Construcción y validación metodológica del estudio de las diferencias cognitivas de los símbolos materiales minoritarios desde una perspectiva intercultural
Resumen
El abanico se usa ampliamente en China y Occidente, pero las diferencias culturales generan divergencias en su uso y significados simbólicos. Sin embargo, los estudios sobre símbolos materiales minoritarios como el "lenguaje del abanico" son escasos, careciendo de exploración sistemática. Este artículo presenta un estudio cuantitativo: tomando el "lenguaje del abanico" español como caso, desde teorías de comunicación intercultural y codificación-decodificación, se encuestó a 131 chinos (18-60 años) con costumbre de usar abanicos. Se obtuvieron 4 dimensiones de medición, exploró la distribución de comprensión y factores de ambigüedad. Se demuestra que el análisis cuantitativo identifica problemas generales en la comunicación de estos símbolos, ofreciendo estrategias de optimización y pautas para selección de métodos, brindando base teórica.
Citas
Abanicos Aparisi. (2025). El lenguaje del abanico. https://www.abanicosaparisi.es/es/24-El-Abanicoes/21-El-lenguaje
Andrade, C. (2020). The Limitations of Online Surveys. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(6), 575–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496
Bänziger, T., Scherer, K. R., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2011). Introducing the MiniPONS: A short multichannel version of the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS). Journal of nonverbal behavior, 35(3), 189-204.
Davies, H. (2019). Fanology: Hand-fans in the prehistory of mobile devices. Mobile Media & Communication, 7(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157919846181
Farah, I. (n.d.). Ethnography of communication.
Fryer, C. S., Passmore, S. R., Maietta, R. C., Petruzzelli, J., Casper, E., Brown, N. A., & Quinn, S. C. (2016). The symbolic value and limitations of racial concordance in minority research engagement. Qualitative health research, 26(6), 830-841.
Furley, P. (2023). The nature and culture of nonverbal behavior in sports: Theory, methodology, and a review of the literature. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(1), 448–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1894594
Gürbüz, S. (2017). Survey as a quantitative research method. Research methods and techniques in public relations and advertising, 2017, 141-62.
Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., & Willis, P. (1972). Coding/decoding. Culture, Media, Language. Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 79, 128-138.
Heiervang, E., & Goodman, R. (2011). Advantages and limitations of web-based surveys: Evidence from a child mental health survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0171-9
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication1. American Anthropologist, 66, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010
Jingrou, L., Sin, N. S. M., & Zhang, R. (2024). Cultural symbol value in animated advertisement model: systematic review. Journal of Digital Art and Humanities, 5(1), 3-19.
Li, Y., Yang, Y., & Huang, K. (2025). The Visual Art Characteristics of Chinese Qing Dynasty Export Fans in the Cultural and Philosophical Perspective. Trans/Form/Ação, 48(5), e025055. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2025.v48.n5.e025055
Olivos, F., & Liu, M. (2024). ChatGPTest: Opportunities and Cautionary Tales of Utilizing AI for Questionnaire Pretesting. Field Methods, 1525822X241280574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X241280574
OP Appiah-Kubi, Z Wu, O Atta-Asamoah, X Feng. (2023). Traditional decorative symbols and user behavior: Experiences of Ghanaian and Chinese seat users. Human Arenas, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-023-00365-3
Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2021). In-Depth Interviewing. In S. Baum (Ed.), Methods in Urban Analysis (pp. 105–125). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1677-8_7
Regmi, P. R., Waithaka, E., Paudyal, A., Simkhada, P., & Van Teijlingen, E. (2017). Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 6(4), 640–644. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i4.17258
Rosenthal, Angela. (2001). Unfolding gender: Women and the" secret" sign language of fans. The Other Hogarth : Aesthetics of Difference.
Scherer, K. R., Clark‐Polner, E., & Mortillaro, M. (2011). In the eye of the beholder? Universality and cultural specificity in the expression and perception of emotion. International Journal of Psychology, 46(6), 401–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.626049
Ye, S. (2022, June). A Study of Traditional Culture-Based Animation Symbols in the Context of Intercultural Communication. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 202-212). Springer International Publishing.
Yi, V., LePeau, L., Chang, T.-H., Museus, S. D., Mathew, S., Saelua, N., & Haywood, J. (2024). Symbols contested: An analysis of how symbols advance and hinder diversity, equity, and inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(4), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000435
Yu, M., Guo, Y., Shen, W., & Chen, R. (2025). Cultural Affordance and Reception: A Theoretical Framework for Interactive Cross-Cultural Sense-Making in Video Game Environments. Games and Culture, 15554120251336564. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120251336564
Zhou, S., Fu, K., Chu, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). A Study on the Learning Effectiveness of Serious Games in the Intangible Cultural Heritage: –A case study of Nantong Blue Calico in China. Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Education and E-Learning, 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/3578837.3578849
Zou, Y., Zhao, C., Childs, P., & Luh, D.-B. (2024). Cross-cultural design in costume: Case study on totemic symbols of China and Thailand. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1263.
Derechos de autor 2025 Zhaolun Li, Cristóbal Fernández Muñoz, Alejandro Álvarez Marín
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0.
