2.2 Philosophical foundations of diverse views of culture in IC

2.2.1 Two primary dimensions

To get a better understanding of the nature of diverse approaches to the study of culture，it is important to grasp their ontological，epistemological，and axiological foundations.Drawing on Baldwin’sI have benefited from Baldwin’s teaching notes entitled“Approaches to intercultural communication.”Retrieved May 21，2012 from http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/372/Approaches.htm.insights，I elaborate on two primary dimensions and three paradigms in this section（see Figure 1）.In terms of the nature of science and society，two primary dimensions are advanced.The first dimension，ontology/epistemology，is concerned with the nature of social science（e.g.，Burrell&Morgan，1988）.This dimension places research on a continuum of objectivism and subjectivism.Objectivist research assumes“a separation of subject（researcher）and object（knowledge），a belief in an external world and human behavior that can be known，described，and predicted，and use of research methodology that maintains this subject-object separation”.However，subjectivism“sees the subject-object relationship not as bifurcated but in productive tension；reality is not external，but internal and‘subjective’，and human behavior is creative，voluntary，and discoverable by ideographic methods”（Martin&Nakayama，1999：2）.

The second dimension，axiology，deals with the nature of society which is either order or conflict（Burrell&Morgan，1988）.Researchers who believe in societal order look at societal“stability and regulation，functional coordination and consensus”.In contrast，researchers adopting a“conflict”view of society seek to“find explanations for radical change，deep-seated structural conflict，modes of domination and structural contradiction”（p.17）.Therefore，along the dimension of axiology，all research，regardless of its objectivist/scientific or subjectivist/humanistic orientations，attempts to either observe the world or change it.Research that seeks to change the world is of a critical nature，as it seeks to“understand the role of power and contextual constraints on communication in order ultimately to achieve a more equitable society”（Martin&Nakayama，1999：3）.

2.2.2 Three paradigms

2.2.2.1 Scientific/objectivist/functionalist paradigm

Three paradigms emerge on the basis of the aforementioned two dimensions.The first paradigm，termed scientific/objectivist/functionalist，assumes that“the social world is composed of knowable empirical facts that exist separate from the researcher and reflects the attempt to apply models and methods of the natural sciences to the study of human behavior”（Martin&Nakayama，1999：3）.The assumption that people are driven by external and internal causes has led to the notion that people are predictable.Research in this paradigm thus“seeks to describe，but often to predict human behavior”（p.4）.Causal relationships and regularities（i.e.，universal laws that govern human behavior）are the researcher’s major concerns.Quantitative methods are often employed in this paradigm.

Scholars in the“scientific”research tradition often view culture as“a variable，defined a priori by group membership many times on a national level”，thereby emphasizing“the stable and orderly characteristics of culture”（Martin&Nakayama，2010：60）.The relationship between culture and communication is often causal and deterministic.Edward T.Hall’s early structural view of culture as patterned behavior that could be analyzed scientifically is one example.The simplistic treatment of culture as a set of instrumental rules for US white trainees and an emphasis on cultural comparisons on the national level during his service in the FSI further moved his notion of culture toward the objectivist end.

The positivist/postpositivist approach to culture as represented by Gudykunst and colleagues’research programs seeking to extend their uncertainty reduction theory to intercultural contexts is another example.This“etic”perspective aims to test the universality of externally imposed theoretical frameworks.Much of intercultural communication research that draws on early efforts on national character studies and later cross-cultural psychology of values also assumes an objectivist view of culture.

2.2.2.2 Humanistic/subjectivist/interpretive paradigm

The second paradigm，termed humanistic/subjectivist/interpretive，includes research that seeks to understand“the world as it is”（Marin&Nakayama，2010：60）usually without making predictions.Frequently-used research methods include observational analysis，textual analysis，and in-depth interviews or focus groups.Scholars who conduct research in this paradigm do not look for universal laws because they believe that human behavior is unpredictable.The purpose of research is rather to provide a single explanation and interpretation of a text，a person，or a group of people in a holistic way within their context（s） .

In the interpretive paradigm，culture is generally construed as“socially constructed and emergent，rather than defined a priori”（Martin&Nakayama，2010：60）.Culture often moves beyond nation-state to embrace other levels of collectives.The interpretative paradigm，like the functionalist paradigm，emphasizes“the stable，orderly characteristics of culture，reflecting an assumption of the social world as cohesive，ordered，and integrated”（p.60）.The relationship between culture and communication is seen as reciprocal.

The process view of culture that draws on symbolic interactionism（Blumer，1969；Mead，1934）belongs to this paradigm.This interpretative and open-ended perspective takes cultural representations and their meanings as its point of departure（Denzin&Lincoln，1998）.The elements of culture are continually created and recreated via communication.Moon’s（2002）notion that culture is constantly reconstructed through communication is one example.Carbaugh’s（1990）cultural discourse theory developed in ethnography of communication offers another example.New trends emerging in the field of intercultural communication in the 1990s that address the emic aspect of culture often are associated with this paradigm.In such interpretative research，the framework and interpretations emerge from the cultural community under study（Martin&Nakayama，2010）.

2.2.2.3 Critical paradigm

The third paradigm，termed critical，focuses more on the“why”than the“how”of the research.Research following this tradition seeks to address social inequalities by looking at such concepts as empowerment，resistance，ideology，hegemony，and marginalization .The ultimate goal is“to examine systems of oppression and work for system change”（Martin&Nakayama，2010：61）.Critical research can be either scientific or humanistic，depending on the ontology and epistemology of the researcher.

In this paradigm，culture is not seen as stable and orderly，but as a site of struggle for various meanings by competing groups（Ono，1998）.Moon’s（2002）treatment of culture as a“contested zone”of cultural identity is an example of such research.It seeks to understand the role of power and macro-level contextual constraints on communication in order to achieve a more equitable society（Martin&Nakayama，1999）.

Although acknowledging the potential of a postmodern approach to the study of culture and communication，Martin and Nakayama（2010）argued that time is not ripe for exploring the paradigmatic location of such an approach because only a few culture and communication scholars have embraced the postmodern research trajectory.Therefore，it is tentatively indicated in the center of the diagram（see Figure 1）.

2.2.3 Paradigm wars or paradigm integration？

As mentioned，the three paradigms have arisen from distinct ontological，epistemological，and axiological assumptions.“These paradigms are contiguous but separate，have some shared characteristics but different underlying assumptions，and are therefore mutually exclusive”（Martin&Nakayama，1999：3）.However，it is noteworthy that“the boundaries among the paradigms are irregular and slightly permeable rather than rigid and fixed”（p.3）.Although not much research on culture and communication is restricted entirely to one paradigm，it is reasonable to assume that researchers usually are inclined toward a specific paradigm.

Some scholars（e.g.，Casmir&Asuncion-Lande，1990；Chen&Starosta，1998）note the paradigmatic incompatibility in the field of intercultural communication.They argue that the 1990s represented the“decade of debate”when the rise of humanistic/interpretive/subjectivist and critical approaches to culture created rifts and tensions with the traditional approach，resulting in value-laden debates about right and wrong ways to conduct research.And the 2000s may be viewed as“decade of disintegration，deconstruction，and/or dialogue”，when，on the one hand，paradigmatic mutual exclusiveness was further strengthened as exemplified by the fact that critical research became even more critical and highly politicized，and on the other hand，various writers begin to seek perspective blending，theoretical diversity accommodation and inter-paradigmatic collaboration for a multi-faceted understanding of the field（Baldwin et al.，2014）.As Weng（in press）noted：

After years of deliberating these needs，some consensus is appearing among scholars that，to make IC[intercultural communication]teaching and research more relevant to the contemporary sociocultural world，one probably needs to（1）adopt a complex view of culture...（2）embrace a multi-paradigmatic research approach...and（3）expand IC’s practical implications beyond the competence effectiveness model....These modifications in fundamental assumptions，however，are almost impossible to achieve without（inter）disciplinary‘collaboration’，an emerging trend in the current field of IC...

This trend is also reflected in inclusive definitions of culture in recent intercultural scholarship.For example，Baldwin，Means Coleman，González，and Shenoy-Packer（2014）depart from the traditional fixed-traits view often framed in demographical terms and advance a definition of culture that seeks to encompass social scientific，humanistic，and critical paradigms.Culture，according to them，is‘the way of life of a group of people，including symbols，values，behaviors，artifacts，and other shared aspects，that continually evolves as people share messages and is often the result of struggle between different groups who share different perspectives，interests，and power relationships’（p.55）.Culture and cultural difference are presented as prediction，in-depth explanation（through meaning creation），or passing on and resisting power when related to communication.Major aspects of culture，such as values，beliefs，world views，and communication systems，are built within various social systems，which constitute a social context where cultural and intercultural communication occurs（Weng，in press）.

The dialectic approach to culture and communication proposed by Martin and Nakayama（1999，2009，2010）provides philosophical guidance for inter-paradigmatic dialogue and collaboration.Specifically，they proposed six dialectics，namely，cultural-individual dialectic，personal-contextual dialectic，differences-similarities dialectic，static-dynamic dialectic，present-future/history-past dialectic，and privilege-disadvantage dialectic.This approach“offers us the possibility of engaging multiple，but distinct，research paradigms.It offers us the possibility of seeing the world in multiple ways and to become better prepared to engage in intercultural interaction”（p.13）.Such an approach moves beyond cultural dichotomies and“fixed，discrete bits of knowledge”（p.14）to embrace the dynamic nature of culture and“makes explicit the dialectical tension between what previous research topics have been studied（cultural differences，assumed static nature of culture，etc.）and what should be studied（how cultures change，how they are similar，importance of history）”（p.19）.

The dialectic approach advanced by Martin&Nakayama（1999，2010）is often misinterpreted as a research method rather than a perspective（Martin&Nakayama，2010）.Indeed，this approach，which underscores the complexity of culture and communication，serves as a rationale and strategy for inter-paradigmatic collaboration.However，it can be argued that such misinterpretations may arise among scholars desiring more practical and concrete integrated approaches to address culture and communication in the realities of contemporary cultural contexts.