The two important features of social science that give rise to these questions are: 1. Social sciences study social phenomena, meaning phenomena that involve human beings and their relationships, institutions, cultures, etc. 2. Social sciences employ scientific methods of investigation involving systematic empirical observation, formulation and testing of hypotheses, etc. just like natural sciences. So the questions arise due to the need to reconcile the social/human aspect of the subject matter with the scientific aspect of the methodologies used. Discussion Leader: Correct, the two key features are that social sciences study social phenomena involving human beings but also employ scientific methods of investigation like natural sciences. This gives rise to questions around how to reconcile the human/social aspect with scientific methods

1. Culture, Paradigm, and Communication Theory
▪ Week 16, Part 1, Leading Discussion
▪ Fardin Ayar, Ph.D. Student
▪ 2022/Dec/27

2. Contents
1
Culture, Paradigm, and Communication Theory
2
3
4
5
What is Culture
Geo-cultural theories and Underlying modern research
What is the yin and yang paradigm?
Incommensurability

3. Contents
6
Mediatization As A Problematic
7
The Shortcomings of Science And Systems
8
The Dilemma Of Desiring Metatheory
9
Over view about the paper
10 Class Discussion questions and videos session

4. ▪ The discussion on geo-cultural theory has underscored the urgency
for us to re-examine the way cultural differences are handled in
academic discourse. Boundaries need to be drawn, because European
universality neglects cultural and also paradigm differences.
▪ The critique of Euro–American centrism in communication theories
has in recent years led to calls for Afrocentric/Asiacentric approaches
to research, and the emergence of geo-cultural theories.
▪ Therefore, boundaries need to be drawn, because the problem with
European universality is not merely a matter of neglecting cultural,
but paradigm differences as well.
Culture, Paradigm, and Communication Theory

5. What they are
What
differences they
have made
What barriers stand
in the way of further
development
This article will first
briefly review the
literature on geo-cultural
theories

6. ▪ Borrowing from the following three concepts, the author has proposed a methodological
framework in which comparability and incomparability (C/I) are seen as a pair of symbiotic and
interactive concepts.
▪ The article compares this methodological framework and the universality/particularity model (the
U/P model), gives examples to illustrate the areas of possible applications.
Culture, paradigm methodological framework
Kuhnian concept of
incommensurability
Chinese yin/yang
worldview
Hermeneutic notion
of interpretation

7. ▪ By way of explaining irreconcilable differences between knowledge paradigms and cultural
traditions, the concepts make it possible for us to develop theoretical discussions on the basis of
similarities, rather than commonality (Wang, 2011a).
Paradigms
Knowledge paradigms Cultural traditions

8. ▪ Culture is the greatest need of human society and the main factor of dynamism, vitality and
continuity of life and societies. Today, the issues of culture as the most important factor in the
economic, social, political, human and moral development of a country have been in the
focus of attention of experts, thinkers and elites.
▪ Culture is not merely a piece of mysterious academic literature, but a resource through which
we can consciously react to the world around us and perhaps choose the right option and
achieve a higher level of nobility and mastery.
What is Culture

9. ▪ Yin and Yang represent the opposite poles of the world. Yin and Yang, like night and day or winter
and summer, are part of the cycle of existence. The Yin/Yang paradigm dates back to 1059 BC in
China.
▪ Yin and Yang are respectively the names of the female and male complementary principles or
forces of the world in the philosophy of women and Taoism, which includes all aspects of life. Yin
literally means the shaded side of the hill and Yang is the sunny side.
What is the yin and yang paradigm?

10. ▪ Nothing is completely yin or completely yang. For
example, cold water is yin in contrast to boiling
water, but ice is yang in contrast.
▪ Yin and Yang are completely interdependent and
neither can exist without the other. Light has no
meaning without darkness.
▪ Yin and yang can be divided into yin and yang: for
example, warm versus cold is yang, but warm is
divided into hot (yang) and lukewarm (yin), and cold
is divided into cool (yang) and very cold (yin).
Yin and Ynag Polarities

11. ▪ Geo-cultural theory is generally understood as the product of culture-specific, to indigenizing
communication research, versus universal theory that is the goal of culture-general, or the etic,
approach (Huang, 2010; Jahoda, 1977; Wang, 2011a).
▪ The culture-specific approach expects geo-cultural theory to explain and predict only those
phenomena that fall within a certain geographic or cultural boundary, whereas the culture-
general approach does not specify such limitations.
Geo-cultural theories

12. ▪ The collection of research, mostly based in Asia, has offered Three models:
Asia culture paradigm model
First
The Sadharanikaran
model of communication
and conflict resolution
that was based on
classical Hindu poetics
(Adhikary, 2010;
Dissanayake, 2009;
Yadava, 1998).
Second
The Muslim cultural
and media theory
anchored in the analysis
of Qur’an and Hadith
(Pasha, 1993).
Third
The metatheory of
global mediatization
built on the Buddhist
doctrine.

13. ▪ Underlying modern research is the European dialectic method that seeks to find universal and
objective truth by way of argumentation—a form of rational debate that requires.
What is Underlying modern research
1
• Critical
thinking
2
• Logical
reasoning
3
• Empirical
evidence

14. ▪ Knowledge paradigms entail specific ways of prioritizing, organizing, and navigating thoughts and
ideas. Identifying East–West similarities and/or differences, or pointing out potential areas of
research are necessary steps for academic exchanges across knowledge paradigms.
▪ Knowledge encourages us to be self‐aware. According to Cohen, distinguishing science from non-
science is possible through paradigm. Paradigm organizes research traditions and activities of
scientists in a field of science.
Knowledge paradigms

15. ▪ Researchers advocating the culture-specific approach argue
that the existence of heterogeneity within a culture does not
rule out the existence of core values and shared experiences.
▪ In contrast to the culture-specific approach, the ultimate
goal for the culture-general approach is to produce theories
through integrating thoughts and ideas from different
paradigms and traditions (e.g., Gunaratne, 2013; Huang,
2010; Kim, 2007; Lee, 2002; Wallerstein, 2006; Wang &
Shen, 2000).
Culture-specific approach

16. ▪ Paradigms are not theories, rules, or models but rather reflect the worldview and the landscape that
the body of knowledge as a whole reveal .Paradigms also serve as an indication of the fundamental
nature of what is studied (Lang, 2013).
▪ The Western academic tradition is, therefore, not homogeneous, and the mechanistic worldview is
not the only option it paradigm offers.
The paradigm challenge

17. ▪ If paradigms are not theories, laws or models, but reflect a
worldview and vision and reveal the whole knowledge, then how is
it possible to create a worldview and expand science with
paradigms?
Discussion

18. ▪ This way of explaining incommensurability has three important implications to our discussion.
Bridging incommensurable differences
Incommensurability
First, the key to commensurability is similarity, not
commonality.
Secondly, to be incommensurable does not mean
incomparable.
Thirdly, commensurability can be, achieved through
hermeneutic interpretation of the incommensurable.

19. ▪ In Kuhn’s discussion on scientific revolution and paradigm shift, the term “incommensurability”
was used to describe “irreconcilable differences”.
▪ For the study of communication and social sciences, it is however a step forward: No two human
beings or cultures and societies are “the same” at any moment, in any way.
▪ Studies on Chinese media’s agenda-setting function were criticized as pretentious (Huang, 2013, p.
48), because media in China were part of a propaganda machine that not only tells people “what to
think about,” but also “what to think.”
Scientific revolution and paradigm shift

20. Discussion session
• How does geo-cultural theory research contrast from cultural
studies? (Megan)
Discussion 1
• How does geo-culture play a role in the formation of different
cultures and connects nations together?
Discussion 2

21. Commensurability and the dynamic worldview in the yin/yang paradigm
The first and most important feature of the Taoist world is its fluid
and changing nature. Unlike the mechanistic world, it is not stable.
A second feature, one that is closely related to the ideal of a
dynamic world, is that yin and yang are opposite, but not
dichotomous nor exclusive to one another.

22. ▪ incommensurability not only paves the way for commensurability, but can be the source of
inspiration commensurable theories.
▪ A dynamic paradigm such as yin/yang therefore opens up a range of possibilities for the C/I
model, in which two opposite concepts may freely interact.
▪ Therefore, instead of ruling out thoughts and ideas from different knowledge paradigms,
their richness is taken full advantage of through the interpretation of incommensurable
differences.
Incommensurability

23. 1. There seems to be less discussion on geo-cultural theories in the African and Latin American research
community. In Africa there have been concerns about the absence of Afrocentric studies in
communication. While Latin America, is home to the participatory pedagogy to communication
studies, and is credited for the development of the dependency theory.
2. Geo-cultural theories have taken an important step for the Local Self to reassert itself by
underscoring differences and local particularities.
3. However, Geo-cultural theories have been challenged, from a dialectic perspective.
Conclusion

24. ▪ During the past centuries, Europe has been considered as the main place of modernity.
▪ What is sometimes overlooked is that the rise of modernity was developed on the basis of Europe’s
unprecedented and unrivaled knowledge and understanding of the rest of the world (Said, 1994).
▪ During the same period of time, the Ottoman and the Mughal empire, and the Chin Dynasty (Wang,
2011b), all mighty military and political powers dominating vast territories in the Orient, showed very
little interest in the world beyond their control.
▪ Therefore, The C/I framework aims at facilitating exchanges and communication across paradigmatic
boundaries and theory development following a dynamic paradigm.
Conclusion

25. WORLDVIEWS AND
MEDIATIZATION
Fatema Amin
Discussion Leader
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
27 Dec 2022
Second Part

26. WORLDVIEWS AND MEDIATIZATION:
IN SEARCH OFA METATHEORY
LANA F. RAKOW

27.  Shelton Gunaratna argues that Western science,
the dominant tool of the social sciences, is
inadequate for the task of explaining
mediatization.
 He proposes that Eastern philosophies can
correct the shortcomings of science and provide
a more accurate understanding and a universally
acceptable metatheory of this process of change,
demonstrating his point by fleshing out a
Buddhist and Daoist analysis as an alternative
explanation.
INTRODUCTION

28. MEDIATIZATION AS A PROBLEMATIC
 Citing Lilleker (2008), he says
‘Mediatization, in the sense used by
communication scholars, is a concept that
argues that the media shape and frame the
processes and discourse of political
communication as well as the society in
which that communication takes place.’

29. THE SHORTCOMINGS OF SCIENCE AND SYSTEMS
 Gunaratne’s biggest issue with science, however,
is its domination of social theory and its Western
worldview, excluding other, especially Eastern,
frameworks and explanations.

30. THE DILEMMA OF DESIRING METATHEORY
I want to ask a different question: what are the
implications of attempting to create a ‘universally
acceptable’ metatheory? How would we assess its
‘accuracy’ and acceptability? On what grounds
would we accept or reject it? Is such a theory
possible through a reconciliation of Western
science and Eastern philosophy, one that begins
with the seemingly innocuous charge to ‘go east,
young man’?

31. THE ORTHODOX CONSENSUS AND THE
EMERGING SYNTHESIS
ANTHONY GIDDENS

32. CONTENT LIST PRESENTATION
01 Orthodox Consensus
02 The Emerging Synthesis
03 The Nature Of Scientific Endeavor
04 Conceptions Of Human Agents
05 Generalization In The Social Sciences
06 Practical Connotations

33.  There are three main elements that
characterize the preexisting
mainstream mode of social science,
or what I have sometimes called the
"orthodox consensus.
INTRODUCTION
ANTHONY GIDDENS

34.  The model of Naturalism
 The model of Social causation
 The model of Functionalism
ORTHODOX CONSENSUS

35. THE EMERGING SYNTHESIS
It’s a new phase where we will deal with these question:
 What the social sciences are about?
 What their objectives are?
 What their conclusions can be said to generate in the way of
knowledge?
There are three main traits which are fundamentally defective :
 The nature of scientific endeavor
 Conception of human agents
 Generalization in the social sciences

36. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR
 The model of natural science that informed the
orthodox consensus was essentially an empiricist
model of science: seeing the highest aspirations of
science as the creation of a deductive system of
laws.
 Natural science, as it clearly demonstrated in the
post-Kuhnian philosophy of science, is a
hermeneutic or interpretive endeavor.

37. 1- Giddens mentions the unintended consequences of human action. Does this mean
that some facets of social science can only explain things in retrospective? Does this
lessen the practical value of social science input? (Ana)
2- Why do some scholars seek out a universally accepted metatheory while others
seek to indigenize communication research? As communication students, which
direction do you lean towards and why? (Megan)
Discussion session

38. CONCEPTIONS OF HUMAN AGENTS
 What we have to do in social theory is to recover a notion of what I
describe as the "knowledgeable human agent. " By the knowledgeable
human agent, I mean that the social sciences must emphasize
phenomena that in our everyday lives we acknowledge to be primary
features of human action-but that, as social scientists, we tend to
forget all about.
 This recovery has to be based around the idea of what I call practical
consciousness. By practical consciousness, I mean a notion that has
been "discovered" in a number of newer traditions of thought.
 Practical consciousness is fundamental to the recovery of the way in
which we make the social world predictable.

39. There are two types of generalizations that exist in
social science. They can be called "laws" if one
likes; but each differs from laws in natural science.
 "Generalizations of type one" are those
depending upon the knowledgeable observance
of rules or convention on the part of social actors.
 Generalizations of type two clearly can be
discovered in the social sciences- indeed their
uncovering has to be a basic ambition of social
scientific work.
GENERALIZATION IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

40. ABC
ENLIGHTENMENT FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE

41. PRACTICAL CONNOTATIONS
 Mainstream social science tended to operate with a defective view of the corrigibility of
common sense. Common sense here refers to propositional beliefs that actors hold
about social life and the conditions of social reproduction.
 The invention of the discourse of political science helped constitute what the modern
state is. Thinkers were not just describing an independently given world.
 The discourse of economics was extremely influential in the nineteenth century and
provides a second example.
 Communication studies is absolutely central to what social theory is about and to what
social science is about. Each of the components that I identified as taking us away from
the orthodox consensus in- volves an inevitable stress upon the centrality of
communication.

42. Group Discussion
Discussion Leader: Doreen
Assistance: Fatema and Fardin
27.12.2022
Third Part

43. What would an adequate Philosophy of social
science look like?
▪ Brian Fay, Philosophy, Wesleyan University
J. Donald Moon, Government Wesleyan University

44. Introduction
J. Donald Moon, Wesleyan University
▪ Brian Fay, Philosophy, Wesleyan University

45. Over view about the paper
▪ “What would an adequate Philosophy of social science look like?”
▪ In this eassy they have not tired to set out a philosophical account of social science, but they
showed that neither of the two prevailing accounts was adequate.
▪ An adequate philosophy of social science must be capable of answering the three questions
which were discussed.
▪ 1. What is the relationship between interpretation and expalanation?
▪ 2. What is the nature of social scientific theory?
▪ 3. What is the role of critique in social science?

46. The questions arise because of the conjuction of two important features of
social science
1. These sciences are social, which is to say that the phenomena they study are
intentional phenomena.
2. These sciences are sciences, in the sense that they try to develop systematic theories.
3. These philosophical metatheories are partical realizations of the task of giving an
account of social science.
▪ Indeed as they suggested throughout the analyisis, these two positions can be
reformulated in such away as to render them compitable and their insights
complemnentary.

47. How Adequate is Fay and Moon’s Philosophy of Social Sciences?
▪ Brian Fay and Donald Moon rejected the two traditional approaches in philosophy of
social sciences such as the humanism and the naturalism.
▪ The rejection was based on the claim that these two approaches are narrow and one-
sided. Fay and Moon then argue that an adequate philosophy of social sciences must
be a synthesis of the two approaches.
▪ For them, this hybrid position is capable of meeting the requirements for adequacy for
philosophy of social sciences.

48. A Critical Assessment of Fay and Moon’s Monistic Approach
▪ Is the synthesised model defended by Fay and Moon adequate as a compelling
account of social sciences? We return a negative answer because there are
several sorts of worry about this move. These constraints are discussed in this
section.

49. Humanism and the Requirements for Adequacy:
▪ The question here is that can the humanist meet the requirements for adequacy?
▪ Fay and Moon supplied a negative answer. The reason is that this approach is one-sided. (Fay
and Moon, 227).

50. Naturalism and the Requirements for Adequacy:
▪ The question here is that can naturalism meet the requirements for adequacy?
▪ The answer for Fay and Moon is that it did not meet the requirement. The same reason for
humanism was also advanced for naturalism. The reason is that this approach is one-sided. (Fay
and Moon, 227). In other words, the problem with this model is that it mainly focuses on a
single aspect of social phenomena without paying attention to the other aspect of social reality.

51. Discussion session
How cultural discourses creates other metatheory? (Fatema)

52. The Synthesised approach and the Requirements for Adequacy:
▪ Does this new approach have what it takes to meet the requirements for adequacy?
▪ Fay and Moon return a positive answer. For the duo, this approach is capable of meeting the
requirements for adequacy for the following reasons.
▪ (i) This approach is not one-sided like the other two
▪ (ii) this approach can answer the three fundamental questions that science of man raises that the
earlier traditional dualist approach could not answer.

53. The ‘Three Questions’Argument
▪ Does answering the three questions identified above guarantee adequacy?
▪ Contrary to Fay and Moon’s claim, we argue that apart from Q.1 which is the question
about the relationship between interpretation and explanation in social science, Q.2 which
is the question about the nature of social scientific theory, and Q.3 which is a question
about the role of critique in social sciences, there is another essential question that must
be addressed by any compelling account of social sciences.

54. The Adequacy Argument
▪ The argument here is not parallel to the previous one. Considering Fay and Moon’s claim that
an adequate philosophy of social science must be (capable of answering the three questions that
we have discussed, let us import argument II from the introduction above for a proper summary
of the claim.
▪ Premise1. An approach will be an adequate approach in social sciences if and only if such
an approach is capable of answering the three questions that the idea of a social science
raises.
▪ Premise 2. A monistic approach which is a synthesis of humanism and naturalism
approaches is capable of answering these three questions
▪ Therefore, A monistic approach which is a synthesis of humanism and naturalism
approaches can provide an adequate philosophy of social sciences.

55. Discharging the Failure Argument against Humanist and the Naturalist
▪ The argument here is that the humanists and naturalists will neither accept the failure argument that Fay
and Moon attributed to their positions nor will they appreciate the move that their positions should be
reduced to one synthesised model.
▪ The challenge here is that we need clarification to establish whether the humanist and naturalist on the
one hand, and Fay and Moon on the other hand are addressing the same question. From literatures
available, it is not established that the humanist, the naturalist and Fay and Moon are responding to the
same questions.
▪ The humanists and the naturalists are responding to the questions about the nature and appropriate
methodology for social sciences, (Fay and Moon, 209), meanwhile, Fay and Moon are responding to the
questions about the requirements for an adequate philosophy of social sciences. (Fay and Moon, 209).

56. The Identity Problem
▪ The challenge is that with this new approach, would social sciences still be “scientific” in the same way that the
natural sciences are? If the answer is yes, the worry is that what happens to the humanist’s elements/features in
this model? And if the answer is no, what then is the identity of this new synthesis given its humanistic and
naturalistic commitment? These questions are germane because; (i) Fay and Moon failed to tell us what the
identity of this approach will be, (ii) we need to know what will be the role of intention, motive action and
meaning that the humanist defended.
▪ Arising from the point (i) above, will the new hybrid approach be a genuinely distinct approach? Or will it
appear as a naturalist approach at one time since the naturalist argues that they share the same methodology
with the natural sciences, and appear as the humanist position at another? What motivated these questions is the
obvious fact that the factors that the new synthesis appeal to will be some combination of both humanism
features and naturalism features. The failure to provide sufficient explanation on this is worrisome.

57. The Identity Problem
▪ Also, Fay and Moon failed to explain how this new approach will be able to accommodate the possibility
of clash between the two synthesised approaches. We should be reminded that Fay and Moon had earlier
argued that social phenomena require both interpretation (humanism feature) and explanation (naturalism
feature). It is equally noteworthy that the general attempt to balance interpretation with explanation may
not always be practicable. This is due to the fact that there are instances when interpretation and
explanation will be in conflict especially with this new synthesis. Now the question is that in case of
clash between explanation and interpretation in social sciences, how would this approach address this
possible problem? Thus, it is not clear whether this reconciliatory approach will always be successful.
▪ On the positive side, if Fay and Moon attempt to combine both the naturalist’ and the humanist’
approaches in the same workable synthesis to form a new approach is as successful as they claim, then
the following implications hold (i) there is no factual disagreement between the two approaches, (ii) the
gap that scholars claim that exists between the two approaches is not as wide as they claim. However,
this does not remove the fact that this new approach is not also problem free.

58. Conclusion
▪ The paper concludes that though the requirements for the monistic/hybrid approach
are necessary, they are not sufficient in providing an adequate account of the
philosophy of social sciences.
▪ In “What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like?” Fay and
Moon had assisted us to understand the nature of social sciences better.

59. Class Discussion
1. What is meant by philosophy of social science?
2. What is explanation in philosophy of social science?
3. What are the views of philosophy of science?
4. What is the importance of social science and philosophy?

60. 04. Video Session

61. 05. Quick Quiz
(Provide the answers in the chat box)
1. The concept of cross-cultural communication refers to:
A. Analyzing recipients culture to gain acceptance of information
B. Transferring information across cultures
C. Communicating information in-depth and with style
D. Understanding different culture
2. All of the following aspects can be lost in a translation that uses basic or simplified
English except:
A. Cultural sensitivity
B. Codified rules
C. Nuances
D. Style

62. 05. Quick Quiz
(Provide the answers in the chat box)
3. All of these are some of the objective elements of a culture, except:
A. Metaphors and word semantics
B. Syntax and paragraph structure
C. Reading habits and attitude
D. Norms and values
4. All of the following are some of the subjective aspects of culture except:
A. Values
B. Belief
C. Language
D. Attitude

63. 05. Quick Quiz
(Provide the answers in the chat box)
5. Word semantics, metaphors, sentence and paragraph structure, syntax, and context are all part
of:
A. The linguistic features analyzed in any text before translation.
B. The subjective elements of culture affecting text translation
C. The extra-linguistic features to be considered before translation.
D. None of these
6. Reading habits and how people argue are aspects that are unnecessary to analyze when adapting a
text to different cultures.
A. True
B. False

64. 06. Conclusion
▪ ANTHONY GIDDENS – YouTube

65. Q. A

66. Thanks for attention