Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2010 ■ Volume88 357©2010bytheAmericanCounselingAssociation.Allrightsreserved.

Interest in how cultural differences affect the counseling process has been among the most important and innovative approaches to develop in the field of counseling and psychotherapy in the past 40 years. Multiculturalism, the culmination of this cultur-ally sensitive stance, has been identified as “a fourth force” (Pedersen, 1991) following the previous psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic movements in counseling. Cultural awareness has transformed the practice of counseling through efforts to gain greater sensitivity and acceptance of different cultural perspectives and attitudes. Moving beyond the growing awareness of the 1960s and 1970s that people from different places viewed and experienced the world in different ways, culturally sensitive counseling has come to benefit from the collected information and insights in a variety of different fields, particularly cultural anthropology (Geertz, 1973), sociology, and intercultural communications (Hall, 1976).

One of the major organizing characteristics across dis-ciplines has been the categorization of different cultures as either individualistic or collectivistic. It has been accepted as almost self-evident that individuals from some cultures had a more collectivistic identity and identified more with the larger social group to which they belonged, whereas other cultures were more individualistic and were made up of individuals less concerned with the overall group’s welfare and more motivated by individual concerns. Hofstede’s (1980) Culture’sConsequences: International Differences inWork-RelatedValues was based on a study of employees in a multinational corporation that justified these conclusions by providing data validating the categories and providing an empirical basis for describing the world’s cultures as individualist or collectivist. Almost immediately, Hofstede’s descriptive model of how cultures can be categorized was embraced as an axiomatic description of cultural differences. Although Hofstede identified power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity–femininity as other important distinctions

Christopher Sullivan, CenterforInternationalStudiesandDivisionofCounselingandFamilyTherapy,andR. Rocco Cottone,Divi-sionofCounselingandFamilyTherapy,UniversityofMissouri–St.Louis.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoChristopherSullivan,CenterforInternationalStudiesandDivisionofCounselingandFamilyTherapy,UniversityofMissouri–St.Louis,OneUniversityBoulevard,261MSC,St. Louis, MO 63121 (e-mail: sullivan@umsl.edu).St.Louis,MO63121(e-mail:sullivan@umsl.edu).

Emergent Characteristics of Effective Cross-Cultural Research: A Review of the LiteratureChristopher Sullivan and R. Rocco Cottone

Thisarticleidentifiescharacteristicsofeffectiveresearchdoneincross-culturalenvironments;reviewstheliteratureintheyearsfollowingthepublicationofOyserman,Coon,andKemmelmeier’s(2002)seminalarticle,challengingthebasisforthedescriptionofculturesasindividualisticorcollectivistic;andsummarizesmajorissuesconcerningresearchinacross-culturalenvironmentandoutlineshowcross-culturalresearchincreasescontextualunderstanding,showssensitivitytolanguageandculture,andtakesacollaborativeandflexiblestance.Howdifferentresearchdesignsallowforgreaterinclusionofavarietyofculturalperspectivesandimplicationsforpracticeareaddressed.

between cultures, the individualist–collectivist distinction is most enthusiastically embraced and referenced in cultural studies (an Internet search on September 1, 2007, showed more than 20,000 references to the concept).

This commonsense understanding of describing and categorizing cultural differences was upended with the publication of Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier’s (2002) examination of the empirical work using the individualism–collectivism model done between 1980 and 2002. Oyserman et al. examined roughly 170 studies using Hofstede’s (1980) framework and questioned whether the practice of individu-al-level analysis could accurately lead to valid country-level conclusions as Hofstede and later researchers did. Oyserman et al. also identified “the narrow focus on undergraduates as research participants, single group contrasts, and enormous heterogeneity in how researchers conceptualize” (p. 6) indi-vidualism and collectivism as other major limitations to the approach. In addition to questioning the underlying premise of measuring individualism and collectivism, Oyserman et al. criticized the “apparent willingness to accept any cross- national difference as evidence of IND-COL [individualist– collectivist] processes” (p. 44). These limitations and as-sociated questionable research results flew in the face of a construct that had been assumed to be self-evident, and the empirical foundation for separating cultures into these two major categories was thus irreparably damaged. Although the individualism–collectivism model continues as a theoretical model, the questions raised by Oyserman et al. do not allow for continued acceptance of the individualist–collectivist construct as a simple, clear method of distinguishing between and categorizing cultures. The critique by Oyserman et al. is an alert to the cross-cultural research community: It encour-ages a culturally sensitive analysis of distinctions made about cultures—distinctions that should not be accepted globally or solely from a Western cultural stance.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2010 ■ Volume88358

Sullivan&Cottone

The present review identifies and summarizes character-istics of culturally sensitive research studies that have been published since Oyserman et al.’s (2002) article. In this review, we examine themes that characterize effective cross-cultural research. The goal is to increase contextual understanding through sensitivity to language and culture from a collabora-tive and flexible stance.

Origins of the Identified Themes and Parameters of the Literature Review

The present review analyzes materials published between 2003 and 2007 and identifies themes that specifically address the challenges of conducting research in a cross-cultural context. Database searches of PsycINFO and ERIC were used to iden-tify materials by using the following keywords: multicultural, cross-cultural, empiricalstudies, quantitativeresearch, and qualitativeresearch. Because the focus of this review is on research challenges that specifically address cultural differ-ences, studies were excluded that did not include an analysis of the challenges involved in cross-cultural research. Studies involving solely American ethnic groups were also excluded to allow for greater clarity on the challenges involved when con-ducting research with widely different cultures and languages. Last, studies were included that specifically addressed only the challenges involved in conducting research in a cross-cultural environment. Although a considerable amount of work has been done on cultural differences, only those works with an examination or summary of the unique challenges involved in cross-cultural research were included.

The Need for Contextual UnderstandingAs Oyserman et al. (2002) pointed out, cross-cultural research provides tremendous opportunities to gain greater awareness and insight into how cultures and people differ. Research involving different cultures can provide for a better under-standing of the cultural impact on an individual’s or group’s values, beliefs, and behaviors. Greater sensitivity to these dif-ferences is an important step forward in increasing contextual understanding of different cultural groups (Pedersen, Draguns, Lonner, & Trimble, 2002; Sue & Sue, 2003). Identifying these differences can serve as a means to understand, appreciate, and acknowledge these cultural factors and how they affect individuals, families, and groups (McGoldrick, Giordano, & Pearce, 1996).

IssuesinQuantitativeResearch

In the empirical tradition, quantitative research methods have played a central role in gathering and organizing data on how human beings differ. In the most general terms, the major limi-tations of much of the empirical research on cultural differ-ences can be seen as fitting into one of two categories: (a) the measurement of psychological differences without adequate

attempts to investigate the role of culture or (b) ecological invalidity of testing conditions and instruments (Ratner & Hui, 2003). Furthermore, Feskens, Hox, Lensvelt-Mulders, and Schmeets (2006) examined how response rates are af-fected when studying nondominant groups, where different response rates may further undermine the interpretation of the collected data. In light of these concerns, it has at times been difficult to make use of quantitative research results in providing relevant information for working therapeutically with people of different cultures. Rather than simply providing data on how groups are different, research results should be able to provide insight into how cultures function and affect the people making up the culture. Ultimately, the optimal result of cross-cultural research is application of the acquired infor-mation in a counseling context. This information is necessary when considering that “ultimately it is the individual’s unique internalized culture” (Tsang, Bogo, & George, 2003, p. 66) that is addressed in the counseling encounter. Although this internalized culture may seem to negate the need for an un-derstanding of externalized culture, the individual internalized culture is formed through interaction with the larger context. In a circular sense, the individual’s unique view of the larger cultural context is of fundamental importance.

One of the more effective ways of gathering quantitative data is through the use of concrete- and scenario-based items. Identifying fundamental values and beliefs becomes increas-ingly difficult as the level of abstraction increases. For example, extracting underlying concepts about sharing personal posses-sions with close family members is much easier to do than at-tempting to do so with abstract and general questions regarding generosity, duty, and family responsibilities (Li, 2003). As the level of abstraction increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify significant cultural patterns.

Although most quantitative research attempts to examine cause-and-effect relationships (Creswell, 2005), many cross-cultural researchers have chosen to focus on the investigation of cultural meaning. Javo, Alapack, Heyerdahl, and Ronning (2003) identified their research objective “not to test causal explanations but to identify key contingencies and to explore important aspects” (p. 154) of Sami (an indigenous culture of northern Europe) family life in their study in northern Norway. This approach underscores how research can be undertaken as an effort to examine and explain. In a wide-ranging study examining how self-in-context conceptualizations were dif-ferent in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Korea, Kashima et al. (2004) found it impossible to extract cause and effect to adequately describe how different cultures conceptualize the self. Consequently, Kashima et al. found it more productive to use the research correlations “as a method for examining differences in cultural meanings” (p. 138), whereas Hoshmand (2005) stressed how qualitative methods in general, and narratology in particular, take “into account the uniqueness of individual life and experience” (p. 183) and are therefore especially valuable forms of data gathering. By

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2010 ■ Volume88 359

EmergentCharacteristicsofEffectiveCross-CulturalResearch

attempting to describe and interpret experiences from these different perspectives and cultural outlooks, researchers can gain greater insight into different cultures.

CulturalEmbeddedness

Whereas the researcher in most studies is invisible and, in many respects, identity-free, the mixed-culture research teams and the active participation of cultural informants in cross-cultural studies are recognized as a strength and significant benefit. Teams of researchers and cultural informants made up of individuals from different cultures bring with them different perspectives to the research process and resulting conclusions. Park and Lahman (2003) found having a mixed-culture research team to be a distinct advantage that provided them with different perspectives on the data. Not only did this benefit the study, but it also affected the authors personally and gave them an opportunity to learn about another culture as well as to view themselves from a different point of view. In another study in Fiji, Laverack and Brown (2003) used a local facilitator fluent in both the local culture and their own, rather than simply translating established instruments measuring community empowerment in their study to assist with gathering data and ensuring accurate communication. Identifying another key factor for research teams, Bell et al. (2004) pointed out the importance of egalitarianism among research team members: how research team members must have equal status on the research team and that there must be “mutual respect, and an openness and willingness to listen” (p. 366) in order to take full advantage of a culturally mixed research team. Einarsdóttir (2006) questioned the ethics of making comparisons between vastly different cultures and how the researcher’s cultural identity and perspective affects the research process and conclusions. Acknowledging researcher cultural identity is valuable because it provides a cultural lens through which another culture is investigated.

Drawing from information revealed through contextual analysis has led researchers to identify not only differences but also unique strengths. Anderson-Fye (2004) examined the local expectations concerning women’s body shapes and sizes, which have led the majority of women in Belize to have healthy body images with a low overall incidence of eating disorders. In Anderson-Fye’s study, those women who have developed eating disorders and whose families were somewhat marginalized from the local community were typically found to be responding to foreign expectations resulting from working in the expanding tourism sector. Beiser (2003) found that one of the greatest benefits of cross-cultural research is to identify how cultural communities come together to grapple with issues such as dementia or grieving and experience them as affecting the whole community. Although this information may not ap-pear to be necessarily useful in a direct manner in therapy, it can certainly provide helpful knowledge to expand the range of available perspectives to share with clients as well as to be aware of possible additional sources of support and assistance.

Closely associated with gaining contextual knowledge of a culture and identifying specific strengths in the local context, it is important for research to be conducted, if at all possible, within the confines of the studied culture rather than rely-ing on the widely used college student convenience sample (Anderson-Fye, 2004; Bell et al., 2004; Javo et al., 2003; Katzman, Hermans, Van Hoeken, & Hoek, 2004; Le Grange, Louw, Breen, & Katzman, 2004; Monshi & Zieglmayer, 2004; Traphagan, 2005). Although there may be benefits to con-ducting correlation studies with different groups of similarly educated college students to compare cultural differences, there are many confounding variables present to be able to extract clear conclusions (Ratner & Hui, 2003). Conducting research in the actual environment allows the researcher to gather data in context and permits him or her to identify a variety of experiences as well as a chance to be immersed in the experience of participating in the culture.

Sensitivity to Language and CultureIn addition to increasing contextual understanding, effective cross-cultural research expresses sensitivity to and aware-ness of how language and culture interact. Recognizing that language and culture are essential factors in understanding different groups has led researchers to become more aware of the role each plays in the task of gathering data and arriving at research conclusions.

In a wide-ranging examination on the impact of transla-tions and language differences with different instruments, Widenfelt, Treffers, de Beurs, Siebelink, and Koudjis (2005) outlined the two principal perspectives on the use of transla-tions: one, that culture does not readily affect psychological constructs, which are easily translated and reconfigured into different languages, and, two, that culture and, therefore, lan-guage do need to be taken into consideration when attempting to examine how different cultural outlooks and patterns affect different psychological constructs because of the omnipresent nature of cultural influence. As more research is done and the great variety of cultural difference is acknowledged, it has become increasingly clear that the first perspective is difficult to justify. In striving to recognize and to acknowledge the influence of culture, it is crucial to make a serious attempt to be sensitive to the role language similarities and differences (between researchers and research participants) play in the research process.

The challenge of translating concepts that do not readily appear in other languages underscores the need to be aware of differences in language and culture. Addressing the particularly problematic term self-esteem, Widenfelt et al. (2005) examined how this widely used concept in the West is not easily translated or explained in a variety of languages and cultures, particularly Asian cultures. While underlining how psychological concepts are bounded by language and cultural values, these linguistic challenges draw attention to the difficulties in gathering data

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2010 ■ Volume88360

Sullivan&Cottone

about concepts that are unfamiliar and not readily explained or experienced by different peoples. Widenfelt et al. also identified other language difficulties, including nonsensical literal transla-tions, simple mistranslations, misunderstanding resulting from insensitivity to regional language differences, and even altering instrument items that present language difficulties.

Park and Lahman (2003) addressed language differences in a different fashion by designing a study involving the use of different languages. Using Korean with Korean research par-ticipants and English with Chinese and American participants, Park and Lahman found that using different languages with different research participants was a strength and was evidence of study validity, rather than a source of possible error, after finding similar results across all groups independent of the considerations regarding what language was used. Park and Lahman’s study underscores how awareness of language can contribute to a deeper understanding and does not necessarily introduce greater complications or error into a study.

In addition to recognizing differences in language, it is important to acknowledge culturally based variations in com-munication styles and arrangements. Laverack and Brown (2003) described the need “to adapt essentially Western research designs to accommodate different cross-cultural styles of facilitation, group dynamics, spatial arrangements, gender issues, protocol, patterns of participation, and percep-tion of time” (p. 333) in an effort to more fully participate in a culturally sensitive way in a Fijian environment. Embracing these differences makes it possible to be open to variations in values and meanings based on cultural differences (Bergeron & Schneider, 2005) and permits a deeper understanding.

At times, it is also necessary to reconsider conceptualiza-tions that appear to be universal yet are actually based in Western standards and perspectives. Although it is commonly accepted that anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) have similar origins in body image distortions based on cultural expectations idealizing certain body shapes and sizes, Keel and Klump (2003) challenged this conclusion through an examination of AN and BN in different historical and cultural contexts. Keel and Klump concluded that incidence of AN seems to be relatively stable and occurs with similar rates across cultures and times, whereas BN does seem to be influenced by cultural influences. Likewise, using a cultur-ally based definition of “social competence” for children as participation in organized sports, hobbies, and jobs resulted in bias against children in Puerto Rico, where the same types of activities are not as common. Rather, Puerto Ricans in general were found to be much more involved with family and close friends and should in no way be considered less socially com-petent (Widenfelt et al., 2005). Monshi and Zieglmayer (2004) similarly found the Western-enshrined concept of “privacy” needed to be reexamined when conducting research on the patient–healer relationship in Sri Lanka. By initially insisting on providing privacy during their data collection interviews, Monshi and Zieglmayer found this insistence contradicted the

local social norms and expectations that consider “therapeutic interventions . . . [to be] a public act” (p. 310). This willing-ness to challenge culturally bounded concepts and practices makes it possible to enter more fully into the cultural context and worldview of the research participants.

The Necessity of a Collaborative and Flexible Stance

The recognition that research has typically taken place in a specific cultural context and according to Western-based val-ues has provided for the opportunity to clearly acknowledge the need for collaboration and flexibility within cross-cultural research. It is important to no longer consider research subjects as objects to be studied, but rather as participants in a “col-laborative enterprise rather than a relationship in which one party is ascendant over another” (Beiser, 2003, p. 157).

A collaborative and open research stance calls for address-ing the historical and cultural identity of different peoples while striving for a deeper understanding of the issues facing different cultures. Javo et al. (2003) investigated the challenges the Sami minority in Norway have with raising their children according to traditional Sami values and principles. Rather than simply comparing how Sami families are different from the majority of Norwegians, Javo et al. presented the culturally sensitive research goal of exploring Sami parents’ sense of duty and responsibility to have their children value the Sami identity in an environment that has significantly changed over the years and has made it increasingly difficult to follow the Sami traditional lifestyle. Katzman et al. (2004) conducted a study to “better understand the role of culture in how women view themselves and their bodies” (p. 468) in Curaçao and found that AN affected a relatively small group of women on the island who were well-traveled and well-educated and who strove to differentiate themselves from what they perceived as “local” or “traditional” body shapes in Curaçao. This conclusion was very different from previous studies in the United States and the accompanying expectation that eating disorders were simply a symptom of economic development and greater exposure to Western body ideals in the media that should affect all levels of society, to some extent. After identify-ing many of the shortcomings and limitations of cross-cultural research, Ratner and Hui (2003) stressed that an understanding of cultural characteristics in individual societies is crucial for the advancement of understanding of different traditions and contexts, and only by gaining a greater understanding of these variables is it possible to truly appreciate the variety of human experience and its effect on the counseling process. Brodsky and Faryal (2006) struggled with the different traditions and contextual variables, in particular, as they discovered during the course of their research on Afghani women who had very dif-ferent cultural perspectives on how information is gathered and later determined to be relevant.

The challenge of gathering research data and interpreting the results under these open and fluid conditions can appear to

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2010 ■ Volume88 361

EmergentCharacteristicsofEffectiveCross-CulturalResearch

be ill-defined and overly subjective. However, by being open to new interpretations and using a variety of data collection techniques, researchers can arrive at a deeper understanding. For example, Le Grange et al. (2004), by becoming aware through dialogue with research participants of the local conditions, al-tered their initial conclusion of widespread eating disorders in South Africa after recognizing not only the realities of hunger but also the influence of local cultural and religious practices. These authors found that symptoms identifying eating disorders in the United States did not allow for the same conclusions in impoverished and culturally different communities in South Africa. Similarly, Pike and Borovoy (2004) examined how eat-ing disorders in Japan are affected more by Japanese women responding to Japanese traditions and expectations than by the transnational influences previously thought to be universally true. Li (2003) came to a research conclusion based on both personal experience and qualitative methods when quantitative results proved to be inconclusive. Li concluded that this mixed quantitative–qualitative approach was the best way to “illumi-nate and complement results of previous research” (p. 139) in a cross-cultural environment. Mead Niblo and Jackson (2004) also concluded that a mixed-method approach was beneficial for accessing and interpreting information on both the emic (culturally specific) and etic (universal) levels. By combining research approaches and remaining open to reevaluating previ-ous conclusions, researchers using cross-cultural methodology can provide greater insight and understanding.

Implications for CounselorsIn addition to benefiting researchers, being aware of effective cross-cultural research practices and the limitations of some research findings can be of assistance to the counselor in the course of daily practice. Having confidence in cross-cultural research findings ensures meaningful and culturally sensitive counseling (Pedersen, 2000). Likewise, it is important to gain a greater critical awareness of the issues involved in the study of people in different cultural environments. One of the lessons to be learned from Oyserman et al. (2002) is that wide accep-tance of a theoretical model does not necessarily mean that it is problem free. By being better informed and critical consum-ers of culturally centered research material, practitioners will make more effective use of the growing body of literature on different cultural practices and traditions. Counselors’ greater confidence that perceived cultural differences have validity will likewise enhance and enrich interactions with clients from different cultures. This in turn allows counselors to use accurate empathy and understanding to develop stronger relationships with clients (Sue & Sue, 2003).

ConclusionThis article has identified three major themes that characterize effective cross-cultural research: (a) the need for contextual un-derstanding, (b) sensitivity to language and culture, and (c) the

necessity for a collaborative and flexible stance. The intersection of culture and counseling is vitally important to the counseling field in order to develop greater understanding and awareness and to be able to help people from a wide variety of cultures. Just as “culture dictates whether and how symptom complexes are defined—as illnesses, metaphysical occurrences, or artifacts of everyday life” (Beiser, 2003, p. 155), it is important to appreciate how cultures differ from one another as well as the impact of any intracultural differences. In no other area of research pertaining to counseling is the idea of flexibility such an important part of research as in the multicultural movement. These summarized studies have shown that it is possible to do effective and sensitive research. Rather than relying on preformed conclusions following already established frameworks of understanding, cross-cultural research challenges the accepted conceptualizations and allows a more open and flexible view of the different perspectives found around the world. Just as Oyserman et al. (2002) challenged the commonly accepted view of the individualism–collectivism construct, the ongoing efforts of cross-cultural research will add to the diversity and awareness of different groups and peoples, allowing both counselors and clients to find greater common ground to improve understanding and to maximize therapeutic effectiveness.

ReferencesAnderson-Fye, E. P. (2004). A “Coca-Cola” shape: Cultural change,

body image, and eating disorders in San Andrés, Belize. Culture,MedicineandPsychiatry,28, 561–595.

Beiser, M. (2003). Why should researchers care about culture? CanadianJournalofPsychiatry,48, 154–160.

Bell, L. G., Dendo, H., Nakata, Y., Bell, D. C., Munakata, T., & Nakamura, S. (2004). The experience of family in Japan and the United States: Working in the constraints inherent in cross-cultural research. JournalofComparativeFamilyStudies,35, 351–373.

Bergeron, N., & Schneider, B. H. (2005). Explaining cross-national differences in peer-directed aggression: A quantitative synthesis. AggressiveBehavior,31, 116–137.

Brodsky, A. E., & Faryal, T. (2006). No matter how hard you try, your feet still get wet: Insider and outsider perspectives on bridg-ing diversity. AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,37, 311–320.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educationalresearch:Planning,conducting,andevaluatingquantitativeandqualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Einarsdóttir, J. (2006). Child survival in affluence and poverty: Eth-ics and fieldwork experiences from Iceland and Guinea-Bissau. FieldMethods,18, 189–204.

Feskens, R., Hox, J., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., & Schmeets, H. (2006). Collecting data among ethnic minorities in an international per-spective. FieldMethods,18, 284–304.

Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretationofcultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2010 ■ Volume88362

Sullivan&Cottone

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’sconsequences:Internationaldiffer-encesinwork-relatedvalues.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hoshmand, L. T. (2005). Narratology, cultural psychology and coun-seling research. JournalofCounselingResearch,52, 178–186.

Javo, C., Alapack, R., Heyerdahl, S., & Ronning, J. A. (2003). Pa-rental values and ethnic identity in indigenous Sami families: A qualitative study. FamilyProcess,42, 151–164.

Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Farsides, T., Kim, U., Strack, F., Werth, L., & Yuki, M. (2004). Culture and context-sensitive self: The amount and meaning of context-sensitivity of phenomenal self differ across cultures. SelfandIdentity,3, 125–141.

Katzman, M. A., Hermans, K. M. E., Van Hoeken, D., & Hoek, H. W. (2004). Not your “typical island woman”: Anorexia nervosa is reported only in subcultures in Curaçao. Culture,MedicineandPsychiatry,28, 463–492.

Keel, P. K., & Klump, K. L. (2003). Are eating disorders culture-bound syndromes? Implications for conceptualizing their etiol-ogy. PsychologicalBulletin,129, 747–769.

Laverack, G. R., & Brown, K. M. (2003). Qualitative research in a cross-cultural context: Fijian experiences. QualitativeHealthResearch,13, 333–342.

Le Grange, D., Louw, J., Breen, A., & Katzman, M. A. (2004). The meaning of ‘self-starvation’ in impoverished Black adolescents in South Africa. Culture,MedicineandPsychiatry,28, 439–461.

Li, H. Z. (2003). Inter- and intra-cultural variations in self-other boundary: A qualitative-quantitative approach. InternationalJournalofPsychology,38, 138–149.

McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Pearce, J. K. (Eds.). (1996). Eth-nicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mead Niblo, D., & Jackson, M. S. (2004). Model for combining the qualitative emic approach with the quantitative derived etic approach. AustralianPsychologist,39, 127–133.

Monshi, B., & Zieglmayer, V. (2004). The problem of privacy in transcultural research: Reflections on an ethnographic study in Sri Lanka. Ethic&Behavior,14, 305–312.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assump-tions and meta-analyses. PsychologicalBulletin,128, 3–72.

Park, S., & Lahman, M. K. (2003). Bridging perspectives of parents, teachers and co-researchers: Methodological reflections on cross-cultural research. ReflectivePractice,4, 375–383.

Pedersen, P. (1991). Multiculturalism as a fourth force in counseling. JournalofCounseling&Development,70, 5–25.

Pedersen, P. (2000). Ahandbookfordevelopingmulticulturalawareness (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Pedersen, P., Draguns, J. G., Lonner, W. J., & Trimble, J. E. (Eds.). (2002). Counselingacrosscultures (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pike, K. M., & Borovoy, A. (2004). The rise of eating disorders in Japan: Issues of culture and limitations of the model of ‘Western-ization.’ Culture,MedicineandPsychiatry,28, 493–531.

Ratner, C., & Hui, L. (2003). Theoretical and methodological prob-lems in cross-cultural research. JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehavior,33, 67–94.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counselingtheculturallydiverse (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Traphagan, J. W. (2005). Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in health research in cross-cultural perspective. ResearchonAging,27, 387–419.

Tsang, A. K. T., Bogo, M., & George, U. (2003). Critical issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Case example of an ongoing project. JournalofMulticulturalCounselingandDevelopment,31, 63–78.

Widenfelt, B. M., Treffers, P. D. A., de Beurs, E., Siebelink, B. M., & Koudjis, E. (2005). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview,8, 135–147.