Studying Culture,a Methodological Endeavor

Over many years, research examining various psychological variables has shown that building appropriate theory and potentially generalizing findings across different cultural groups are dependent on the adequacy of the methods used (He & van de Vijver, 2019). Typically, psychology has used quantitative assessments, initially interpreting findings from different groups, assuming measurements were equivalent for groups. For example, researchers looking at cultural identity may use the same questions to inquire about how connected people living in two different cultural settings feel about their heritage group and also their host group. The researchers’ assumption is that the questions are valid for both cultural groups, have the same meanings for those respondents, and consequently, group scores for the questions can be compared directly. This approach has failed to address the possible differences between the groups, not only in their cultural identities but also in how they interpret the questions, their familiarity with the response format, how they use a response scale, how willing they are to share personal information, and so on.

As researchers began to recognize these possible confounds, they toyed with developing “culture-free” or “culture-fair” tests. One of the first attempts to develop such tests was Raymond Cattell’s (1949) Culture Fair Intelligence Test, designed to measure cognitive abilities without cultural or environmental effects. Other similar tests in the intelligence domain, such as the Raven’s (1936) Progressive Matrices, were developed to be independent of language, formal schooling, and cultural influences. However, with further investigation, researchers recognized that there are no culture-free or culture-fair assessments (Aiken, 1996). As a result, researchers have begun looking more closely at assessments, conducting psychometric analysis of bias and equivalence in data from different cultural groups (Fontaine, 2005; Poortinga, 1989). Although it is clear that perfect equivalence, measurement invariance, is unrealistic, researchers now distinguished between functional, structural, metric, and scalar (full score) levels of equivalence (Fontaine, 2005). Psychometric tools are used to check equivalence, also called measurement invariance testing. Looking for substantive explanations for bias has led to qualitative and mixed-methods designs which provide more in-depth evidence for understanding why participants in different cultural groups respond differently.

Examining cross-cultural similarities and differences in behavior and attitudes is strengthened when quantitative and qualitative measures are used together, a mixed-methods approach (van de Vijver & Chasiotis, 2010). For example, when quantitative score differences are found between cultural groups, qualitative measures may be used to find explanations for the source of those differences. Likewise, when qualitative measures are employed to examine attitudes or behaviors of cultural groups, accompanying quantitative scores could determine the magnitude of such differences.

The five papers in this Special Issue address cultural identity using mixed-methods approaches. Although the quantitative measures used in these studies will likely be more familiar to readers, the qualitative measures may represent less familiar, more creative approaches to the research questions about cultural identity:

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods, a mixed-methods approach, employed in each of the studies reported in this Special Issue, provides a richer understanding of cultural identity across different cultural groups than would be seen with a singular methodology. The quantitative measures involve more participants and are nomothetic, seeking to compare and generalize cultural identities across various cultural groups. In contrast, the qualitative measures take a more in-depth, idiographic approach, focusing on the uniqueness of a small number of individual participants. Using interviews, identity maps, daily diaries, and photovoice methods to examine cultural identity may be less familiar to psychologists trained in psychometric methods of scale development and data analytic methods dealing with cultural bias and equivalence. For most psychologists interested in studying how culture influences behaviors and attitudes, qualitative measures may be less familiar, but they are often found in other related fields of investigation, such as anthropology and sociology. These methods certainly represent creative ways of investigating meanings and reasons for behaviors that are found within various cultural and situational contexts. Perhaps this Special Issue will prompt future researchers to examine behaviors across cultural groups in new, innovative ways, combining methods to strengthen our understanding of the role of culture.