ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2021
What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Culture? There is a Missing Link Between the Natural and the Social Sciences.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A close look at sociality in DSM criteria.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article by Wells is a chance to ponder on the different conceptions of culture endorsed by the natural sciences and by the social sciences. The standard definition of culture among biologists/natural scientists usually focuses on transmission of behaviors (e.g. "tradition of socially learned behaviors"), while on the other hand anthropologists and social scientists focus more on the symbolic aspect of culture (e.g."webs of significance"). This differential emphasis likely reflects a difference in ontology (what culture is) and in its epistemology (how it can be studied). Natural scientists typically prefer to focus on how cultural traits change quantitatively, while social scientists are much more focused with the process of symbolic interpretation, which typically involves the ability to account for meaning and sense-making (thus, it is more qualitative-grounded). These two conceptions of culture are both valid but incomplete, if they do not take into account the counterpart. The scientific conundrum that has to be solved is how these two different onto-epistemologies can be successfully linked together. A speculative hypothesis is put forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34453266What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.