Skip to main content

Etic vs. Emic - Is There a Preference for One Over the Other?

 In the area of research, whether linguistic, anthropological, or whatever, it is common to use the terms 'etic' and 'emic'. Here is a definition:

'The etic perspective is the outsider’s perspective, the perspective that we have of a project’s parameters—for example, an outsider’s perception of gender in Afghanistan. The emic perspective is the insider’s perspective, the perspective that comes from within the culture where the project is situated—for example, gender perspectives of women involved in a project in Afghanistan.' https://programs.online.american.edu/msme/masters-in-measurement-and-evaluation/resources/emic-and-etic accessed 13th January 2023

Another difference between etic and emic is that the former often assumes the use of a model, or theoretical basis for a study, whereas the latter, almost by definition, would avoid the use of models and theories. Emic involves the use of insider data without theory-based analysis. Any comments would be descriptive only. The assumption would be that the data only works for this sample, and not for any other.

The problem is that many take this to mean that emic is somehow better than etic. Better in what sense? Because it is insider, and local.

The trouble with this is that most of us have models and theories inside our heads. Unless we replace those models and theories with better ones, we lack the ability to move forward in our understanding of the situation.

It might, therefore, be better to start with an etic model that approximates to the data we are studying, and then use the emic approaches to modify that model and come up with a better (etic) model based on that (emic) data. That model can then by tried and tested in similar contexts to see if it works. If not, the model can be modified again.

If etic is thought of as high level (theoretical) and emic as low level (to do with raw data), then this process can be shown like so:

This allows us to improve our model and move onto the next place of study, ready to improve it with new data.

So, in conclusion, neither etic nor emic are better or worse than each other. We need them both: we need to recognise that the ideas we have are based on etic approaches, modify these with raw emic data collected, then use that data to modify our ideas.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more