Cultural phenomena and the research enterprise: Toward a culturally anchored methodology

American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1993

Cultural Phenomena and the Research Enterprise: Toward a Culturally Anchored Methodology 1

Diane Hughes, 2 Edward Seidman, 2 and Nathaniel Williams

New York University

Highlights the points at which culture intersects major phases of the research enterprise--problem formulation, population definition, concept and measurement development, research design, methodology, and data analysis--and influences and constrains what researchers deem worthy of investigation and how they interpret what they observe. These ethnocentric biases inhibit the development of a knowledge base for understanding diverse cultural communities. At each step of the research process, the need to carefully examine and expose the underlying cultural assumptions and to generate and develop alternative choices is emphasized. Guidelines are provided to encourage researchers to be aware of and deliberately make choices toward the development of a culturally anchored methodology that balances the demands .for rigor and sensitivity.

KEY WORDS: cultural sensitivity; cross-cultural methodology; diversity; minority community.

Community psychologists have traditionally investigated as phenomena of interest the psychological and social experiences of diverse cultural groups, and have implemented intervention and prevention programs aimed at facilitating resources and competencies within those groups. However, although critical of social programs and policies that ignore the social realities and cultures of the populations at whom they are directed (e.g., Heller & Monahan, 1977; Rappaport, 1977; Ryan, 1971; Sarason, 1971; Seidman & Rappaport, 1986), community psychologists have paid far less

1The writing of this manuscript was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (DBS-9154413) and the William T. Grant Foundation (92147692) awarded to the first author, and from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH43084) awarded to the second author.

2All correspondence should be sent to either Diane Hughes or Edward Seidman, Center for Community Research and Action, Psychology Department, Second Floor, New York University, New York, New York, 10003.

687

0091-0562/93/1200-0687507.00/0 © 1993 Plenum Publishing Corporation

688 Hughes, Seidman, and Williams

attention to the imposition of traditional Western research methodologies into the scientific enterprise. As a result, our research continues to reflect mainstream world views. That is, we know little about the norms, values, and everyday lives of diverse populations, and such knowledge is necessary to help inform and facilitate social justice and change (Seidman, 1978).

A central goal of this article is to highlight points at which culture intersects various phases of the research process, and therefore influences what and how we as researchers observe, measure, analyze, and interpret data. Before examining how these influences function, we discuss the meaning and salience of culture. Finally, we discuss a set of guidelines for the development of a culturally anchored methodology.

THE MEANING OF CULTURE

Culture has been conceptualized and defined from a variety of perspectives. Most conceptualizations include external referents, such as cus- toms, artifacts, and social institutions in which a group or population participate, and internal referents such as ideologies, belief systems, attitudes, expectations, and epistemologies. There is, however, no single definition of culture that is universally accepted by social scientists. Moreover, resolving this definitional quandary is neither critical nor essential to advancing our ability to explicate the meaning and significance of a culturally anchored methodology (D'Andrade, 1984). However, we do need to establish some common ground to pursue these issues.

Thus, we begin with a quote from Kluckholn's (1949) Mirror for Man which clearly conveys the essence of the meaning of culture.

Culture is not a disembodied force. It is created and transmitted by people. How- ever, culture, like well-known concepts of the physical sciences, is a convenient ab- straction. One never sees gravity. One sees bodies falling in regular ways. One never sees an electromagnetic field. Yet certain happenings that can be seen may be given a neat abstract formulation by assuming that the electromagnetic field exists. Simi- larly, one never sees culture as such. What is seen are regularities in the behavior or artifacts of a group that has adhered to a common tradition. The regularities in style and technique of ancient Inca tapestries or stone axes from Melanesian islands are due to the existence of mental blueprints for the group.

Embedded in this conceptualization are four elements, common to views of culture in anthropology and cross-cultural psychology (Rohner, 1984), that are central to understanding how culture intersects the research process. One, all individuals develop in a cultural context. This context sup- plies blueprints for living that determine what is learned, the process through which learning occurs, and the rules for displaying competencies

Research Enterprise 689

that are valued by group members. Thus, culture mediates and shapes virtually all aspects of human behavior--att i tudes, cognition, affect, and behavior. Two, culturally based values, norms, and behaviors are transmitted from one generation to the next via overt and covert processes of socialization and are functionally adaptive to the demands of the local environ- ment. Thus, the goal of research should be to understand how culturally distinct processes identified in research are adaptive to local environmental demands. Three, many aspects of culture are abstract in that they are not overtly or intentionally socialized: They are simply absorbed by children throughout the course of development. This creates difficulties in adequately representing the concept of culture empirically. Four, culture is evi- denced in patterns and social regularities among members of a population as well as between the population and the larger ecological context. This suggests the need for conceptualizing and measuring constructs beyond the individual level of analysis.

All of these elements suggest that culture intersects the research process. First, it influences what we, as researchers, observe in our research- - the problems we deem worthy of investigation and our interpretation of empirical observations. For instance, many have discussed how the selection of a research problem is constrained by Western mindscapes and world views, that determine how findings are interpreted (Kuhn, 1962; Maruyama, 1980; Seidman, 1978). Too often, findings in studies of non-European cultures and subcultures are compared to those from studies of mainstream cultures, and between-group differences are interpreted from a deficit framework (Howard & Scott, 1981). Second, the research process is influenced by the meanings and interpretations respondents attach to the research setting, constructs, and instruments. Thus, results are influenced by cultural variations in the way participants interpret the research setting, culturally determined ways of responding to task demands or research instruments, and the meaning of various constructs and behaviors within vary- ing contexts (Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 1983).

To address these sorts of issues, researchers need to develop culturally anchored methods that avoid ethnocentric biases in research and also take into consideration the role of cultural phenomenon in shaping the outcomes of the research process. For our purposes, such a culturally anchored methodology consists of conceptual and empirical strategies that provide researchers with insight into the meaning and significance of differing values, belief systems, behaviors, and social regularities within non-mainstream cultural groups and communities. Such strategies should enable researchers to develop a knowledge base less subject to ethnocentric biases and, at the same time, contribute to an understanding within different cultural corn-


munities of the essence, the souls, of the people, the processes and patterns of behavior, and the larger ecological context.

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND CULTURAL PHENOMENA

In this section we highlight one or more critical issues in each major phase of the research process--problem formulation, population definition, concept and measurement development, research design, methodology, and data analysis and i n t e rp r e t a t i on - - t o which the researcher interested in doing culturally oriented investigations must be especially aware and sensitive.

Problem Formulation

The formulation of a research problem is the initial step in any research program. In framing a research problem, the researcher uses several resources: his or her own interests, experiences and Perspectives, and the findings of previous research. As mentioned previously, the researcher is not an objective detached entity but rather frames research questions through a particular cultural lens (Maruyama, 1983; Seidman, 1978, 1983). To the extent that this cultural lens differs from that utilized by the cultural group under study, the researcher is more likely to utilize conceptual frame- works and variables that reflect his or her own experiences rather than those of the target population. Often, this sort of cultural blindness yields data that are of limited utility and misrepresent and distort the experiences of a group, leading to the formulation of the "wrong" problem or an "error of conceptualization" (Seidman, 1978). These errors of conceptualization are often multiply determined by a variety of unexamined premises and pressures. For example, in concert, mainstream societal values, what fund- ing agencies support financially, and the narrow focus of disciplinary paradigms constrain the nature and formulation of social questions and hypotheses.

Researchers must exercise caution and sensitivity in problem selection and formulation, particularly when examining questions regarding non- mainstream cultural groups and communities. It is imperative that multiple stakeholders (e.g., scientists and community participants) with distinct conceptual or philosophical models examine the premises underlying the selection and formulation of research problems and constructs, and generate alternative questions and constructs. This is particularly crucial, since as


Seidman (1978) also pointed out: "the alternatives at each successive choice point in the scientific enterprise following problem definition (i.e., design, operational plan, observations, and so on) are increasingly curtailed" (p. 176) by the initial problem selection and formulation.

Population Definition

The investigation of non-mainstream cultural groups inherently as- sumes some level of commonality in the values, behaviors, and norms within the group and, in between-group studies, commonalities or differences between groups. Thus, the concept of the cultural group, population or community, per se is most salient in culturally anchored research. This concept is inherent in the formulation of a problem. Unfortunately, many social science researchers use simple demographic markers or proxy variables, such as race or nationality (Marin & Marin, 1991; Vega, 1992), to define a non-mainstream cultural group, with little attention to group boundaries or to wide within-group variation. For instance, only recently have researchers begun to distinguish between members of different Hispanic or black populations within the United States. Other groups are often viewed as homogenous, even though there may be important within-group variations in their experiences and relationships. For example, the homeless make important distinctions among themselves based on differences in behaviors and location (e.g., boxcar stiffs, mission stiffs) (Spradley, 1970, cf. Jorgenson, 1989).

Demographic or setting variables are an insufficient operationalization of a cultural community in their own right. The norms, values, and experiences of Dominicans versus Puerto Ricans, or African American versus Caribbean-born blacks, may be as large as those between these broad racial/ethnic groups. It is unlikely that such simple proxy variables adequately capture the common "blueprints for living" and social regularities inherent in a cultural community. Investigations must take pains to develop a nomological net for this concept that maps manifest indicators to the assumptions of the underlying conceptualization, as they need to do for any other concept. An in-depth discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of the present article; for a more detailed treatment of these issues, see the volume by Marin and Marin (1991) and the article by Vega (1992).

Concept and Measurement Development

The choice of constructs and measures per se is subject to the same unwitting biases as the formulation of the problem. Measurement of par-


ticipants in regard to a given construct presupposes that the individual can be described appropriately in terms of the constituent attributes. However, if one accepts the argument, as we do, that world views and meanings are culturally constructed, then it is reasonable to suggest that some concepts are more relevant to some cultural groups than others. For example, the concept of ethnic identity among adolescents may not be relevant, or at a minimum, have a dramatically different meaning for white, middle-class youth whose families may have been in this country for several generations compared to groups of African American, Latino, or recent Italian immigrant youth. For the former group, the experiences may be so different that ethnic identity may not be a salient concept. For African American, Mexican, and recent Italian immigrant youth, American culture, the mass media, the reactions of others to them, and their families' socialization of them may make their ethnic identity salient to them. Thus, the construct as well as the range of relevant items that adequately assess the construct may be very different for members of different populations.

The extent to which a particular research program is culturally anchored depends not only on the relevance and meaning of the research constructs to the target population but also on the appropriateness of the measurement procedures employed. That is, researchers must demonstrate that the measurement theory used to connect latent constructs to manifest indicators is equally valid across different populations and settings. Without establishing such measurement equivalence, it is impossible to know whether any apparent differences are due to measurement artifacts, true substantive differences, or both.

To illustrate, research instruments that have demonstrated validity and reliability in one cultural group still may not be equally reliable and valid for other cultural groups. Blalock (1982) described several ways in which auxiliary theories linking constructs to indicators may vary across cultures. First, a given behavior can have different meanings across two cultures. For example, belching indicates rudeness in one culture and politeness in another. Similarly, keeping a 12-year-old under constant su- pervision may imply overly restrictive (or negative) parenting in a low-crime area but competent, necessary, and appropriate (or positive) parenting in a high-crime area. Second, the relationship between an indicator and the underlying construct may be stronger for one population than other, as in the earlier example of adolescent ethnic identity. Finally, the range of behaviors, attitudes, or values that are relevant to a particular construct may vary across different cultural populations. For example, Markus and Ki- tayama's (1991) discussion of conceptions of self as a function of cultural values regarding individual autonomy versus interdependence and obliga-


tion to the group suggests that the range of behaviors and attitudes associated with the selfdiffer across cultural groups. The issue of equivalence can take many different forms, depending on the particular measurement operations employed, for example, surveys, interviews, behavioral observations, and other requirements of the assessment situation. For instance, in using surveys, researchers need to be concerned with linguistic and scale equivalence. Linguistic equivalence refers to the extent to which the content and grammar of a statement have the same meaning for individuals of different cultural backgrounds. For example, in a study of American and Japa- nese subjects, Tanaka-Matsumi and Marsella (1976) found that when asked about "depression" and yuutsu--the closest Japanese referent - -Ameri - can subjects referred to internal state words such as "blue," "sad," and "lonely" whereas Japanese subjects referred to external referents such as "storm," "dark," and "rain," suggesting that the word depression had very different meanings for the two groups.

Scale equivalence refers to the extent to which response choices have similar meanings across cultural groups. A number of studies suggest that between-group differences using particular scale formats may be a function of methodological artifacts rather than true substantive group differences. For instance, Bachman and O'Malley (1984) have shown that African Americans are more likely than whites to use extreme response categories on Likert-type scales, and Hui and Triandis (1989) found similar tendencies among Hispanic populations are compared to non-Hispanic populations. Hui and Triandis (1989) argue that ethnic and cultural differences in response sets can emanate either from differing cultural norms for responding to stimuli or from differing abilities to map subjectively held internal states onto the rating categories researchers provide. In the former instance, extreme or modest response styles are culturally sanctioned and this influences the scale anchor point endorsed by the respondent, regardless of the true value of the attribute. In the latter instance, the authors argue that there are culturally based differences in the respondents' abilities to evenly distribute subjectively held experiences.

Related to the issues of conceptual or measurement equivalence is the issue of task equivalence. Task equivalence refers to the extent to which respondents' familiarity with, or interpretation of, the assessment situation and task demands are similar across cultural groups. The ideas or notions that participants have about what is expected or required in a research situation are a critical determinant of what respondents do and are culturally organized. Thus, individuals from different cultural backgrounds may not share the same understanding of the research situation. Bronfenbrenner (1979), for example, argues that mothers from different SES backgrounds have different interpretations of the laboratory situation, and that social


class differences in mothers' behavior in the laboratory may reflect a fa- vorable shift in middle-class mothers' behavior in the laboratory rather than true social class differences in parenting style. Other seemingly benign assessment situations, such as the observation of mother-child interactions or family dinner table conversations, are subtly biased toward Western middle-class norms. For example, ethnographic studies of black families (Heath, 1983; Ward, 1971) have shown that norms for interaction within such families vary considerably from those observed in white middle-class families. Dyadic interaction between mothers and children occurs infre- quently; children are more often observers of adult interaction or are en- gaged in multiparty interaction with adults who may be family, extended, or flctive kin. Thus, the social context researchers commonly use to observe parent-child or family relations is more normative in some cultures than in others. Only when we are able to determine that participants interpret the research stimuli and the research setting similarly are we able to determine the extent to which observed differences are due to actual differences versus cultural difference.

A number of strategies have been suggested to address these sorts of measurement issues. For instance, a period of exploratory research can help the researcher decide whether or not a particular construct is adequately conceptualized, or even relevant, for members of a particular group: Such exploratory research can take several forms including ethnographic interviewing, observation, and focus group research (e.g., Bauman & Adair, 1992; O'Brien, 1993, Wolff, Knodel, & Sittitrai, 1993). Variables that one suspects may be a source of cultural bias or artifact can be an- ticipated and measured directly, and then partialled from subsequent analyses (Blalock, 1982). When similar information is collected across two or more cultural populations, assessment of the psychometric properties of measurement instruments across populations is possible. Kameoka (1985) suggested that the equivalence of measurement instruments can be exam- ined by evaluating the factorial invariance of measures using confirmatory factor analytic procedures, arguing that if the measurement model is in- variant across cultural groups, then quantitative comparisons are justified. Others (e.g., Blalock) suggest that similar patterns of correlations between the measurement instrument and other theoretically related constructs across groups is evidence for the equivalence Of measurement instruments. Berry (1989) and Triandis (1978) each suggest that researchers begin with measures that have demonstrated reliability and validity and add additional items to make them culturally appropriate. Translation and back-translation are often used to assess linguistic equivalence.


Research Design

The research design issue central to the conduct of culturally anchored research is the utility of within- versus between- (comparative) group designs for understanding various types of cultural phenomea. This design issue emanates from, and is predetermined by, the nature of the research questions and constructs chosen for study. In within-group studies, the researcher investigates phenomena within the context of a single cultural community. In between-group studies, the researcher investigates similarities and differences in phenomena across two or more cultural communities. Psychologists have criticized between-group designs because they tend to be comparative in orientation, differences are most often interpreted as deficits, and little attention is paid to the meaning of differences or their functional utility within particular cultural contexts (e.g., Howard & Scott, 1981). Others have criticized within-group designs for the lack of generality and the inability to test hypotheses about phenomena that are universal versus culturally distinct (McLoyd & Randolph, 1985). In our view, each can contribute to knowledge about social and psychological issues, but only when the match between the research problem and the research design is considered carefully, and, only when the constructs and measures are sensitive to cultural context.

Comparative studies are scientifically useful to the extent that they are theoretically grounded and help illuminate social and psychological processes that occur within as well as between groups. Too often, however, they simply test main effect models by comparing two or more groups on particular outcome variables, with no attention to the meaning of such differences or to the processes through which they occur. Nevertheless, by investigating the extent to which two or more groups differ from one another in the patterns of relationships among variables, between-group studies can facilitate an understanding of how cultural or ecological context variables moderate relationships between predictor and criterion variables. Even here, investigators should not end with the detection of differences in process, but rather should extend future investigations to illuminate the meaning of such differences. Thus, between-group studies can increase researchers' ability to identify social and psychological processes that are universal versus culturally unique.

It is important to note that even when between-groups studies are theoretically grounded, they are valid and justifiable only when the concepts, measures, and tasks are equivalent across groups. A culturally anchored methodologist must examine issues of equivalence in depth. The results of such an examination should answer the question of whether a


comparative study is legitimate, or perhaps, suggest how to redesign a comparative study so that it can be tenable. Thus, when conceptual equivalence is ascertained along with nonequivalence of measurement operations, a path to developing measurement equivalence may become apparent. For example, as we noted previously, Hui and Triandis (1989) expanded the number of scale anchor points to minimize the artifactual differences between minority and majority participants. On the other hand, when conceptual , measu remen t , and task equivalence are not apparent , a comparative study is contraindicated. However, the results of these equivalence assessments may still point the way toward how to sensitively conduct a recalibrated and/or redesigned within-group study.

A within-group study is the design of choice when either (a) the design question is solely oriented toward a within-culture understanding, (b) conceptual equivalence across cultures is not possible, or (c) conceptual equivalence exists, but measurement equivalence is not possible to achieve. In the first instance, although scientists take as given the quest for universal and generalizable laws, the researcher simply may not be interested in this quest, but instead, in understanding phenomena within their unique cultural contexts. In such cases, between-group designs are irrelevant to the research problem. The research program described briefly by Hughes and Dumont (1993) provides an illustration of the second instance, in which conceptual equivalence is lacking. Their research focuses on relationships between prejudice, discrimination, and child socialization within African American families. Parallel phenomena are nonexistent in mainstream populations, and thus, a between-group study would be inappropriate. In the third instance, the meaning of the construct is equivalent across groups but the mapping of the indicators to the construct is problematic.

Me~odolo~

A culturally anchored perspective draws attention to an ongoing de- bate regarding the relative utility of qualitative versus quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research provides what anthropologists refer to as an emic perspective of a group's experiences. The term "emic," derived from the study of linguistics, refers to the study of phenomena in terms of their internal structure, or the functional elements of a given system. Quali- tative methods emphasize the utility of understanding phenomena from the perspective of group members, allowing it to emerge within the context of the researcher's interaction with the group. Importance is placed on understanding the group's patterns of behavior and systems of meaning. More so than other types of researchers, qualitative researchers tend to assess


behavior in naturalistic settings; they emphasize understanding social processes rather than predicting outcomes. Preconceived rules and categories for classifying behavior are de-emphasized: The meaning of behaviors and the relevant categories for understanding emerges through inductive analyses of the data themselves. In contrast, quantitative methods emphasize empiricism and hypothesis testing. They are most closely associated with the "etic" perspective, which considers phenomena in relation to predetermined concepts and hypotheses, and often, in isolation from the context in which they occur. Quantitative methodologies emphasize the standardization of data collection procedures. Issues to be explored are determined a priori and categories for responding are supplied by the researcher rather than the respondent. The influence of the observer on the research process is similarly reduced through the use of assessment tools with known validity and reliability.

It is clear that both qualitative and quantitative methods have strengths and limitations. Qualitative methods provide for "thick descrip- tion," and a deeper understanding of phenomena from participants' own perspectives. They are holistic in their orientation and they attempt to de- scribe an entire system rather than its component parts. By the same token, qualitative methods invariably elicit concerns about objectivity and repre- sentativeness. Since observations and interpretations are overtly filtered through the eyes of the investigator, questions emerge regarding researcher bias. And because qualitative methods are best suited to small samples, questions emerge as to whether the participants studied are a reasonable sample of the universe of participants. Quantitative methods, in contrast, have virtually the opposite strengths and limitations. Quantitative methods emphasize reliability, validity, and the search for parsimonious explanation. By the same token, because phenomena are reduced to numbers, quantitative research lacks to richness of qualitative methods and provides a more shallow understanding of phenomena.

A number of researchers have moved towards combining qualitative and quantitative methods in order to capitalize on the strengths, and minimize the weaknesses, of each (Hines, 1993; Maton, 1993). Inherently, such a combination enables researchers to learn about the non-mainstream cultural groups they are studying and, at the same time, to utilize methodologies that are necessary for hypothesis testing. For instance, qualitative methods can be used to enhance researchers' understanding of phenomena that are important to a group, to understand the meaning of constructs or survey items to group members, to develop assessment strategies, to develop or revise specific instruments, or to help interpret findings from a quantitative study. Quantitative methods may be similarly used in concert with qualitative methods to test hypotheses or to replicate findings from a


qualitative study. A number of examples of the wedding of qualitative and quantitative methods are now available in the research literature (Buchan- non, 1992; deVries, Weijts, Dijkstra, & Kok, 1992; Schofield & Anderson, 1987), and these prototypes may encourage the integration of these methodologies more so than has been usual in traditional research.

Our primary argument here is that in culturally anchored research, the methodology emanates from the research question rather than the re- verse. Too often, investigators are wedded to a particular methodology because of their training or the biases of their particular discipline. However, whether or not to use quantitative versus qualitative methods should be guided by the nature of the research question and by the researchers' knowledge about the population in question. We also argue that, where resources permit, the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods yield more useful and valid data than either method alone.

Data Analyses and Interpretation

As we suggested earlier, the monocultural biases of social science issues and questions influence the research enterprise through to the final choice of a data analytic technique and its interpretation. We tend to choose techniques that follow from the implicit assumptions inherent in the formulation of the problem, constructs and resultant research design. Here, we discuss two special issues: the almost exclusive use of analytic techniques based on linear and nomothetic assumptions and testing for the moderating (or interaction) effects of culture.

The dominance of analysis of variance and regression techniques as well as other derivatives of linear and nomothetic methods is well known. They are particularly well suited to answer questions of a comparative nature, whether the study is designed as a between- or within-group one. In both research designs, these techniques order and compare cases according to a single standard of comparison. In comparative designs, the group means are compared to each other; the differences are often interpreted within a value-laden framework. In within-group designs, individuals are implicitly compared to each other. Rapkin and Luke (1993) suggest that the thinking inherent in these quantitative methods is discordant with the desire to understand the diversity of cultural phenomena. These authors suggest the greater use of idiographic methods of data analysis that can potentially identify unique behavioral patterns, providing richer and more meaningful descriptions. For example, instead of simply assigning someone to a group on the basis of a single demographic variable like race and comparing them to those of another race, using cluster analysis one might


discover three distinctly different character profiles of Korean adolescents in terms of their attachment to the group, ethnic identity, autonomy, and value of education. Some profiles may be conceptually similar to those of Chinese youth and other profiles completely unique. Such a pattern of results should direct us toward discovering the nature, origin, and meaning of these unique within-culture profiles, in contrast to simply comparing the similarities and differences between the character of Korean and Chinese adolescents. Idiographic techniques of data analysis may be well studied to the discovery and examination of culturally anchored phenomena.

In between-group but not within-group studies, we can test whether culture moderates the phenomena of interest by examining how two or more cultures interact with some other dimension to predict an outcome. The same behavior in different cultural contexts may result in very different outcomes. An example is Baumrind's (1972) finding that authoritarian parenting techniques are consistently associated with poor child outcomes among white middle-class families but with more positive child outcomes in African American families, that is, the differing cultural contexts moderate the effect of parenting style on child outcome.

The discovery of these kinds of interaction effects is critical for the development of a culturally grounded knowledge base. On the surface, the appropriate quantitative analysis is simple - - examine the interaction of the cultural dimension with another independent variable of theoretical import on the outcome variable in an ANOVA or regression analysis. However, in field studies, unlike laboratory studies, these moderation effects are extremely difficult to detect particularly when the interaction is not mani- fested in the form of a distinct crossover effect (Krantz & Shinn, 1992; McClelland & Judd, 1993). To detect such moderating effects it is necessary to either obtain extremely large samples, oversample extreme observations, or accept higher rates of Type I errors. However, each of these possible solutions has its downside, either in terms of cost and effort or replicability.

CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES

Implicitly and explicitly, sensitivity to understanding the needs of diverse, and particularly underserved or inappropriately served, cultural groups and populations has been a rallying cry for community psychology since its formal beginnings at Swampscott (Bennett, et al., 1966). In the proceedings from that conference, Bennett et al. underscored the need to study behavior-in-context and the idea of developing a richer ecological understanding of human behavior.


Is there a need for new methods of research? What models appear to be most productive for this type of research? It was agreed that precise definitions of relevant research and action methodologies are necessary for appropriate study of human behavior within a social-cultural context [italics added] (p. 22).

Despite many contributions to the development of measurement strategies and research designs for preventive intervention and evaluation research and pleas for more culturally anchored, collaborative research and more sensitive methodologies (Chavis, Stucky, & Wandersman, 19833; Fair- weather, 1967; Kelly, 1971; Linney & Reppucci, 1982; Serrano-Garcia, 1984; Susskind & Klein, 1985; Tolan, Keys, Chertok, & Jason, 1990), community psychology has yet to make good on its commitment to developing rigorous and culturally anchored research strategies and methods for understanding (and serving) non-mainstream populations. Our existing methods fall short of facilitating on empirical base of knowledge about phenomena within these cultural groups.

Community psychologists need to translate their critical insights into the development of a novel approach to the research enterprise - - one that is well suited to the sorts of questions that interest us. At every step of the research enterprise, such a strategy behooves us to generate and choose among a broad range of alternatives instead of unthinkingly accepting the commonly used alternative. The culturally anchored researcher must weigh the trade-offs between sensitivity to cultural nuances of the target population and the methodological requirements of objectivity, standardization, and generalizability. In this way, we can begin to develop a knowledge base of diverse cultural groups that balances the demands for rigor and sensitivity.

We close with a brief set of guidelines (remainders) for those com- mitted to the development and use of culturally anchored methods.

1. Bring multiple stakeholders to the table in formulating the question or phenomenon of interest, the salient constructs, defining the population(s), design, and methods, These stakeholders might include participants from different locations and statuses within the community of interest and scientists from different disciplines and methodological orientations.

2. When a single proxy variable is used to define a cultural group make every effort to ensure that it is a meaningful and valid one. Better yet, define the population with a rich nc;mological network of salient manifest indicators.

3. Rigorously establish both conceptual and measurement equivalence before collaborating in the conduct of a between-group investigation. Even when a comparative study is contraindicated and a within-group study is undertaken, assuring the meaningfulness of the concepts and the appro-


priateness and sensitivity of their measurement operations remains imperative.

4. At our current stage of scientific development, a within-group study may be the design of choice. Seriously consider it! Moreover, when a within-group design is isomorphic with the question of interest, it should be the chosen design. And, regardless of whether the design chosen is within- or between-group, and the methodology is qualitative or quantitative, search for the underlying processes and mechanisms that shed greater light on the phenomena of interest, in contrast to solely tallying or describ- ing outcomes.

5. Choice of methodology need not be restricted to quantitative versus qualitative, survey versus interview, or focus group versus participant observation. Choose, combine, and develop new methods tailored not only to the question of interest but also to the cultural nuances of the population of concern.

6. And, similar to the preceding guideline for methodology, we encourage researchers to choose, combine, and develop novel data analytic techniques matched to the phenomena of interest.

Community psychology researchers who earnestly work toward the development of a culturally anchored methodology will enable us to fulfill our promise to build a base of knowledge about diverse cultural groups, both for the sake of knowledge and action.

REFERENCES

Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (1984). Yes-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 491-509.

Bauman, L. J., & Adair, E. G. (1992). The use of ethnographic interviewing to inform ques- tionnaire construction. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 1-8.

Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children: Some Black-White comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.

Bennett, C. C., Anderson, L. S., Cooper, S., Hassol, L., Klein, D. C., & Rosenblum, G. (Eds.). (1966). Community psychology: A report of the Boston conference on the education of psychologists for community mental health. Boston: Boston University Press.

Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 335-361.

Blalock, H. M. (1982). Conceptualization and measurement in the social sc&nces. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buchannon, D. R. (1992). An uneasy alliance: Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Health Education Quarterly. 19(1), 117-135.

Chavis, D., Stucky, P. E., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning research to the community: A relationship between scientist and citizen. American Psychologist, 38, 424-434.


D'Andrade, R. G. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (eds.), Cultural theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 88-122). Cambridge, England: Cam- bridge University Press.

de Vries, H., Weijts, W., Dijkstra, M., & Kok, G., (1992). The utilization of qualitative and quantitative data for health education program planning, implementation, and evaluation: A spiral approach. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), 101-115.

Fairweather, G. W. (1967). Methods for experimental social innovation. New York: Wiley. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work communities and classrooms.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Heller, K., & Monohan, J. (1977). Psychology and social change. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Hines, A. M. (1993). Linking qualitative and quantitative methods in cross-cultural survey

research: Techniques from cognitive science. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 729-746.

Howard, A., Scott, R. A. (1981). The study of minority groups in complex societies. In R. H. Munroe, R. L. Munroe, & B. B. Whiting (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural human development (pp. 113-152). New York: Guilford.

Hughes, D., & Dumont, K. (1993). Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 775-806.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296-309.

Jorgenson, D. J. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kameoka, V. A. (1985). Construct validation of psychological measures in cross-cultural research. Analysis of linear structural relationships. In R. Diaz Guerro (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social psychology (pp. 57-68). Amsterdam: Elsurer.

Kelley, J. G. (1971). The quest for valid preventive interventions. In G. Rosenblum (Ed.), Issues in community psychology and preventive mental health, New York: Behavioral Pub- lications.

Kluckholn, C. (1949). Mirror for man. New York: Premier Books. Krantz, D. H., & Shinn, M. (1992). Important interaction effects are hard to detect. Unpublished

manuscript, Columbia University. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure ofsc&ntific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laboratory of Human Cognition (1983). Culture and cognitive development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 1 (pp. 295-356). New York. Wiley.

Laboratory of Human Cognition (1983). Culture and cognitive development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, 4th ed., Iiol. 1 (pp. 295-356). New York: Wiley.

Linney, J. A., & Reppucci, N. D. (1982). Research design and methods in community psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 535-566). New York: Wiley.

Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Beverly Hills: Sage. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for emotion, cog-

nition, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. Maruyama, M. (1983). Cross-cultural perspectives on social and community change. In E.

Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of social intervention. Beverly Hills: Sage. Maruyama, M. (1980). Mindscapes and science theories. Current Anthropology, 21, 589-610. Maton, K. I. (1993). A bridge between cultures: Linked ethnographic-empirical methodol-

ogy for culture-anchored research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 747-773.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.

McLoyd, V. C., & Randolph, S. (1985). Secular trends in the study of Afro-American children: A review of child development. In A. B. Smuts & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), History and research in child development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(4-5 Serial No. 211).


O'Brien, K. O. (1993). Improving survey questionnaires through focus groups. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 105-117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rapkin, B. D., & Luke, D. A. (1993). Cluster analysis in community research: Epistemology and practice. American Journal of Communify Psychology, 21, 247-277.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rohner, R. P. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 111-138.

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage. Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sehofield, J. W., & Anderson, K. (1987). Combining quantitative and qualitative components

of research on ethnic identity and intergroup relations, in J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children's ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 252-273). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Seidman, E. (1978). Justice, values and social science: Unexamined premises. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), Research in law and sociology (pp. 175-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Seidman, E. (1983). Unexamined premises of social problem-solving. In E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of social intervention. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Seidman, E., & Rappaport, J. (1986). Redefining socialproblems. New York: Plenum Press. Serrano-Garcia, I. (1984). The illusion of empowerment: Community development within a

colonial context. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (pp. 173-200). New York: Haworth.

Susskind, E. C., & Klein, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Community research: Methods, paradigms, and applications. New York: Praeger.

Spradley, J. (1970). You owe yourself a drunk. Boston: Little, Brown. Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Marsella, A. J. (1976). Cross-cultural variations in the phenomenologi-

cal experience of depression: Word association. Jonrnal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 379-396.

Tolan, P., Keys, C., Chertok, F., & Jason, L. (1990). Researchh~g community psychology: lssues of theory and methods. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Triandis, H. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 4, 1-16.

Vega, W. A. (1992). Theoretical and pragmatic implications of cultural diversity for community research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 375-391.

Ward, M. C. (1971). Them children: .4 study in language and learning. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Wolff, B., Knodel, J., & Sittitrai, W. (1993). Focus groups and surveys as complementary research methods: A case example. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Ad- vancing the state of the art (pp. 118-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cultural phenomena and the research enterprise: Toward a culturally anchored methodology

Documents

Transcript of Cultural phenomena and the research enterprise: Toward a culturally anchored methodology