Response to the Commentary of Levenson and Khilwati
This response focuses on a distinction between emic and etic statements, that is, descriptions from within a certain tradition and the outside scientific analysis. Although carefully listening to informants and gathering otherrelevant information, the scholar searches for universal, nonculture bound...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
1999
|
| In: |
The international journal for the psychology of religion
Year: 1999, Volume: 9, Issue: 4, Pages: 259-262 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | This response focuses on a distinction between emic and etic statements, that is, descriptions from within a certain tradition and the outside scientific analysis. Although carefully listening to informants and gathering otherrelevant information, the scholar searches for universal, nonculture bound, psychological categories. Levenson and Khilwati appear to mix up this fundamental distinction. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1532-7582 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The international journal for the psychology of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0904_3 |