The 'emic' and 'etic' approach

Another approach to the study of culture is the 'emic' and 'etic' perspectives. In short, the 'emic' approach focuses on studying cultures from the inside. This perspective attempts to understand cultures as the members of the cultures understand them. In contrast, the 'etic' approach focuses on understanding cultures from the outside by comparing cultures using pre-determined characteristics. The two approaches are based on anthropological, sociolinguistic, and ethnographic research models. Brislin (1983) argues that in its current usage the distinction is employed basically as a metaphor for differences between the culture specific approach (emic, single culture) and cultural-general (etic, universal) approaches to research. The table below sets out the main differences between the emic and etic approaches.

The Emic and Etic approaches

Emic Approach	Etic Approach
Studies the behaviour from within the system	Studies the behaviour from outside the system
Examines only one culture	Examines many cultures, comparing them
Structure discovered by the analyst	Structure created by the analyst
Criteria are relative to internal characteristics	Criteria considered absolute or universal

Source: Berry, J. (1980). 'Introduction to methodology'. In: H. C. Triandis & J. Berry (eds.). (1980) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2: 1-28). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

To summarise, an 'etic' approach is culture-general and assumes that cross-cultural comparisons can generate observational categories that are a useful way of comparing a wide variety of cultures, whilst the 'emic' approach provides a way of understanding how reality is organised within a particular cultural perspective.

Although the 'emic' and 'etic' approaches are viewed as opposites, there are arguments for their integration (Triandis 1972). Both are viable approaches to the study of culture and the impact that culture has on intercultural communication in and of themselves. In order to develop a good understanding of communication in intercultural communication, a combination of both 'emic' and 'etic' approaches is required.

The dynamic, process approach

The third approach involves learners investigating culture and communication from a perspective that sees culture and communication as dynamic, ever changing, multi-layed and complex. The implication of this view of culture and communication is that language teachers would concentrate on equipping learners with the means of accessing and analysing a broad range of cultural practices and meanings, whatever their status. This would mean a complete reversal of current approaches which tends towards providing learners with information about a country's institutional society and their history, backed up by a selection of representations of 'everyday life'. In order to replace this approach teachers would have to provide learners with the critical tools to analyse social processes and their outcomes by developing their critical understanding of their own and other societies at three levels of analysis: national, group and individual (Humphrey 1993). Culture, in this approach, is not seen as a monolithic entity, determining the behaviour of an individual or a group. Instead it is seen as a melange of what each individual brings of their social, educational, ethnic, national and even international experiences to the communicative event. Brookes points out, teachers of intercultural communication should:

never lose sight of the individual. If we do we may be in danger of repressing the expression of the individual in the encounter. (Brookes 1968: 11).

This approach to culture represents a different world to that of large cultures. In this approach 'cultures' are dynamic and ever changing, multi-layed and complex. Using this approach to address intercultural issues and to study intercultural communication, it is possible to avoid simplistic, ethnic, national and international culture explanations which can provide only one possible layer in an extremely complex, multi-layed scenario.