interview an individual a member of the culture you are studying for this semester (i.e., If you are writing your cultural communication practices paper on the culture of Peru, you would interview someone from Peru). Ideally, you should interview someone from a different civilization (not Western Civilization) and someone who is not a Christian; this will allow you to learn about different perspectives from your own on the concepts covered in this topic. Consult with your instructor early on in the process if you are having difficulties coordinating an interview.
This interview can be in person or over the phone (some people who have emailed have found that their interviewees actually plagiarized the responses so you may use email but be very cautious and check the Similarity Score before submitting). This may be someone you know personally or that you locate through a local cultural center, club, religious organization or even an embassy or consulate. You need to obtain permission from this individual to list their contact information in your paper in the event that your instructor needs to verify your work.
During your interview you should ask the following questions:
What do you identify as the most important or distinct practices of your culture?
How are gender roles addressed in your culture?
How is social power, authority, or social roles in a hierarchy expressed in your culture?
In class, we learned that in âhonor-oriented societies,â worth comes from oneâs role or group membership and in âjustice-oriented societies,â worth comes from what one does or doesnât do. What is the role of honor/shame in your culture? Are honor/pride and dishonor/shame important concepts in your culture?
Sample Solution
Modern ideal of Science attempts to specify a procedure an individual must follow to come up with a credible idea or theory. However, recently Iâve caught myself thinking that scientific method with its sequence of action wherein a hypothesis is followed by experimental verification canât possibly describe all the advances in the history of science. Sometimes scientists must call upon their powers of individual rationality to decide what ideas to test, in advance of the sort of definite experiments and observations of phenomena that Science demands to bless an idea as confirmed. Letâs start with a readily understandable, non-disturbing example. A scientist identifies a strong regularity in the cumulative data of previous experiments. But the corresponding hypothesis has not yet made and confirmed a novel experimental predictionâwhich his academic field demands. Thus, the individual scientist has readily understandable, rational reasons to believe something not yet blessed by Science as public knowledge. Noticing a regularity in a huge mass of experimental data before a hypothesis is made doesnât seem all that contrary to scientific method. Youâre still data-driven, right? But thatâs because I deliberately chose a non-disturbing example. When Einstein invented General Relativity, he had almost no experimental data to go on or a phenomenon to explain, except the precession of Mercuryâs perihelion. And Einstein did not use that data, except at the end. Einstein came up with the theory of Special Relativity using the following principle: You begin by saying, âIt doesnât seem reasonable to me that you can tell, in an enclosed box, how fast you and the box are going. Since this number shouldnât be observable, it shouldnât exist in any sense.â You then observe that Maxwellâs Equations invoke a seemingly absolute speed of wave propagation, c, commonly referred to as âthe speed of lightâ. So, you reformulate your physics in such fashion that the absolute speed of a single object no longer meaningfully exists, and only relative speeds exist. I am skipping over quite a bit here, >
GET ANSWER
Modern ideal of Science attempts to specify a procedure an individual must follow to come up with a credible idea or theory. However, recently Iâve caught myself thinking that scientific method with its sequence of action wherein a hypothesis is followed by experimental verification canât possibly describe all the advances in the history of science. Sometimes scientists must call upon their powers of individual rationality to decide what ideas to test, in advance of the sort of definite experiments and observations of phenomena that Science demands to bless an idea as confirmed. Letâs start with a readily understandable, non-disturbing example. A scientist identifies a strong regularity in the cumulative data of previous experiments. But the corresponding hypothesis has not yet made and confirmed a novel experimental predictionâwhich his academic field demands. Thus, the individual scientist has readily understandable, rational reasons to believe something not yet blessed by Science as public knowledge. Noticing a regularity in a huge mass of experimental data before a hypothesis is made doesnât seem all that contrary to scientific method. Youâre still data-driven, right? But thatâs because I deliberately chose a non-disturbing example. When Einstein invented General Relativity, he had almost no experimental data to go on or a phenomenon to explain, except the precession of Mercuryâs perihelion. And Einstein did not use that data, except at the end. Einstein came up with the theory of Special Relativity using the following principle: You begin by saying, âIt doesnât seem reasonable to me that you can tell, in an enclosed box, how fast you and the box are going. Since this number shouldnât be observable, it shouldnât exist in any sense.â You then observe that Maxwellâs Equations invoke a seemingly absolute speed of wave propagation, c, commonly referred to as âthe speed of lightâ. So, you reformulate your physics in such fashion that the absolute speed of a single object no longer meaningfully exists, and only relative speeds exist. I am skipping over quite a bit here, >
