Abstract
Cultural psychology has been criticized for producing universalistic theories and fixed norms that serve as tools of ethnocentric hegemony when they are exported to other countries. One way to solve the problem is to recommend that the researcher concentrates on the study of local phenomena. However, this solution might serve as a straitjacket for the opportunity to revise and develop local norms and thinking as well as curtail the necessary discussion of research methods in culture. The paper has two interrelated aims. The first aim is to argue that cultural comparison can help in keeping local perspectives open to change. The second aim is to illustrate that the use of a (particular) method in cross-cultural research in a context in which it has not been applied before can demonstrate the scope of the method. A dialogue between empirical data concerning a local Danish context and Farver’s model for cross-cultural activity analyses is established. The use of this model gives occasion for questioning some of the local ways of dealing with children and for analysing more precisely how they seem to inhibit rather than contribute to children’s development. Against this background the scope of the model is emphasized: the model is meant for analysing meaning and coherence within a community, but it is also well suited for analysing whether meaning and coherence exist.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
