To ward off naïve universalism, researchers are urged to stay context sensitive in conducting comparative research. But robust hypothesis testing requires making comparisons across cultures with not only different traditions but also different knowledge paradigms, which in turn calls for more sophisticated contextualization and thicker interpretations that risk eroding the basis of comparison. To respond to these issues, this study has used research on Chinese relationships as an example to demonstrate how the incommensurability/commensurability framework can be useful in dealing with the problem. It shows how a thorough examination of the unique and the incommensurably different has revealed commensurable similarities that can pave the way to theory advancement.
AmesR. T. (2013, February). Confucian role ethics and Deweyan democracy: A challenge to the ideology of individuals. Paper presented at the International Conference on Confucianism, Democracy and Constitutionalism: Global and East Asian Perspectives, Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
2.
ArcherM. S. (1996). Social integration and system integration: Developing the distinction. Sociology, 30, 679-700.
3.
ArcherM. S. (2010). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 225-252.
4.
BarleyS. R.TolbertP. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 03-117.
5.
BarnesJ. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations, 7, 39-58.
6.
BarnesS. X. D. (1998). Individualism-collectivism and ego development: A study of the Chinese culture. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
7.
BernsteinR. J. (1989). Social theory as critique. In HeldD.ThompsonJ. B. (Eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics (pp. 19-33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BlauP. M. (1976). Approaches to the study of social structure. London, England: Open Books.
9.
BlauP. M.MertonR. K. (1981). Continuities in structural inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1975). Towards a comparative framework for political communication research. In ChaffeeS. (Ed.), Political communication: Issues and strategies for research (pp. 165-193). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
BlumlerJ. G.McLeodJ. M.RosengrenK. K. (1992). An introduction to comparative communication research. In BlumerJ. G.McLeodJ. M.RosengrenK. E. (Eds.), Comparatively speaking: Communication and culture across space and time (pp. 3-18). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
BondM. H. (1994). Into the heart of collectivism: A personal and scientific journey. In KimU.TrandisH. C.KagitcibasiC.ChoiS.YoonG. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theories, method, and applications (pp. 66-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
BondM. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis—A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 73-77.
14.
BrettJ. M.TinsleyC. H.JanssensM.BarsnessZ. I.LytleA. L. (1997). New approach to the study of culture in industry/organizational psychology. In EarleyP. C.ErezM. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 75-129). San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.
15.
BrewerM. B.ChenY. R. (2007). Where (Who) are collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133-151.
16.
ChangX. (2010). Guanxi or Li shang wanglai? Reciprocity, social support networks, and social creativity in a Chinese village. Taipei, Taiwan: Airiti Press.
17.
ChenC. C.ChenY. R.XinK. (2004). Guanxi practices and trust in management: A procedural justice perspective. Organization Science, 15, 200-209.
18.
ChenG. M.ChungJ. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 93-105.
19.
ChuG. C.JuY. (1993). The Great Wall in ruins. Stony Brook: State University of New York Press.
20.
CleggS. (1989). Frameworks of power. London, England: Sage.
21.
CohenP. S. (1968). Modern social theory. London, England: Heinemann.
22.
DunningJ. H.KimC. (2007). The cultural roots of Guanxi: An exploratory study. The World Economy, 30, 329-341.
23.
EmersonR. M. (1981). Social exchange. In RosenbergM.TurnerR. (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 30-65). New York, NY: Basic Books.
24.
EsserF. (2013). The emerging paradigm of comparative communication enquiry: Advancing cross-national research in times of globalization. International Journal of Communication, 7, 113-128.
25.
EsserF.HanitzschT. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of comparative communication research. London, England: Routledge.
26.
FaraceV.DonohewL. (1965). Mass communication in national social systems: A study of 43 variables in 115 countries. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 253-261.
27.
FeiX. T. (1993). Rural China and rural reconstruction. Taipei, Taiwan: Strom & Stress (In Chinese).
28.
FiskeA. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare culture—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88.
29.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
GoldT.GuthrieD.WankD. (2002). An introduction to the study of Guanxi. In GoldT.GuthrieD.WankD. (Eds.), Social connections in China: Institutions, culture and the changing nature of Guanxi (pp. 3-20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
32.
GreenbergJ.CohenR. L. (1982). Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In GreenbergJ.CohenR. L. (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 437-469). New York, NY: Academic Press.
33.
GudykunstW. B.MatsumotoY.Ting-ToomeyS.NishidaT.KimK.HeymanS. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.
34.
GurevitchM.BlumlerJ. G. (2004). State of the art of comparative political communication research. In EsserF.PfetschB. (Eds.), Comparing political communication—Theories, cases and challenges (pp. 325-344). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HoD. Y. F. (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: Analysis based on methodological relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 1-16.
36.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
HofstedeG.McCraeR. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52-88.
39.
HuangY. H. (2004). A Chinese perspective of intercultural organization-public relationship. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12, 151-176.
40.
HuangY. H. (2011). Favor (Renqing): Characteristics and practice from a resourced-based perspective. China Media Research, 7, 34-43.
41.
HuangY. H.BedfordO. (2014). Validation of the dual-factor relational framework. Unpublished manuscript.
42.
HwangK. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 945-974.
43.
HwangK. K. (2000). Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 155-178. doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00124
44.
HwangK. K. (2003). In search of a new paradigm for cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 287-291. doi:10.1046/j.1467-839X.2003.00127.x
45.
HwangK. K. (2005a). Confucian relationalism: Reflections on culture and the reconstruction of paradigm. Taipei: National Taiwan University (In Chinese).
46.
HwangK. K. (2005b). [From “individualism vs. collectivism” to “relationalism”: The objective of indigenizing social scientific research]. Unpublished paper (In Chinese).
47.
HwangK. K. (2011a). The Mandala model of self. Psychological Studies, 56, 329-334.
48.
HwangK. K. (2011b). A proposal for scientific revolution in psychology. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publishing (In Chinese).
49.
HwangK. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations. New York, NY: Springer.
50.
HwangK. K. (2015a). Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interactions: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 45, 39-62.
51.
HwangK. K. (2015b). Culture system vs. Pan-cultural dimensions: Philosophical reflection on approaches for indigenous psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 45, 2-25.
52.
HwangK. K. (2015c). Self-exertion and conscience: Getting out of Weberian Maze. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publishing (In Chinese).
53.
JacobsB. J. (1979, June). A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: Kan-cg’ing and Kuan-his in a rural Taiwanese township. The China Quarterly, 78, 237-273.
54.
KayserE.SchwingerT. (1982). A theoretical analysis of the relationship among individual justice concept, layman’s psychology, and distribution decision. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 12, 47-51.
55.
KimM. S.HunterJ. E.MiyaharaA.HorvathA.BresnahanM.YoonH. J. (1996). Individual- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 28-49.
56.
KimM. S.SmithD. H.GuY. (1999). Medical decision making and Chinese patients’ self-construals. Health Communication, 11, 249-260.
57.
KimU. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In KimU.TriandisH.KagitcibasiC.ChoiS.YoonG. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
KingA. Y. C. (1985). The individual and group in Confucianism: A relational perspective. In MunroD. E. (Ed.), Individualism and holism: Studies in Confucian and Taoist values (pp. 57-70). Ann Arbor, MI: Center of Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.
59.
KingA. Y. C. (1992). From traditional society to modern society. Taipei, Taiwan: Chinese Times (In Chinese).
60.
KitayamaS. (2002). Cultural and basic psychological processes—Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 189-196.
61.
KitayamaS.DuffyS.UchidaY. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In KitayamaS.CohenD. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136-174). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
62.
KluverR. (2004). Introduction: Political communication in Asia. Asian Journal of Communication, 14, 117-120.
63.
KnackS.KeeferP. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross–country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1251-1288.
64.
KohnM. (1989). Class and conformity: A study in values. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
65.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66.
KuhnT. S.ConantJ.HaugelandJ. (Eds.). (2000). The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970-1993, with an autobiographical interview. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
67.
LayderD. (2006). Understanding social theory (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
68.
LernerD. (1958). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York, NY: Free Press.
69.
LernerM. J. (1981). The justice motive in human relations: Some thoughts on what we know and need to know about justice. In LernerM.LernerS. C. (Eds.), The Justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times of scarcity and change (pp. 11-35). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
70.
LettJ. (1990). Emics and etics: Notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In HeadlandT. N.PikeK. L.HarrisM. (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate. Frontiers of anthropology (Vol. 7, pp. 127-142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
71.
LiJ. J.PoppoL.ZhouK. Z. (2008). Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic vs. foreign firms. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 383-400.
72.
LiangS. (1987). The essence of Chinese culture 《中国文化要义》. Chengdu, China: Zhengzhong (In Chinese). (Original work published 1949)
73.
LinL. H. (2011). Cultural and organizational antecedents of Guanxi: The Chinese cases. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 441-451.
74.
LivingstoneS. (2012). Challenges to comparative research in a globalizing media landscape. In EsserF.HanitzschT. (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 415-429). London, England: Routledge.
75.
LuoY. (2003). Industrial dynamics and managerial networking in an emerging market: The case of China. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1315-1327.
76.
MalekiA.de JongM. (2014). A proposal for clustering the dimensions of national culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 107-143.
77.
MalinowskiB. (1913). The family among the Australian aborigines: A sociological study. London, England: University of London Press.
78.
ManciniP.HallinD. C. (2012). Some caveats about comparative research in media studies. In SemetkoH. A.ScammelM. (Eds.), Sage handbook of political communication (pp. 509-517). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
80.
McLeanS. L.SchultzD. A.StegerM. B. (2002). Introduction. In McLeanS. L.SchultzD. A.StegerM. B. (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and “bowling alone” (pp. 1-17). New York: New York University Press.
81.
MizruchiM. S. (1992). The structure of corporate political action: Interfirm relations and their consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
MizruchiM. S. (1994). Social network analysis: Recent achievements and current controversies. Acta Sociologica, 37, 329-343. doi:10.1177/000169939403700403
83.
MorlingB.LamoureauxM. (2008). Measure culture outside the head: A meta-analysis of individualism collectivism in cultural products. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 199-220.
84.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
85.
PatyM. (1999). Universality of science: Historical validation of a philosophical idea. In HabibS. I.RainaD. (Eds.), Situating the history of science: Dialogues with Joseph Needham (pp. 303-324). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
86.
PutnamR. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.
87.
RinneT.SteelG. D.FairweatherJ. (2012). Hofstede and Shane revisited: The role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success. Cross-Cultural Research, 46, 91-108.
88.
SahlinsM. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
89.
SchrammW. L. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in the developing countries (No. 25). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
90.
SchultzD. A. (2002). The phenomenology of democracy: Putnam, pluralism, and voluntary associations. In McLeanS. L.SchultzD. A.StegerM. B. (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and “bowling alone” (pp. 74-98). New York: New York University Press.
91.
ShwederR. A.GoodnowJ.HatanoG.Le VineR.MarkusH.MillerP. (1998). The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In DamonW. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 1-43). New York, NY: John Wiley.
92.
TriandisH. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
93.
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
94.
TriandisH. C.BontempoR.VillarealM. J.AsaiM.LuccaN. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
95.
TsuiA. S.FarhJ. L. (1997). Where Guanxi matters: Relational demography and Guanxi in the Chinese context. Work and Occupations, 24, 56-79.
96.
TuW. M. (1985). Confucian thought: Selfhood as creative transformation. New York: State University of New York Press.
97.
WangC. L. (2007). Guanxi vs. relationship marketing: Exploring underlying differences. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 81-86.
98.
WangG. (2011). After the fall of the Tower of Babel: Culture-commensurability as a point of departure. In WangG. (Ed.), De-westernizing communication research: Changing questions and altering frameworks (pp. 254-275). London, England: Routledge.
99.
WangG. (2014). Culture, paradigm, and communication theory: A matter of boundary or commensurability?Communication Theory, 24, 373-393.
100.
WangG.HuangY. H. (2015, February6-7). From collectivism to the dual factor relational framework (DFRF): Tracing the path to commensurability. Paper presented at the International Conference on Comparative Communication Research: Reviews, Showcases, and Theoretical Advancements, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
101.
WangG.LiuZ. B. (2010). What collective? Collectivism and relationalism from a Chinese perspective. Chinese Journal of Communication, 3, 42-63.
102.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
103.
WeberM. (1964). The religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism (GerthH. H., Trans.). New York, NY: The Free Press. (Original work published 1920)
104.
WillnatL.AwA. J. (2009). Introduction: The big unknown: Political communication in Asia. In WillnatL.AwA. (Eds.), Political communication in Asia (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Routledge.
105.
YangC. F. (1991). The Chinese self: Theory and research direction. In YangC. F.KaoS. R. (Eds.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 94-144). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou Publishing (In Chinese).
106.
YangC. F. (2001a). A critical review of the conceptualization of Guanxi and Renqing. In YangC. F. (Ed.), The interpersonal relationship, affection, and trust of the Chinese: From an interactional perspective (pp. 3-26). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan Liou Publishing (In Chinese).
107.
YangC. F. (2001b). A reconceptualization of the Chinese Guanxi and Renqing. In YangC. F. (Ed.), The interpersonal relationship, affection, and trust of the Chinese: From an interactional perspective (pp. 337-370). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan Liou Publishing (In Chinese).
108.
YangK. S. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159-170.
109.
YangK. S. (1992). Chinese social orientation: A social interactional approach. In YangK. S.YuA. B. (Eds.), Chinese psychology and behavior: Methodological and conceptual considerations (pp. 87-142). Taipei, Taiwan: Guiguan Book (In Chinese).
110.
YangK. S. (1996). The psychological transformation of the Chinese people as a result of societal modernization. In BondM. H. (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 479-498). Hong Kong, China: Oxford University Press.
111.
YuY. S. (1987). Examining the modern significance of Chinese culture through its value system. Taipei, Taiwan: Chinese Times (In Chinese).
112.
YukiM. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166-183.
113.
ZuoB. (2002). Chinese relational orientation: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Central China Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 41, 74-80 (In Chinese).
