This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kojima, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Form and Function as Categories of Comparison

Nagoya University, Japan

Three different ways in which comparisons-in terms of both form and function-have been conceptualized in previous models are reviewed, to provide elaboration of Bornstein's argument. These include (i) Kagan's three types of continuity in ontogeny; (ii) Baltes's and Nesselroade's four types of factor change and continuity; and (iii) Kojima's three meanings of tradition in history of ideas and practices in a culture. It is noted that Bornstein's conceptualization is concerned mainly with cross-contextual comparisons rather than with ontogeny or cultural history. Multiple meanings of his usage of context and function are noted, together with the narrow meaning of form. A case is made that a kind of universalism is required in any meaningful comparison either across time or across culture.

Key Words: continuity • form • function • history

Culture & Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 139-145 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/1354067X9511010


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?