Describe methodological issues in cross cultural psychology in detail
Answers
Although cross-cultural psychology has advanced our understanding of cultural aspects of psychology, it is marred by theoretical and methodological flaws. These flaws include misunderstanding cultural issues and the manner in which they bear on psychology; obscuring the relation between biology, culture, and psychology; inadequately defining and measuring cultural factors and psychological phenomena; erroneously analyzing data and drawing faulty conclusions about the cultural character of psychology. This article identifies fundamental theoretical and methodological errors that have appeared in prominent cross-cultural psychological research. Suggestions for overcoming them are then outlined.
Although cross-cultural psychology has advanced our understanding of cultural aspects of psychology, it is marred by theoretical and methodological flaws. These flaws include misunderstanding cultural issues and the manner in which they bear on psychology; obscuring the relation between biology, culture, and psychology; inadequately defining and measuring cultural factors and psychological phenomena; erroneously analyzing data and drawing faulty conclusions about the cultural character of psychology. This article identifies fundamental theoretical and methodological errors that have appeared in prominent cross-cultural psychological research. Suggestions for overcoming them are then outlined.
Theoretical and Methodological Problems in
Cross-Cultural Psychology
Cross-cultural psychology has demonstrated that psychological phenomena are manifested differently in different locales, and it has identified certain cultural factors that foster these diverse manifestations. However, theoretical and methodological limitations have curtailed the progress of cross-cultural psychology. These limitations must be identified and corrected if we are to comprehend the cultural nature, origins, characteristics, formation, and functions of psychological phenomena.
Our present focus is to identify problems in cross-cultural psychological research which impede this comprehension. We consider such a critique to be a constructive step in advancing the science of psychology. We disagree with those who espouse an eclectic acceptance of diverse approaches and who regard critiques as mean-spirited. Miller espouses this position in her statement that "it is important to avoid a position that privileges one particular theoretical approach or mode of understanding as the sole direction to be taken in future research, dismissing other approaches as providing little or no insightÉTheoretical and methodological heterogeneity may be expected to be a permanent feature of cultural approaches to psychology and not merely a reflection of temporary growing pains. Such heterogeneity not only represents a strength of cultural approaches to psychology but constitutes a feature that is required to provide answers to the complex problems motivating work in this field" (Miller, 1997, p. 118).
The problem with eclecticism is that it leaves us bereft of any principles or direction for understanding cultural aspects of psychology. Pluralism forces us to accept any theory and methodology that comes along because we dare not suggest that it lacks insight. Heterogeneity does not encourage a principled, systematic approach that would reduce errors. In fact, it suppresses critical evaluation of errors under the banner of tolerance.
We maintain that scientific disciplines advance through discussion and debate of competing ideas in which some are rejected and others are accepted. In this article we seek to repudiate certain deleterious theories and methods in cross-cultural psychology. We explain how they obscure and overlook important cultural issues that bear on psychology; they misunderstand the manner in which cultural factors shape psychology; they mystify the relation between biology, culture, and psychology; they inadequately define and measure cultural factors and psychological phenomena; they produce faulty analyses of data and erroneous conclusions about the cultural origins, characteristics, and functions of psychological phenomena. While our criticisms are pointed, we do not impugn all cross-cultural psychological research as contaminated by these errors. Nor do we doubt the good intentions of the researchers we critique. We discuss kinds, or categories, of errors which are fundamental and widespread. We are not taking cheap shots at a few unrepresentative minor figures. We select examples from the work of prestigious scholars in leading publications to demonstrate how typical and insidious these errors are. Some of the criticisms we direct at cross-cultural psychology have been directed by others at mainstream psychology (cf. the discussion of operationism in Theory and Psychology, 2001, 11,1, pp. 5-74; Billig, 1996). We utilize these criticisms in a novel manner to address issues concerning culture and psychology. We also broaden and deepen critiques by other scholars which have been leveled at cross-cultural psychology.