. <br />Word choice/intensity. Hand in hand with notions of concepts that “just do not translate” is the concern that subtle differences can matter. For example, in American English we might generally accept that the emotion terms “mad” and “angry” are interchangeable in most situations, yet it is easy to imagine situations where someone would choose one over the other. Such subtleties are fairly difficult to tease out of intercultural communication. One way that this study sought to explore those subtleties was to see if the participants from each country offered similar or different intensity ratings for the emotions that they observed. <br /> <br />i. worksheets<br />a. breadth of potential responses<br />b. potential standard (s)<br />c. accuracy stats<br />i. contradictory<br />ii. one clear one unclear<br />iii. character of ii<br />d. question of intensity<br /><br /><br />Erkut, S., Alarcón, O., García Coll, C., Tropp, L. R., & Vázquez García, H. A. (1999). The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 206-218.<br />Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65-79.<br />Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-8746281877000156412010-08-25T01:40:00.000-07:002010-08-25T07:05:17.431-07:00Accuracy of Non-native Interpretation of Intra-cultural Emotional CommunicationThe consideration of accuracy of non-natives’ interpretation of the emotional cues that native speakers use when communicating with one another is essential to determining if cross-cultural differences exist between these two national groups in terms of emotional cue interpretation. The literature offers two suggestions for how accurate the non-native speakers interpretations will be. Ekman (???) and other’s (???) suggest that emotions and emotional cues are essentially universal, so there should be little difference in interpretations, while Mead (???) and other’s (???) expect that we will find striking differences. The data from this study offers two windows into the question of accuracy. The discussions of the focus groups provide one window into the accuracy of non-natives’ interpretations, while the notetaking worksheets provide another, and more traditional method of measuring the accuracy of non-native interpretations of any cross-cultural interpretive act.<br /><br /><blockquote>i. focus group discussions <br /><blockquote>a. gut responses<br />b. vocabulary issues<br /><blockquote>i. translation questions<br />ii. word choice questions<br />iii. intensity questions</blockquote></blockquote><br />ii.worksheets<br /><blockquote>a. breadth of potential responses<br />b. potential standard (s)<br />c. accuracy stats<br /><blockquote>i. contradictory<br />ii. one clear one unclear<br />iii. character of ii</blockquote><br />d. question of intensity</blockquote></blockquote>Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-24184391994837910662010-08-22T23:06:00.000-07:002010-08-22T23:08:42.192-07:00intro to chapter 4<span style="font-weight:bold;">Chapter Four – Discussion</span><br /> This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.<br /><blockquote>• accuracy of non-native interpretation of intra-cultural emotional communication<br />• language used to talk about emotional communication <br />• different mechanisms/channels used in the interpretation process, <br />• emergent themes regarding emotional communication, <br />• inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />[one page done. only 79 to go]Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-53668413822163938932010-08-22T21:47:00.000-07:002010-08-22T21:50:02.869-07:00OK let start again with this outline for discussion:<br /><br />Four data analysis procedures <br /><br />• Data sheets<br />• Transcript analysis<br /> o Words, <br /> o Themes<br /> o Negotiations<br /><br /><br />Produce five sections:<br /><br /> 1. HOW WELL did Americans INTERPRET Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication?<br /><br /> 2. What do the WORDS they used say about how we talk about emotions?<br /><br /> 3. What do the different MECHANISMS and CHANNELS do the various groups referenced in describing how they interpreted emotions?<br /><br /> 4. What THEMES emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?<br /><br /> 5. How do their negotiations about interpreting emotional communication and display rules provide inferences about the SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of emotional communication?Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-88649999744291418592010-08-09T01:05:00.000-07:002010-08-09T01:06:14.073-07:00fourth data analysis:<br /><br />the notetaking sheetsEric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-78814404217775985872010-08-06T04:04:00.000-07:002010-08-06T04:14:37.137-07:00outline of writing worktask one:<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">the discussion section</span><br /><br />three data analyses produce five sections:<br /><blockquote>what do the words they used say about how we talk about emotions?</blockquote><br /><blockquote>what do the things they referenced in interpreting emotions say about how we interpret emotions?</blockquote><br /><blockquote>what themes emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?</blockquote><br /><blockquote>what can we tell for their negotiation about how emotions and display rules are socially constructed?</blockquote><br /><blockquote>how well did they interpret foreign emotional communication?</blockquote><br /><br />OK start writing that tomorrow<br /><br />task two:<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">revising methods section</span><br />three kinds of data analysis:<br />lexical<br />situational/behavioral/semantic<br />thematic<br /><br />finish task one first then do this.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-52722771625867023492010-08-06T04:00:00.000-07:002010-08-06T04:13:03.953-07:00OK . . . start again.like getting up after a hangover.<br />like forcing myself to the gym.<br />like going in for a "performance" review.<br />like beating back depression with a pot of coffee.<br />like dragging myself to a Saharan oasis.<br />[which would be successfully defending]Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-33720725690756983032010-04-18T14:42:00.000-07:002010-04-18T14:43:14.088-07:00sort of conclusiony bitKoreans will very likely keep their fiery reputations, and Americans will wear their hearts on their sleeves for long into the future. These differences are indeed the spice of life. This study has shown that both the nature and the nurture approach to emotional communication play a role in the interpretation of communicative acts. Moreover, when an emotional script embedded in our native culture is not enacted by the foreign culture, cognitive dissonance arises. For the individuals experiencing that dissonance, resolving that dissonance will be critical in moving forward toward cross-cultural understanding. For those of us who through our work and personal lives spend time crossing the divides between cultures the ability to better understand and more rapidly appreciate the differences is a great benefit. Moreover finding out what bits and pieces of cross-cultural misunderstanding lie embedded in “less than conscious” elements of our communication process and bringing those elements forward into our conscious awareness can only improve our relationships across cultures.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-46186971426523096632010-04-18T14:14:00.000-07:002010-04-18T14:24:04.041-07:00a bit more discussionOne of the important questions of this research is how well do the non-Koreans interpret Korean emotional expressions. Predictably enough, sometimes the North Americans got it right, sometimes they were wrong and sometimes they got it partially correct. As part of the research methodology, the North Americans were informed of areas where they had made the same interpretations as the Korean informants, as well as where their interpretations differed. Their responses to the similarities and differences was telling in important ways. First when the non-native participant interpreted the emotions correctly, for any reason (ie, the two cultures share similar scripts, or the participant had developed sufficient understanding of the other culture), no one including the focus group facilitator felt cognitive dissonance; therefore, the group tended to move on in the discussion. When the participants did not interpret correctly—whether they were thoroughly of base, or they had simply misinterpreted the intensity—discussion always ensued.<br /><br />One example illustrates both cases. In the scene where a parent interrupts a faculty meeting to accuse Mr. Kim of bribe taking and extortion of his son, the participants were fairly confused about the interpretation of situation and the emotions expressed:<br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 28pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Participant B: [When the clip was played without sound] I thought, I was thinking only anger. But when it came on again for the first few seconds I was thinking… “drunk anger”? (<i style="">laughter</i>) I’m not sure (<i style="">more laughter</i>)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 28pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Participant A: The only thing I can think of is that the teacher did something to his daughter.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 28pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">(Overlap PB: yeah… that was on my) <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 28pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Participant A: You see I was thinking that there is no other… which might be a woman thing (Participant D: <i style="">laughter</i>) I don’t know but I was just like what else can get a parent that angry, but then he talked about money and I was like “okay… I guess not”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment--><br />Then later as part of the same discussion the question of appropriate intensity comes up:<br /><br /> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Participant A: If I knew the situation, so I thought that maybe he had done something with his daughter. Had I known that for sure, my answer for how high is the anger would have been would have been would have been higher, do you understand? Then when I hear later it’s about money, I’m like “oh, he’s angry” but come on it’s money. That’s my judgment. … Come on, because I originally thought it was worse.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <br />Clearly in this instance the participants required a good deal of conversation work to come to terms with the differences between their North American interpretation of the emotional expressions in this situation and the one suggested by the Koreans.Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-8752066551982433572010-04-17T23:22:00.000-07:002010-04-18T00:19:28.715-07:00more discussionIn addition, the participants noted that emotional scripts can require a variety of false expressions. Participant Y pointed out a case of contradictory expressions when the Mediator in one scene seemed “a little anxious and worried, but he was hiding it with laughter.” In another case masked emotions were noted: “The businessman [showed] anxiety, relief, happiness/joy. Also it seemed he was trying to hide his inner/true feelings/thoughts” (participant U). Diminished or exaggerated emotions were also noted in several instances, for instance, participant C remarked, “I completely agree that they are being really fake with him. But at the same time I think they were being quite real about how they feel about the school and how they care about the kids.”<br /><br />Problems of interpretation arise however, when the emotion expressions displayed (and perceived) do not match the expressions required by the script. In terms of interpretation, the participants were caught in a sort of “chicken or the egg” situation. Do they believe that the person did not appraise the situation—and therefore the appropriate script—correctly, or are they simply expressing inappropriate emotions? Both interpretations were seen. When Mr. Kim does not follow the appropriate cultural script, participant A blames him for inappropriate behavior: “[he seemed] overconfident and, umm… because when the guy introduces himself . . . he was just like, “yeah, yeah” and just keeps eating, got his mouthful, the guy gives him his card and he just throws it in his pocket right away.” Alternatively, a person could misunderstand the situation resulting in dissonance, “He/she said that his/her students were nodding their heads and smiling in the class while they did not understand instructions fully. He went on assuming that they all understood and later found that they didn’t. This made him feel <span style="font-style:italic;">danghwang</span> (surprised and confused)” (participant U).Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-58390666261450373082010-04-17T05:50:00.001-07:002010-04-18T14:43:53.835-07:00discussionWhile the final results of this study have yet to be complete, some of the clear themes can be discussed.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4.1. The interpretation of emotional meaning is not straightforward.</span><br />Much of Ekman’s (Ekman, 1993, 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2003; Ekman, et al., 1972) basic research into emotion requires individuals to name the emotion that they are seeing. Similarly, in this study the participants were fairly well able to name the emotions they saw, but although most were glad to be able to select their own vocabulary in the naming process, many also had some important difficulties in explaining why they are naming that emotion. Participants frequently used phrases like: “I don’t know,” or “I guess.”<br />Moreover, all three of the various systems that have been discussed here for interpreting emotion were seen in this study. That is to say participants used paralinguistic interpretations, situational and script based interpretations, lexical interpretations, as well as combinations of the three. The most common cues for interpretation were from different paralinguistic markers: “my first adjective was shy, again and I got that because he was sitting the whole time with his shoulders hunched over” (participant C). However, they also frequently used a variety of situational interpretations: “I didn’t see the movie but know the story, and this made me perceive <span style="font-style:italic;">noonchi</span> (concern for the feelings of others present)” (participant Y). Finally, well much less common lexical interpretations were also seen: “when only the two were talking and he is not, I felt like that’s all flattery” (participant A).<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4.2. Emotional scripts play a role.</span><br />Emotional scripts are the sorts of preordained patterns for the appropriate communication of emotion in each culture (Planalp, 1999; Saarni, 1989; Tannen, 1990). Similarly, the appraisal of emotion describes how we interpret what the appropriate emotion ought to be (Scherer, 1982, 1999), perhaps based on a cultural script. Unlike direct indications of emotion, scripts are often noted in different ways, for example stereotypes can come to the surface: “Korean people are often compared to as fighting chickens” (participant Q), or those scripts could be indicated through proverbs, “There is a saying that things work if you raising your voice in Korea, and I think raising one’s voice easily seems like a Korean way” (participant Z).<br /><br />Along the same lines, the participants spontaneously pointed out that Scripts are not entirely rigid and preset. For one, they suggested that emotional scripts have a gendered character: “It is usually a mother who is ‘super-involved’ in their kids’ lives that fights with teachers but it was a father in this clip” (participant V). They also noted that emotional scripts can be embedded in certain cultural acts: “When the parent entered the room angrily, the teacher was running around and making hand gestures wishing other (teachers) fight for/help him, and I thought this was a little Korean. Trying to do it together (and sort of hiding in the crowd) and hoping other teachers deal with parents and not wanting to deal one-on-one with the teacher showed” (participant R).Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7454939232529026662.post-33765470407606022182010-03-14T07:31:00.000-07:002010-03-14T07:44:19.364-07:00pragmatism and actionI've been preparing a presentation on action research the last couple of days while at the hospital with Yoojin [he's getting better slowly, we hope he can be set free tomorrow tuesdayy at the latest].<br /><br />a couple of thoughts from that writing should bring me back to my dissertation, particularly relating to what Peter Reason (2003) was trying to explain about Richard Rorty's pragmatism.. I really a am trying to <span style="font-style: italic;">redescribe</span> something. I think that we all know about emotions -- they clearly fit into the "we all know an emotion, when we see it" category, yet we see different emotions from the same expressions. not always, and maybe not in consistent ways and national culture is hardly the only thing going on with that interpretive process.<br /><br />how can I <span style="font-style: italic;">redescribe</span> those processes in ways that help people understand one another better?<br /><br />---- ----- ----<br /> Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist Philosophy and Action Research: Readings and Conversation with Richard Rorty. <span style="font-style: italic;">Action Research, 1</span>(1), 103-123Eric Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02078489672856954550noreply@blogger.com1