GLOCALIZATION AND ITS IMPACT: A CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54103/gjcpi.2026.23128Keywords:
deliberative democracy, citizenship theory, democratic equality, value pluralism, interpretivist methodologyAbstract
The accelerating entanglement of global and local dynamics has generated pressing challenges for both the philosophy of science and human rights. Universalist frameworks in each field aspire to global applicability, yet often falter when confronted with culturally embedded practices and contested realities. This paper explores whether methodological tools from the philosophy of science can enhance the justification and application of human rights within glocalized contexts. Building on conceptual insights from positivism, interpretivism, and critical realism, the study develops novel analytical indices – the Deliberative Diversity Score, Inclusion and Representation Ratio, Transformative Policy Index, and Deliberative-Contextual Integration – to operationalize glocalization in human rights research. These indices were applied to three illustrative domains: environmental justice, digital rights, and healthcare access. The results demonstrate uneven patterns of glocal integration. Environmental justice revealed strong global commitments but weak local representation, digital rights showed structural deliberation alongside significant exclusion of marginalized groups, and healthcare governance displayed comparatively higher levels of inclusion and transformative policy adoption. The findings confirm that philosophy of science tools can enhance human rights analysis by testing empirical claims (falsifiability), amplifying marginalized perspectives (standpoint epistemology), and revealing structural causes of exclusion (critical realism). The scientific novelty of the study lies in embedding glocalization within a measurable methodological framework, while its practical significance rests in providing policymakers and advocates with tools for culturally responsive, evidence- based rights evaluation. The research concludes that glocalization constitutes not a superficial compromise but a methodological necessity for strengthening universal rights in diverse cultural settings.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 PATRICK AGYARE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.









