Content uploaded by Rayane Alamuddin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rayane Alamuddin on Feb 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jcc.sagepub.com
Psychology
Journal of Cross-Cultural
DOI: 10.1177/0022022106295442
2007; 38; 91 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Samar Zebian, Rayane Alamuddin, Mariane Maalouf and Yasmine Chatila
Research Published Between 1950 and 2004
Practices in the Arabic-Speaking World: A Content Analysis of Psychological
Developing an Appropriate Psychology through Culturally Sensitive Research
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/91
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology
can be found at:Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Additional services and information for
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/91#BIBL
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 23 articles hosted on the Citations
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
91
DEVELOPING AN APPROPRIATE PSYCHOLOGY THROUGH
CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH PRACTICES
IN THE ARABIC-SPEAKING WORLD
A Content Analysis of Psychological Research
Published Between 1950 and 2004
SAMAR ZEBIAN
RAYANE ALAMUDDIN
MARIANE MAALOUF
YASMINE CHATILA
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Contemporary psychologists in the Arabic-speaking world remain deeply concerned with many of the
same foundational issues that have impeded the development of sustainable research traditions since at
least the 1950s. As a means of assessing historical and current trends in regional research practices, the
project reported in this article employs a content analysis method to assess the cultural sensitivity of peer-
reviewed English-language empirical studies conducted on peoples of the Arabic-speaking world. Results
suggest that cultural sensitivity is quite low on many of the dimensions assessed, including whether/how
findings are applied to everyday settings, validity of methodological procedures employed, the way cul-
tural contributions to psychological processes are discussed, the local relevance of conclusions drawn
from empirical findings, and how theories and concepts are transferred from mainstream (Western) psy-
chology. The current findings are used to suggest some strategic and potentially controversial connections
between culturally sensitive research and developing an appropriate psychology.
Keywords: indigenous psychology; Arab region; content analysis; culturally sensitive research
In the current investigation, we conducted a detailed content analysis of English-language
peer-reviewed research articles about peoples of the Arabic-speaking world to assess the
degree to which researchers have engaged in culturally sensitive research practices. To assess
these practices, we are building on previous work by Adair, Puhan, and Vohra (1993),
Khaleefa (1999), and Ongel and Smith (1999), each of whom have empirically assessed the
degree of indigenization and cultural sensitivity in various national traditions, including
India, Turkey, the former Soviet Union, and in the subfield of creativity and intelligence in
the Arabic-speaking world. In this research tradition, some common dimensions have been
shown and/or postulated to directly contribute to higher levels of cultural sensitivity: (a) cit-
ing local research or an awareness of the state of local research; (b) the degree to which
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was supported by a Mellon Fellowship awarded to the first author. The following colleagues
offered helpful suggestions at different stages of the project: Marj Henningsen, Tamer Amin, Arwa Aamiry, Shahe Kazarian, and
Charles Harb. We also thank our reviewers for their valuable perspectives and challenges. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the
research assistance of Lamia Moghnie, Jawad Zebian, Sleiman El-Jamal, and Paola El-Chakhtoura. Please direct correspondence
to Samar Zebian, American University of Beirut, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, P. O. Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh,
1107-2020, Beirut, Lebanon; e-mail: sz07@aub.edu.lb.
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 38 No. 2, March 2007 91-122
DOI: 10.1177/0022022106295442
© 2007 Sage Publications
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
researchers acknowledge and address local research and human development needs; (c) an
awareness of culturally significant processes and constructs; (d) showing a critical awareness
of the applicability and transferability of existing methods, concepts, and theories to the sam-
ple under study; and (e) the degree to which research contributes to a greater understanding
of individual functioning in the local context.
This framework for assessing research development is used to achieve the three main
aims of the current study. First, it provides an objective means of assessing whether
researchers in the Arabic-speaking world are transferring and extending knowledge from
the established traditions in psychology in culturally sensitive ways. Second, it provides a
suitable context for exploring whether historic and current research practices are con-
tributing to higher order research goals, such as developing an appropriate psychology that
embodies healthy forms of self-reliance and methodological validity and is responsive to
the needs of the societies and peoples it attempts to study (Moghaddam & Taylor, 1986).
Finally, the cultural-sensitivity framework provides a context for examining the nature of
the relationship between regional psychology in the Arabic-speaking world, the estab-
lished tradition in psychology, and other emerging national psychologies. Before we elab-
orate on the cultural-sensitivity framework, and how it may contribute to the development
of an appropriate psychology and mutually beneficial relations with other psychologies,
we provide some background on how Arab regional scholars have reflected on their field.
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE ARABIC-SPEAKING WORLD
REFLECTING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR FIELD
During the past 60 years, a small but growing number of psychologists working in the
Arabic-speaking region have offered commentaries and critiques on the development of psy-
chological research and the regional discipline (Abou-Hatab, 1997; Ahmed, 2004; Ahmed &
Gielen, 1998; Akil, 1965; Al-Soud, 2000; Diab, 1965; Melikian, 1984; Naboulsi, 1995a,
1995b; Prothro & Melikian, 1955). When referring to the field, many of these scholars have
used the terms Arab psychology or discipline of psychology in the Arab world—terms that
imply the existence of a homogeneous and autonomous perspective or field. With respect to
the belief in a homogeneous field, there are prominent psychologists who assume that
Egyptian psychology (historically the oldest and more prominent in the region) has been
directly transplanted across the Arab region, especially in the Gulf (see Abou-Hatab, 1993;
Ahmed & Gielen, 1998). Despite this assumption, there are several ways in which various
national traditions differ, especially with respect to the following dimensions: the language
used in scientific practice (Arabic, English, and French), the prominence and influence of
different psychological traditions (British, French, and American), differences in psychol-
ogy’s role in national development, psychology’s relation with the lay community, and the
varying relations that psychology has with related disciplines such as psychiatry, sociology,
education, anthropology, philosophy, or the natural sciences (Kazarian & Khoury, 2003;
Naboulsi, 1995b). This diversity necessitates more fine-grained local research to counteract
the view that there is one uniform perspective or field (not necessarily using the nation as the
only unit of analysis); however, there is still value in looking more globally at regional
research practices because all emerging national traditions must contend with issues related
to methodological validity and the transfer of knowledge across cultures (or the lack thereof,
see Abou-Hatab, 1997; Ahmed & Gielen, 1998; Alamuddin, 2005; Al-Soud, 2000; Gregg,
2005; Kagitcibasi, 1994; Moghaddam, 1993; Nsamenang, 2000; Sinha, 1997; Yang, 1997).
As such, the current study offers a regional look at research practices.
92 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The other assumption underlying the use of the term Arab psychology is that there is
an autonomous publicly recognized discipline of psychology in the Arab world. Some
scholars are hesitant to use the term discipline because it does not recognize that regional
psychologists are struggling to secure recognition, relevance, and disciplinary autonomy
(Galioun, 1997; Naboulsi, 1995b). These are legitimate concerns that require further
examination. However, they are tangential to the current investigation because our aim is
to directly assess the research practices of scholars and not the development of the disci-
pline as a whole. As such, there is no need on our part to make premature claims about the
development of the discipline in the Arab region. Because of the problematic nature of
the terms discipline and Arab psychology, as it applies at this time in the development of
the field, we use the terms only where authors have used it themselves.
Challenges identified by regional researchers. Returning to our discussion of the scholar-
ship that reflects on the development of the field, it appears that many scholars have been
puzzled by the field’s curious history and interrupted progress (Abou-Hatab, 1997; Ahmed
& Gielen, 1998; Al-Soud, 2000; Gregg, 2005; Naboulsi, 1995b). Current researchers remain
deeply concerned with many of the basic issues that earlier pioneers identified and lamented
about in the 1950s. Consider the following passage in an early overview of the field by
Prothro and Melikian (1955):
From this brief survey, it can be seen that psychology in the Arab Near East is essentially aca-
demic. Where the French academic tradition prevails, psychology is closely allied with phi-
losophy. Where the British tradition prevails, psychology is allied with education, and there is
a strong emphasis on testing and measurement. There is some concern for research in Egypt
and Lebanon, but this activity is subordinate throughout the area to translation of important
Western books and adaptation to local use of Western tests. (p. 309)
These views were clearly supported by other early scholars (Akil, 1965; Diab, 1965) and
have been reiterated (and extended, as we discuss below) 43 years later in more recent com-
mentaries. Although Prothro and Melikian’s review reveals what we consider serious chal-
lenges, their overall “prognosis” (their term) is surprisingly favorable and optimistic. In fact,
they perceived a “nourishing” relationship between regional psychology and Western psy-
chology, a view that has been challenged by many scholars of their time and is continuing to
be challenged today.
More recent self-reflexive observations and critiques, most of which discuss the regional
development of the discipline as a whole (subfield and national differences are rarely dis-
cussed as noted above), have identified several persistent and steep challenges ahead. Many
scholars have focused on the challenges of forming professional identities and professional
associations. Others are concerned with the lack of financial and material resources, the
absence of job opportunities, attitudes of the lay community toward psychology, the forma-
tion of professional regulating bodies, and the scarcity and underfunding of academic
programs (Abou-Hatab, 1997; Ahmed & Gielen, 1998; Al-Soud, 2000; Galioun, 1997).
These lists, literally speaking, go on and on much like lists of grievances. It is common for
scholars to briefly describe each challenge without situating the issues in a conceptual or
broader theoretical context and, notably, without providing empirical evidence (although see
Khaleefa, 1999).
Indeed, one cannot deny the steepness of these challenges because they are a part of the
larger challenges that confront all scientific disciplines in the Arab world, especially the
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 93
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
human sciences (United Nations Development Programme, 2002). According to the World
Science Report, Arab countries have some of the lowest levels of research funding in the
world (including the richest Arab countries), with research and development expenditures
making up only 0.4% of the GDP (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, 1998; see also United Nations Development Programme, 2002). In addition
to little financial support, the two main factors that seem to limit research output are the
underdevelopment of national and regional science and technology systems and poor
returns on past research and development investments (United Nations Development
Programme, 2002). It is inevitable that this broader context has a great impact on psycho-
logical research. Although financial and material support is an essential ingredient for the
development of research in any field, many scholars dismiss the importance of other fac-
tors over which psychologists have more immediate control. Given the steep challenges
ahead, we believe that a focus on research and intellectual practices will lead to a better
pay-off, both now and in the near future, especially because there is a long lag between the
availability of financial resources and the development of a productive intellectual foun-
dation for psychology (see also Adair, 1999; Galioun, 1997).
With respect to the intellectual challenges specifically, Abou-Hatab (1993, 1997) is proba-
bly the most visible modern regional scholar to write about them. Abou-Hatab (1997) used
Egyptian psychology as a springboard for discussing regional psychology. His analysis is
based on his life experiences in the field and personal reflections rather than a systematic
review of the field. Abou-Hatab offered many possible points of departure. He argued that
there is a one-way relationship between Arab and mainstream (Western) psychology. Using
the import-export metaphor, Abou-Hatab argued that theories, concepts, and methods are
imported in a random, uncritical, and unplanned way that serves the producer of knowledge
and subsequently reinforces unhealthy forms of intellectual dependency in the consumer. It is
interesting that Abou-Hatab is the only known scholar to discuss the psychological conse-
quences of intellectual dependency, such as a lack of self-confidence, overestimation of the
dominant culture, and an unrealistic de-evaluation of local indigenous achievements. These
factors, he argued, contribute to the loss of professional identity, alienation from one’s local
context, and the inhibition of creativity. Finally, Abou-Hatab’s most elaborated view concerns
the relevance of imported research; he argued that much of the psychological research is obso-
lete and, therefore, irrelevant to the contemporary social problems facing Arab nations.
Adding to this difficulty, he observed that much of the research is reactive and repetitive and
not aimed at solving specific problems (see also Ahmed, 2004; Ahmed & Gielen, 1998).
In addition to the diverse challenges identified, researchers have offered divergent pro-
posals for redress and change. For example, Abou-Hatab (1997) posited that a better under-
standing of the local intellectual heritage will empower psychologists and counteract beliefs
about their inferiority as scientists. With respect to the loss of professional identity, some
have suggested that it can be redressed with deliberate efforts to respond to the urgent social
and cultural needs of society (Abou-Hatab, 1997; Ahmed & Gielen, 1998). Safwata (1996)
recommended that psychologists become more specialized in their subfields (see
Moghaddam 1989, 1997, for the concept of “appropriate” specialization). Ahmed and Gielen
(1998) developed a preliminary proposal for an Institute of Arab Psychology that aims to
address many of the problems noted above. The issue of cultural appropriateness and valid-
ity of empirical findings and theoretical approaches from mainstream psychology has been
recognized by some who offered critiques of their subfields (Dwairy, 1998, 1999; Sayed,
2002, 2003). However, these issues have been set aside completely by many more scholars
who aspire to various underelaborated and uncritical forms of universalism (Al-Soud, 2000;
94 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Prothro & Melikian, 1955). Although we do not wish to underestimate the value of this early
work, there is a clear need for more in-depth and systematic exploration of actual publica-
tions that will provide concrete and detailed examples of the challenges and how they man-
ifest themselves in research practices. Without this kind of knowledge, it is difficult to attain
a functional understanding of the real challenges and the appropriate level of analysis to
describe them. It is also difficult to proceed with proposals to change the status quo. The
extent of the challenges and their solutions cannot be understood without more systematic
scholarship that gets beyond broad brush strokes and underelaborated lists of challenges.
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RESEARCH
PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE REGION
The only known empirical support for some of the claims reviewed thus far is available
in Khaleefa’s (1999) content analysis of Arabic publications on creativity, intelligence, and
giftedness in the Arabic-speaking world. Khaleefa used a pared-down and adapted version of
the content analysis originally developed by Adair et al. (1993) to assess levels of indige-
nization in Indian research. Khaleefa did not describe how the method of analysis was
adapted, although it is important to know how he adapted it and why. One might wonder
whether the method of Adair et al. is less relevant for or is incongruent with the Arabic
research practices and writing norms studied by Khaleefa. If this is the case, it would be dif-
ficult to use the same coding scheme to assess some aspects of cultural sensitivity in Arabic
publications, and it would be very important to know how Khaleefa adjusted the method of
analysis. Despite these missing details, Khaleefa’s findings show for the first time that the
majority of creativity and intelligence research borrows concepts and theories from main-
stream psychology without critique or adaptation. A minority of studies (6%) employed local
conceptual-theoretical frameworks. With respect to the references cited, 24% of the authors
never cited local references, whereas 52% cited only a few local publications. Furthermore,
70% of authors did not use cross-cultural or cross-indigenous approaches, although Khaleefa
did not specify how this was assessed. The final notable result shows that most of the psy-
chological tests used were designed and constructed in the United States, translated with slight
modifications, and used without standardization or norming. Only a few tests/surveys were
constructed locally. Khaleefa’s study provides the first empirical assessment of psychological
research practices in the Arabic-speaking region and reveals that a minority of authors in the
field of intelligence and giftedness engaged in culturally sensitive research practices.
THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF ENGAGING IN
CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH PRACTICES
The development of a field of study in a region as complex and diverse as the Arab world
will inevitably generate wide-ranging theorizing and debate. However, the daunting and
long-enduring challenges require something that will catapult scholarship in a strategic direc-
tion. The institutional factors discussed above will take considerable time to develop and as
such, we have become convinced that building a self-reflective intellectual foundation will
productively fill this time gap and prepare the way for progressive inquiry and debate. The
view advocated in this article is that culturally sensitive research will contribute to higher
order goals such as the development of an appropriate psychology for the Arab world, which
involves healthy forms of self-reliance and methodological validity, and is responsive to the
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 95
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
needs of the societies and peoples it attempts to study (Moghaddam & Taylor, 1986). We also
illustrate how this structure provides a good framework for joining and extending the rich
dialogue on the development of national psychologies and their relation to mainstream psy-
chology (Adair, 1999; Birashk, 2004; Kagitcibasi, 1994; Moghaddam, 1993; Ongel & Smith,
1999; Yang, 1997).
Cultural sensitivity and developing an appropriate psychology. It is not self-evident to
claim that the development of psychology in the Arab world requires culturally sensitive
research practices, although cultural and indigenous psychologists may not question the claim.
We wish to argue why we see this connection. The main reason concerns the potential that
culturally sensitive research practices have for developing an appropriate psychology.
The concept of an appropriate psychology was proposed by Moghaddam and Taylor
(1986) to assess critically the nature and consequences of an uncritical transfer of knowledge
from Western psychology to emerging psychologies. Moghaddam and Taylor used six crite-
ria to assess an appropriate psychology: (a) healthy self-reliance, (b) needs responsiveness,
(c) methodological validity, (d) institutional feasibility, (e) economic suitability, and (f) polit-
ical practicality. We are mainly concerned with the first three criteria, as defined by
Moghaddam and Taylor, because they most directly relate to the intellectual commitments
that are explored in the content analysis.
Undoubtedly, further discussion is needed to examine what constitutes various forms of
healthy self-reliance, methodological validity, and needs responsiveness in different psycho-
logical traditions; however, this discussion is beyond the scope of the current article. Instead,
the appropriate psychology framework, in whatever specific form it eventually takes, is being
invoked because it parsimoniously brings together many factors that other researchers have
argued and empirically shown to promote the development of research and the discipline in
general (Adair, 1995, 1998; Adair & Kagitcibasi, 1995; Hutz & Adair, 1996; Moghaddam,
1993). Furthermore, the framework does not marginalize international psychology by artifi-
cially separating it from the theoretical issues currently debated in mainstream psychology.
For example, a few issues jointly debated in mainstream and international psychology are as
follows: an interest in cultural diversity and its implications for understanding universal
mechanisms, critiques of experimental methods and empiricism, the relationship between the
participant and researcher, power inequalities between mainstream and more peripheral tra-
ditions, the role of psychology in national and human development, the overrepresentation
of certain segments of the population in psychological research, and the balance between
specialization and interdisciplinary approaches. In addition, the appropriate psychology
framework treats both international and mainstream psychology as forms of indigenous psy-
chologies and goes as far as positing that mainstream psychology has a significant role in cre-
ating a healthy and balanced relationship with emerging world psychologies, a role that it
mostly has not taken up (see also Connolly, 1986; Greenfield; 2000; Moghaddam, Bianchi,
Daniels, Apter, & Harré, 2000; Shweder, 2000). Our proposal is the following: The most
direct and effective means of developing an appropriate psychology that is self-reliant,
responsive to societal needs, and methodologically valid is for researchers and scholars to
engage in culturally sensitive research practices.
To get a sense of what it means to privilege culturally sensitive research practices and their
contribution to an appropriate psychology, we consider a few concrete examples of two broad
categories of practices assessed in the content analysis that contribute to methodological valid-
ity and self-reliance. Several culturally sensitive research practices have the potential to improve
the validity of research conducted on a local sample, such as studying diverse participant
96 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
samples that approximate the actual cultural diversity in a society. Moreover, culturally sensi-
tive research practices involve making appropriate generalizations from the research sample to
other populations, which in turn requires knowledge of within- and between-culture diversity.
Another main dimension concerns how decisions are made to adopt, adapt, and norm stimuli/
measures/surveys/tasks that have been developed for other, possibly culturally distinct, samples.
Because the majority of research conducted on Arabic-speaking peoples involves self-report
measures normed for North American samples, these dimensions are especially important for
assessing cultural sensitivity and methodological validity.
Self-reliance is another aspect of an appropriate psychology that is assessed in the con-
tent analysis by examining whether researchers critically apply borrowed methods, con-
cepts, and theories. This minimally requires a discussion about the transferability and
validity of theories and concepts. Higher levels of healthy self-reliance involve extending
or developing new theories or concepts and/or having an awareness of how these develop
and are shaped by sociopolitical contexts and needs. Self-reliance is also assessed, albeit
indirectly, by the number of local references cited in a published article. In the current
study, we use only these few but highly diagnostic indicators of self-reliance. They are not
attained effortlessly, especially for researchers that have been trained in programs that do
not seriously take up cultural diversity and are not cognizant of the needs of developing
psychological traditions.
Critical considerations for the cultural-sensitivity framework. We wish to consider chal-
lenges and alternative approaches to the views advocated above concerning the role of cultural
sensitivity in developing an appropriate regional psychology. First, one might argue that
researchers in emerging traditions should focus on research quality as a means of developing an
appropriate psychology and its various dimensions. Although this is a legitimate position to
take, there are several reasons to question it. There is no independent standard of quality by
which to establish whether one form of research is of a higher quality than another. Positivists,
for example, emphasize different aspects of quality compared to contextualists and radical con-
structivists (Elliott, Fisher, & Rennie, 1999; Madill, Jordan, & Shirley, 2000). Moreover, we
wish to separate the issue of research quality from culturally sensitive research because the lat-
ter may or may not necessarily be research of a higher quality—especially if high-quality
research is narrowly defined according to the positivist tradition (Smith, Harré, & Langenhove,
1995; Todd, Nerlich, McKeown, & Clarke, 2004). Certain types of “rigorous” research valued
in the positivist tradition may not be appropriate for emerging research programs that must con-
tend with different research challenges. These challenges include the scarcity of empirical find-
ings from culturally related samples, fundamental issues related to instrument/task validity, how
to collect data from participants unaccustomed to the norms of psychological research, how to
deal with culturally biased theoretical frameworks, and so forth. For these reasons, we wish to
avoid conflating culturally sensitive practices and particular definitions of research quality.
A second challenge to the framework we offer concerns the value and role of culturally
ambivalent or culturally insensitive research in the development of an appropriate psychol-
ogy. Taking one example, we argue that researchers whose main aim is to contribute to the
development of mainstream psychology, rather than to the more immediate needs of the local
society and research communities, are engaging in less culturally sensitive research. This is
the position taken in this article, although we know that internationally focused research is
not necessarily research of less value. Internationally focused research may be deemed valu-
able for the development of another national tradition or it may indirectly support local
research. Nevertheless, it does not have a direct impact on the development of culturally
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 97
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
sensitive research practices because the established traditions and/or the international scien-
tific community generally have different needs than the local community. One could imag-
ine a discipline of psychology where there are more points of reciprocal contact between the
mainstream and emerging traditions. However, this does not seem to be the case in the
history of Western psychology. These statements may be problematic for researchers who
predominantly engage in internationally focused research or those who are unaware of the
challenges of emerging psychologies. A counterchallenge, however, would require an expla-
nation of how internationally focused research programs can address the realities and pres-
sures of emerging world psychology and contribute to the development of self-reliance,
methodological validity, and needs responsiveness (see also Boski, 1993, 2005; Enriquez,
1977a; Holdstock, 2000; Nsamenang, 1992, 2000; Sinha, 1997; Yang, 1997).
In summary, we posit that the cultural-sensitivity framework, which includes all the
dimensions discussed above and more detailed in the Method section, is an especially sig-
nificant means of establishing methodological validity and self-reliance and, broader, is a
means of developing an appropriate psychology in emerging nations as well as supporting
healthy and scientifically rich relations between national and international psychologies
(Bond & Tedeschi, 2001; Fish, 2000; Greenfield, 2000; Miller, 1997).
METHOD
A randomly selected sample of studies was drawn from a newly developed database of
psychological studies conducted on Arabic-speaking samples in the Middle East and North
Africa published in English between 1950 and 2004 (Alamuddin & Zebian, 2004). The data-
base was developed anew because the existing regional databases were not publicly accessi-
ble, the method and criteria for including studies was often not known, or they were subfield
or country-specific (see Ahmed & Gielen, 1998; Arab PsyNet, n.d.; Institute for
Development Research and Applied Care, n.d.). Several criteria were used to select but also
limit the publications included in the database. Publications were identified through elec-
tronic and offline academic databases, local libraries, the reference lists of published articles,
and with the cooperation of regional researchers. Although the number of articles procured
did not represent all the English-language publications, it also did not systematically over-
represent or underrepresent articles from certain Arab countries or particular subfields, top-
ics, or authors. In total, the database contained more than 500 references at the time of
sampling, April 2004 (Alamuddin & Zebian, 2005). The criteria used to ensure a systematic
and unbiased search and selection process is described below.
Peer-reviewed journal articles. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were included
because they were the most widely accessible sources of scholarly work.
Empirical studies. Only empirical studies were included in the database because the
content analysis was designed to assess empirical research practices such as the validity of
the methods and measures employed, the sampling techniques used, and the applicability
of empirical results to applied settings. Although both theoretical and nonempirical articles
certainly have direct implications for culturally sensitive research, they require a more spe-
cialized content analysis that examines issues that are not of focal significance to empiri-
cal papers, such as what motivates the development of theoretical frameworks and the
relationship between empirical data and theory formation.
98 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Research of a psychological nature. All peer-reviewed research of a psychological
nature was included in the database regardless of the authors’ field of specialization
because the aim of the current study was to examine psychological research rather than
what professional psychologists per se are doing. This resulted in a very diverse database
consisting of articles published mostly in psychology journals but also in some journals
from the following fields: psychiatry, nursing, health sciences, and political science.
Language of publication. Although a sizable number of psychological studies con-
ducted on Arab samples are published in Arabic and French, only those published in
English were included in the current study. In addition to being exceedingly difficult to
access, studies published in Arabic differ dramatically from English publications in their
methodological practices, writing norms and conventions. It was, thus, impossible to ana-
lyze them using the same content analysis technique (for more details about the research
published in Arabic, see Ahmed & Gielen, 1998; Alamuddin, 2005). French publications
were not included because of limited linguistic proficiency among some raters (however,
see Alamuddin, 2005).
Location of research samples. Only articles conducted on Arabic-speaking samples
residing in the Middle East and North Africa were included. Emigrant Arab populations
residing outside the Middle East and North Africa region were not included. It is not clear
at this time in our research program how much research has been done on emigrant Arab
populations and the cultural sensitivity of this work.
Publication date. Articles published between January 1950 and June 2004 and those that
met the above criteria were included in the database to assess trends and developments.
Culturally sensitive research. Special emphasis was placed on searching for research
that might loosely fit into the category of culturally sensitive research.
CURRENT SAMPLE FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS
A stratified time-blocked random sample of 99 articles was selected from the database for
the content analysis. To avoid overrepresenting any authors, no article by the same author
or coauthors was selected more than twice in the same time block. Of the articles, 6 were
removed from the sample and replaced through random selection as 4 revealed themselves to
be nonempirical and 2 empirical studies did not include enough information about the method
and measures to enable a reliable analysis. The research represented in our final sample of 99
articles fell roughly under the subfields listed in Table 1. The articles were published in 64 dif-
ferent journals, the majority of which were American (48%) followed by European (25%),
international (14%), and Arab regional journals that publish in English (11%).
CULTURAL-SENSITIVITY MEASURE FOR PUBLISHED RESEARCH (CSMPR)
The primary purpose of the content analysis was to document various types of research
practices that actively and most directly promote the development of culturally sensitive
research. Our framework, which is largely inspired and grounded in the traditions of cultural
and indigenous psychology as well as some elements of cross-cultural psychology, starts
with clear and definite assumptions about the factors that promote culturally sensitive
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 99
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
research. Some of these factors have been empirically shown to be related to research pro-
ductivity and development, whereas other factors have their origins in theoretical and con-
ceptual frameworks that promote the development of appropriate international and national
psychologies. We describe these factors and the way they were measured shortly; however,
we first offer some background on the development of the content analysis method.
The content analysis was conducted using the CSMPR (see Alamuddin & Zebian, 2004),
which was based on a measure originally developed by Adair et al. (1993) to assess the levels
of indigenization in Indian psychological research. Using its structure as a starting point, the
current measure was modified in three major ways. First, a cluster of items was added to assess
whether the concept of culture was employed in the articles and how it was conceptualized and
used to understand psychological functioning. A second cluster of items was added to assess
qualitative research methods. The third modification involved the development of a quantita-
tive scoring scheme whereby the 53 items (including old and new items) that make up the mea-
sure were assigned quantitative values and grouped into four different composites: Main
Measure of Cultural Sensitivity, Methods, Research Application, and Cultural Conceptu-
alization composites. Each composite received a separate score and the sum of all composite
scores yielded the total cultural-sensitivity score for each article. The quantitative scoring
scheme allowed us to summarize scores across categories of items rather than being restricted
to reporting the frequencies of each of the 53 items in the analysis. Furthermore, the quantifi-
cation scheme allowed us to directly compare the level of cultural sensitivity across the clus-
ters of items and to perform various inferential analyses to identify which clusters significantly
100 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 1
General Background Characteristics of the Sampled Articles
Background Characteristic Frequency (N = 99) Percentage
Main subfield of research represented
Clinical 13 13
Cognition 4 4
Developmental 8 8
Education 11 11
Organizational 6 6
Personality 7 7
Political 7 7
Psychometric 13 13
Social 30 31
Total 99 100
Primary method employed in single
and mixed methods studies
Survey 19 19
Tests/Scales 62 63
Experimental 3 3
Quasi-experimental/Field methods 1 1
Qualitative
a
12 12
Archival 2 2
Total 99 100
NOTE: Percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
a. A frequency of 12 in this category represents those studies that use only qualitative methods (n = 8) and
mixed methods studies that use qualitative methods with quantitative (n = 4).
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
contributed to higher levels of cultural sensitivity. Finally, the quantification scheme will enable
other researchers to easily compare our findings with the findings of future studies.
It is important to note that the scoring scheme was developed in a way to identify the prac-
tices that positively and directly contributed to more sensitive research rather than penalize
articles for engaging in less culturally sensitive practices. It is also important to note that it
was our aim to develop a highly detailed and diagnostic coding scheme that has high con-
struct validity and is derived from empirical findings and theory. As such, many items where
included to capture the many different research practices that support culturally sensitive
research. This resulted in a highly detailed measure. It is entirely possible that certain items
might be rejected by various researchers, whereas other items might be added as the method
of analysis comes to be used by other researchers. This is a natural process of instrument
development that we welcome. In the meantime, however, it is necessary to get on with the
process of systematically examining the pervasive trends in regional research. The rationale
for grouping items into the four composites is described next.
Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite. This composite assesses the main ele-
ments of cultural sensitivity as they have been suggested and investigated in other research
(discussed above). The following categories of research practices were assessed: (a) justi-
fying the purpose of the study, (b) level of attention directed toward local research, and (c)
critical approaches to existing methods, concepts, and theories.
In the first category, motivating and justifying research practices, several items identi-
fied the type of justifications provided for conducting the study (i.e., whether research was
conducted to exclusively contribute to international research). In the second category, sev-
eral diverse practices were considered: the degree to which the hypotheses or research
questions were grounded in the local context, the degree to which individuals were exam-
ined in their cultural context, whether examples of culturally significant behaviors or
thought processes were given, whether the research attempts to explain behaviors observed
in the local culture, whether ideas grounded in the local culture are guiding research or its
interpretation, whether any cross-national comparisons were made using the results, and
the percentage of references to Arab authors or sources. Finally, the third category included
four items that assessed whether researchers explicitly advocated indigenous research
developments, challenged the generalizability of mainstream theory and findings, recog-
nized mainstream psychology as a form of indigenous psychology, or advocated for the
replacement of mainstream concepts with more culturally sensitive concepts. The items in
these three categories made up the Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite, which
has an overall score ranging between 1 and 30.5.
Methods composite. Methodological practices are a major decisive factor in supporting
culturally sensitive research and generating findings that have the potential to be applied to
real-life settings, to be used to make conclusions about the local context, or to be used to
develop new culturally grounded hypotheses (Abou-Hatab, 1997; Moghaddam & Taylor,
1986; Moghaddam, Walker, & Harré, 2003; Sinha, 1993). The methodology composite is
broken down into two parts: one for quantitative methods and the other for qualitative meth-
ods. The quantitative methods composite assesses the extent to which measures/stimuli/tasks
were adapted for the research sample. Additional items assessed the procedures or steps
taken to ensure, or provide evidence for, the measures’ applicability to the local sample and
whether special methods were adopted for culturally unique samples. These items have an
overall score ranging between 1 and 16.
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 101
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Turning to the qualitative methods composite, it is admittedly rudimentary because it
was developed completely anew. Its items assessed the types of qualitative methods
employed, language used, the type of population sampled, the type and origin of the data
analysis techniques, and whether special methods were adopted for culturally unique
samples. The overall score for this composite ranged between 1 and 16.
Research Application composite. According to Adair et al. (1993), the application of
research results to real-life settings facilitates the cultural appropriateness of research and has
an impact on the visibility and relevance of the discipline as a whole. Applied research affords
the opportunity to focus on and address issues within the local culture and to bring researchers
closer to real-life problems and issues related to social development. Consequently, the
Research Application composite was used to assess whether researchers did the following:
aimed to understand real-life settings, used findings to promote an understanding of social
problems and or issues of national concern, used results to motivate a better understanding of
behavior in an applied context, and used results to make recommendations for real-life settings.
The overall Research Application composite score ranged between 1 and 7.
Cultural Conceptualization composite. This composite was developed anew to document
how and whether the term culture was being used and how the author conceptualized the
relationship between cultural processes and psychological functioning. There are two clus-
ters of items in this composite. The first cluster assessed how the term or concept of culture
was used. In increasing depth, we assessed whether there was mention of culture at all,
whether culture was described as a grouping/independent variable, and whether it was con-
ceptualized as a process or a practice. The remaining items in the second cluster of the com-
posite assessed whether the authors discussed one or more of the following: cultural change,
when and what cultural processes affect what levels or types of psychological processes, the
degree and form of interaction between internal psychological processes and cultural
processes, the generalizability of their findings across different groups, challenging the con-
cept of a bounded culture that has clear physical and social demarcations that distinguish it
from another culture, and so on. These items were developed on the basis of current theoriz-
ing and empirical work that aims to understand the relationship between psychological
processes and cultural processes (Cole, 1996; Greenfield, 2000; Henze, 1992; Hutchins,
1995; Ratner, 1999; Shweder & Sullivan, 1993; Tomasello, 1999). The overall score of the
Cultural Conceptualization composite ranged between 1 and 21.
One may argue, with respect to the Cultural Conceptualization composite, that the way in
which the concept of culture is used and the way authors conceptualize the relationship
between cultural and psychological processes might be irrelevant to some research projects
that neither require nor benefit from employing a cultural framework. This statement needs to
be considered from a number of perspectives. Some scholars might argue that a cultural
framework is irrelevant for primate research (although see Tomasello, 1999) or that cultural
processes are irrelevant to neuroscientific research on basic emotions, or that cognitive micro-
processes are not influenced by cultural processes, and, therefore, this type of research should
not be assessed in this manner. Even if one were to accept these controversial positions that
have been shown to be empirically improbable, it needs to be made clear that all the authors
in the current sample studied humans and psychological processes at a functional level and
not at a neurological or microprocessing level. Furthermore, the majority of the psychologi-
cal processes examined have been clearly shown to have cultural influences, such as the psy-
chological consequences of polygamous families on social development in children, the
effects of war on family functioning, the influences of Qur’anic schooling on memory and
102 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
reading skills, and the influences of religiosity on death anxiety. Finally, the cultural frame-
work is especially relevant to the methodological procedures and the diverse samples investi-
gated, especially because empirical psychological research on the region is particularly sparse.
Interrater reliability. Because of the complexity of the measure and the degree of interpre-
tation required, interrater reliability was assessed for 42 (42%) randomly selected articles. The
interrater reliability procedure was very stringent because there were two different interraters
and two different main raters, thereby increasing the probability of divergent interpretations.
Prior to the actual content analysis, interraters were issued a coding instruction sheet and
briefed about each item, after which all raters collectively rated and discussed three articles
from outside the sample. Furthermore, some articles (not from the current sample) were co-ana-
lyzed and discussed throughout the content analysis process to ensure more reliable analyses.
Interrater reliability was calculated for each item and averaged across the entire measure and
resulted in a score of .81. The interrater reliabilities for the four composites were also calcu-
lated: Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite (.84), Methods (quantitative and quali-
tative) composite (.82); Research Application composite (.89); and Cultural Conceptualization
composite (.84). Composite scores were considered in agreement if the two raters assigned
scores within ± 10% of the range of the particular composite. For example, if a composite’s
scores had a total range of 20 points, interrater scores were considered in agreement if they
were within 2 points from each other. The following three items received lower interrater reli-
ability scores and, thus, should be elaborated or broken down into subitems in future content
analyses: how the author justified his or her research, how participants were examined, and
whether the employed measure was normed for the local sample. When these items are taken
out of the interrater analysis, the interrater reliability scores for some composites increased
slightly as follows: Main Measure Cultural Sensitivity composite became .88 and the reliabil-
ity of the Methods composite became .85. The new total cultural-sensitivity interrater score
became .86. All the interrater scores are acceptable, especially for such a complex measure.
RESULTS
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLED ARTICLES
Table 1 presents background information about the 99 sampled articles. A large major-
ity of the authors (88%) used quantitative methods as the only method employed, relying
predominantly on test and scale administration. Qualitative methods or mixed method
designs were used in 19 articles, most of which consisted of interview methods. The total
sample of articles included 154 different participant samples (see Table 2 for a breakdown
by country). The size of the samples was relatively large, ranging from 60 to 3,477 partic-
ipants/cases (M = 351l, SD = 458.6, MD
=
205). This finding should not be surprising con-
sidering the prevalence of survey, test, and scale methods that require large N studies. It is
also interesting to note that comparative research with regional samples was slightly less
typical than single-sample studies. International nonregional comparative research was
much less typical with only 19 international samples.
MAIN MEASURE OF CULTURAL-SENSITIVITY COMPOSITE
The average mean score of the Main Measure of Cultural-Sensitivity composite was
8.88 (SD
=
4.19). The range of scores varied from 1 to 24.0, with a median of 8.0. The
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 103
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
most frequent scores ranged at the low end of the scale between 5 and 11.5, and only six
articles received a score between 16.5 and 24.0 (see Table 3).
Turning to the individual items in the Main Measure composite, there are many items
in this composite and as such, they were grouped into the following categories: (a) justi-
fying and motivating research, (b) degree of attention to local research and its relevance,
and (c) critical approaches to mainstream methods, concepts, and theories.
Justifying and motivating research. Looking at the justifications provided for the
research, authors in 47% of the articles stated that their primary aim was to replicate an
international (nonregional) study or to contribute to the mainstream literature on the topic
(47%). For these articles, there was no focus on contributing to regional research, and the
authors’ justifications did not typically involve theoretical motivations or critical discus-
sions (as we discuss below). Although these authors aimed to contribute to international
scholarship, only 6.5% actually employed international samples for comparative purposes.
This suggests an emphasis on replication rather than on cross-cultural research per se.
In comparison to the authors with an international focus, authors of 53% of the articles
expressed their desire to conduct locally relevant research in different ways. Approximately
half of these authors reported that there was a special need to conduct their research on
regional samples. Twelve authors explicitly stated that their research attempts to explain
behaviors observed in the local context, and 13 authors claimed or implied that their research
104 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 2
Nationality of Research Samples
Nationality Frequency
Algerian 1
Arab (unspecified) 25
Bahraini 3
Egyptian 13
Emirati 8
Iraqi 4
Israeli Arab
a
9
Jordanian 6
Kuwaiti 10
Lebanese 20
Libyan 1
Moroccan 1
Palestinian 18
Saudi Arabian 6
Sudanese 4
Syrian 6
Other (non-Arab) 19
Total 154
NOTE: The total frequencies reflect the total number of different nationalities of the 141 research samples rep-
resented in the 99 sampled articles
a. Although there is a lot of research on Israelis in Israel, these studies were not included in our data set unless
they included samples from Arabic-speaking countries. In addition, English peer-reviewed research from the
following Arab countries was not included because it was unavailable when the original database was being
developed: Djibouti, Algeria, and Yemen. Other Arab samples, which are not represented in the table, were rep-
resented in the original data set but were not randomly selected for our sample.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ideas were grounded in the local culture. For example, one author attempted to develop
research to explain why Kuwaiti students showed high levels of religiosity, an apparent char-
acteristic of adolescent life. Of authors in this subsample, 30 offered examples of culturally
significant behaviors or psychological processes. A smaller number of these authors (4%)
explicitly stated that their research addressed an issue of national concern (i.e., the psy-
chosocial status of youth living in extreme poverty). Thus far, these findings suggest that
many authors intended to conduct locally relevant research that has a potential to be cultur-
ally sensitive. Nevertheless, when we probe further, far fewer than the 53% who intended to
conduct locally relevant research actually engaged in specific research practices that would
have supported their intentions. We consider some of these practices next.
Of the hypotheses formulated, 44% do not include sociocultural considerations at all. On
the other hand, 25% of the hypotheses contain specific culturally/locally relevant considera-
tions. For example, in a study on the cognitive consequences of literacy among students, the
authors hypothesized that the effect of schooling on memory and reading comprehension
will differ between urban and rural populations where literacy and educational ecologies var-
ied dramatically (Wagner & Spratt, 1987). We also took into account hypotheses that include
minimal cultural considerations. Authors in 31% of the articles posited hypotheses that
allude to cultural influences but offer no elaboration as to the nature or role of these influ-
ences for the phenomena studied (e.g., the Stroop effect will be more disrupting for English
speakers compared to Arabic speakers).
Turning to other research practices, 23% of the authors included considerations for how
individual participants are connected to, or shaped by, their social context. This was typi-
cally done by presenting extensive background information about the research sample,
which was more elaborate than simply offering background variables such as age, gender,
and so forth. In addition, research results were used in an attempt to explain behaviors or
processes observed in the local context in 12% of the articles (e.g., the conflicting nature
of acculturation pressures within families, such as the encouragement of Western business
values and the discouragement of alienation from social obligations).
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 105
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics for the Total Cultural-Sensitivity Measure for
Published Research (CSMPR) and its Composites (N
==
99)
Mean (Standard
Deviation) Median Minimum Maximum Full Range
Main Measure of Cultural 8.88 (4.19) 8.0 1 24.0 1 to 30.5
Sensitivity composite
Methods composite 7.12 (2.64) 7.5 1 14.0 1 to 16
Quantitative 7.13 (2.62) 7.5 1 12.0 1 to 16
methods section
Qualitative 6.10 (3.35) 4.0 1 14.0 1 to 16
methods section
Application of 1.56 (.94) 1.0 1 5.0 1 to 7
Research composite
Cultural Complexity 2.52 (2.23) 1.0 1 12.0 1 to 21
composite
Total CSMPR score 17.1 (6.92) 15.5 4 42.5 1 to 71.5
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Degree of attention to local research and its relevance. Two distinct categories were
used to assess the degree to which authors attended to local research. First, we looked at
the research samples under investigation. The majority (68%) of authors conducted single-
sample regional studies, and 19% included more than one sample from the Arab region.
Far fewer authors (15%) included nonregional samples. These findings, together with the
clear emphasis on contributing comparative findings, may suggest that the research net-
works necessary for cross-cultural and comparative research are not well established
among regional researchers and between regional and international researchers.
Another important indicator of commitment to local research is the amount of regional
citations referenced by authors. Our findings show that on average, 19.4% of all the citations
referenced in the sampled articles are regional. A reference was considered regional if it was
published by an author of Arab origins or if it was related to the Arab region and published
by an Arab source (e.g., United Nations or governmental reports). Of the articles, 35% either
do not include a single regional reference (12%) or include less than 10% regional references
(23%). For almost half of the articles, however, regional references constitute from 11% to
30% of the reference lists. Although some authors cited empirical articles, many more cited
general books by nonpsychologists and limited circulation reports such as dissertations, grant
reports, and publications in nonspecialized journals.
Our findings suggest higher levels of citing local research than that observed in the
research on Indian publications of Adair et al. (1993). Adair et al. argued that citing local ref-
erences is one indication of self-reliance and should effectively strengthen regional network-
ing. Although this may be true in some national psychologies, we question whether it is
characteristic of emerging traditions that show minimal levels of self-reliance. We feel that a
more diagnostic indicator is whether researchers follow up on previous local research. To
examine this, a follow-up analysis was conducted with a new randomly selected sample of
articles (n = 70) from Alamuddin and Zebian’s (2005) database. We found that 2% of
the studies in our subsample were followed up by the same author, 1% of the studies were
followed up by other regional researchers, and 1% of the studies were followed up by
researchers working outside the Arab region. It is clear from these patterns, spanning the
1950s to 2004, that although regional researchers are citing local research, this practice is not
leading to the development of sustained research programs that extend beyond the first orig-
inal study (see Gregg, 2005, for some explanations). Further research is needed to understand
the reasons for these enduring trends that continue to limit regional networking and increased
levels of dualism between locally focused researchers and those more focused on contribut-
ing to the international community (Moghaddam & Taylor, 1986).
Critical approaches to mainstream methods, concepts, and theories. The final cluster of
items in the Main Measure of Cultural-Sensitivity composite assessed whether authors
adopted a critical approach to mainstream methods, concepts, and theories. Our findings sug-
gest that 6% of the authors discussed and/or challenged the appropriateness of applying
mainstream measures that were normed and piloted in another culture. The infrequency of
this practice is very surprising, especially considering that surveys and scales were the pre-
dominant methods employed. Furthermore, only 4% of the authors discussed or challenged
the validity of mainstream concepts or theories. The large majority of the authors (90%)
adopted theories, concepts, and measures wholesale, without critique or adaptation. The final
item in this section shows that 4% of the authors recognized Western science from its own
indigenous perspective. These few authors showed awareness that theories, concepts, or mea-
sures are often developed in specific social contexts and for specific populations. For
106 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
example, the transactional stress theory was recognized as strongly emphasizing individual-
ist forms of coping that completely overlooked how political conditions affect an individual’s
appraisal of life events.
METHODS COMPOSITE
The Methods composite score was calculated for each article depending on the method
employed—quantitative methods (N = 80), qualitative methods (N = 8), or mixed methods
(N = 11). The mean of the Methods composite, when collapsed across the type of method
used, fell below the middle of its range (M = 7.12, SD = 2.64, MD = 7.5). The modal score
was 8 (N = 11), and the other two most frequent scores were 4 (N = 7) and 6 (N = 6). Looking
at the scores for the quantitative methods section of this composite, we observed low levels
of cultural sensitivity (M = 7.13, SD = 2.62, MD = 7.5; see Table 3). The highest score
received in this section was a 12 out of a maximum possible value of 16, and the modal score
was 8 (N = 8). The other two most frequent scores were 6.0 (N = 5) and 10.0 (n = 5). Turning
to the qualitative and mixed methods score, the articles had a mean of 6.10 (3.35) and a
median of 4.0. The score ranged from 1 to14, with 16 being the highest possible score, and
4 was the modal score (N = 8). It is difficult to make strong claims about the levels of cul-
tural sensitivity for each type of method because the qualitative methods sample is small and
the content analysis scheme is much less elaborated and probably less diagnostic than the
analysis used for the quantitative methods. Instead of comparing levels of cultural sensitiv-
ity, it will be more useful to examine the items in each section.
Quantitative methods section. A total of 89 articles (88%) employed quantitative methods,
and of these articles, 92% employed paper-and-pencil self-report measures or surveys. Very
low frequencies of the remaining quantitative methods were observed, including experimen-
tal, quasi-experimental, and archival methods (see Table 1). The frequency of the methods
employed is an important context for interpreting the rest of the items in the quantitative meth-
ods section. Starting with the samples researched in the articles, 35 samples were university
students, and of these samples, 11 authors uncritically generalized their findings from univer-
sity samples to national samples and/or to the regional population. This is a problematic prac-
tice especially for regional populations who are in the midst of rapid developments that result
in very large socioeconomic status gaps between university students and the general popula-
tion. Of the articles that include university samples, 24 authors generalized to other university
samples only, which if done uncritically is also problematic because there may be steep diver-
gences in socioeconomic status even among university students (i.e., public vs. private uni-
versities). The majority of the research samples studied (N = 64) were nonuniversity student
samples, such as child war victims, clients in clinical therapy, and average working-class
people. This factor alone increases the relevance of engaging in culturally sensitive research
practices. We found, however, that only 6% of all authors adopted any special methods for
their samples. Given the dearth of regional data and the diversity of the research samples stud-
ied, we would have expected more adaptation, extension, and/or new developments rather
than a pervasive emphasis on wholesale application of measures and methods.
A total of 198 surveys/measures/stimuli were employed in these articles, clearly show-
ing that several studies employed multiple measures. A total of 133 measures (67%) were
nonlocal measures. Only 29% of these nonlocal measures were subjected to some changes
beyond translation, whereas 38% were not subjected to any kind of changes or adaptations
whatsoever (e.g., word changes or measure translation). In comparison, locally developed
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 107
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
measures constituted a smaller percentage of all measures employed (33%). Although one
might predict local measures to be more culturally sensitive, this does not appear to be the
case because a large majority of the local measures (72%) were not normed for Arab pop-
ulations. Furthermore, a very small number of authors (7%) discussed the validity of the
local and nonlocal measure(s) they used and only 11% made any attempts to ensure the
cultural appropriateness of the employed measures. It appears that validity concerns such
as construct and divergent validity as well as cross-cultural equivalence (see Harkness, van
de Vijver, & Mohler, 2003) were dismissed, whereas statistical techniques such as
interitem reliability were common (54% of articles).
In summary, it is abundantly clear that the employed scales, measures, tests, and stim-
uli were largely borrowed without adaptation and with little concern for issues of validity.
Furthermore, locally developed measures were methodologically underdescribed and
issues of validity were rarely considered. This made it difficult to assess cultural sensitiv-
ity, while also raising questions about the validity of basic methodological practices.
Qualitative methods section. A total of 19 articles included qualitative methods, 11 of
which employed quantitative methods as well (mixed methods). The most prevalent qualita-
tive method employed was that of interviews (63%). Participant observation (10.5%), textual
analysis (16%), and case studies (10.5%) were employed by some authors. In marked com-
parison with the quantitative design studies, only 10.5% of the qualitative studies included
university samples. The remaining 89.5% included other samples (e.g., rural children, ado-
lescents that witnessed civil wars and invasions, depressed adults, Bedouin Arabs in Israel,
urban school children). In a manner similar to the findings observed in the quantitative meth-
ods section, very few authors (5%) adapted the methods to their sample or adapted the
method of analysis to fit the nature of the data. In a similar vein, 58% of the authors did not
consider or discuss the cultural context and social milieu of their research participants. These
findings are somewhat unexpected because qualitative and mixed methods usually involve
many culturally sensitive practices, such as an emphasis on in-depth understanding of
smaller samples, an emphasis on how the social context shapes data collection, and the gen-
erating of thick description and rich data that can be analyzed in diverse ways. Furthermore,
qualitative methods are a means to reevaluate and reconceptualize constructs and analytical
frameworks (Henwood, 2004; Nerlich, 2004). It would seem that the authors neither used the
full potential of qualitative methods nor did what their quantitative colleagues did—use
existing methods without adaptation.
RESEARCH APPLICATION COMPOSITE
The Research Application composite score reveals very low levels of cultural sensitivity
(M = 1.56, SD = 0.94; see Table 3). One of the main reasons for this is that only 26% of authors
aimed to conduct applied research or used their findings to appreciate behaviors in everyday
settings. Some of these authors (12%) stated that they aimed to study issues of social concern,
and 12% claimed that they were conducting applied research. A smaller percentage (2%)
reported researching issues of primary national concern. Turning to how research results were
used, 5% of the authors used their results to understand specific behaviors and/or functioning in
applied contexts, and 20% used their results to make broad recommendations for applied con-
texts. These authors typically offered generalized recommendations that were loosely and often
remotely linked to the empirical results they generated, and often times the methods employed
did not match the research objectives stated. Finally, few authors (4%) suggested changes to
local practices, policies, or programs. These findings clearly reveal that the majority of research
108 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
conducted is not directed to social or applied issues and as such, few studies have empirically
grounded implications for practice and everyday life.
CULTURAL CONCEPTUALIZATION COMPOSITE
Considering that the Cultural Conceptualization composite has a possible range from 1
to 21, the level of cultural sensitivity was very low (M = 2.52, SD = 2.23). No article
received a score above 12. Turning to the items in this composite, we examine whether and
how the concept of culture was used. Table 4 lists all the items of this composite because
it is used for the first time to assess cultural sensitivity in a content analysis.
The Cultural Conceptualization composite documents two main ways in which the concept
of culture is used and conceptualized. For the first cluster, which assessed the way in which the
term was used, results show that 22% of the articles do not include any mention of the concept
of culture or social context at all, and 23% do so but in a very abstract and nontechnical way.
When culture was mentioned and discussed, it was often treated by authors as an independent
variable by conceptualizing it as the group to which one belongs (13%), a geographical location
(4%), or the language one speaks (1%). Some authors used process-orientated conceptualiza-
tions, such as culture is a shared meaning system (8%), sociohistoric patterns (9%), or everyday
social interaction or practices (8%). Culture was not conceptualized in any of the articles as a
process of engaging in rituals, the use of artifacts, or as being embodied in the ecological con-
text. Our findings reveal that although some authors used the concept of culture, 87% of these
authors did not discuss the nature of the relationship between cultural and psychological
processes. For these articles, culture was used in a very superficial way to describe the broad
contexts or multiple factors that could influence the psychological construct in question.
The second cluster of items in the Cultural Conceptualization composite assessed
whether authors elaborated on the relationship between cultural and psychological
processes. Many of the items in this section assessed fundamental issues related to
research on non–North American samples or culturally unique samples that have been
taken up in all subfields in psychology for the past 20 to 30 years. In this analysis, it is pos-
sible for an article to receive a score on many items if the author used or discussed more
than one type of conceptualization or relationship. The results show that the frequency
with which these discussions were made was rather low. The most common discussions
were of cultural relativism (16%) and the nature of the cultural processes that affect psy-
chological processes (13%). Fewer authors (8%) discussed culture as a dynamic process
that changes with time. Even fewer authors discussed the limitations of generalizing find-
ings from culturally distinct samples (7%) and the complexities of making universalistic
claims (2%). One author critically discussed the idea that culture was bounded (geograph-
ically located) and that it is difficult to identify an individual’s “culture.” All of the items
assessed have been prominently and broadly discussed for the past 30 years (at least) in
the field of psychology and, thus, should not be unknown to the researchers in our sample,
especially because they are studying samples in the Arab world.
TOTAL CULTURAL-SENSITIVITY SCORE COLLAPSED ACROSS
COMPOSITE SCORE AND TIME
The mean of the total cultural-sensitivity score on the CSMPR for all composites com-
bined was 17.07 (MD = 15.50, SD = 6.92), with a minimum score of 4 and a maximum
score of 42.5 (see Table 3). The interquartile range spanned from 12.5 to 21.0. Although
there are no data to judge the relative level of cultural sensitivity in the current sample, the
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 109
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
raw scores show low levels because the majority of the articles received low cultural-sen-
sitivity scores across all the composites. Moreover, very few researchers engaged in cul-
turally sensitive practices, and those practices that were observed were a small proportion
of the full range of culturally sensitive practices.
LEVELS OF CULTURAL SENSITIVITY
Uncovering potential changes in levels of cultural sensitivity can have important implica-
tions for understanding the development of culturally sensitive research practices. To test these
110 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 4
Descriptive Statistics for the Cultural Conceptualization Composite
Frequency (N = 99) Percentage
Use and conceptualization of the term culture
No mention of culture throughout article 23
a
23
Concept of “culture” is used abstractly 24 24
Culture is operationalized but not related to 9 9
psychological processes
Culture is the language you speak 1 1
Culture is group affiliation 13 13
Culture is geographical location 4 4
Culture is shared meaning systems 8 8
Culture is the use and the development of cultural artifacts 0 0
Culture has its origins in sociohistorical patterns 9 9
Culture is patterns of everyday social interactions 8 8
and practices
Culture is rituals 0 0
Culture is embodied in the physical environmental context 0 0
Total 99 ~100
Conceptual issues concerning the relationship between
cultural and psychological processes
a
Cultural change is discussed 8 8
Cultural reproduction enactment is discussed 2 2
Culture is conceptualized as a dynamic process 9 9
The notion of a bounded culture is challenged 1 1
Cultural relativism is discussed 16 16
Cultural universalism is critically discussed 2 2
The limitations of generalizing from one sample 7 7
to another are discussed
When and what cultural processes affect what levels or 13 13
type of psychological processes is discussed
The relationship between specific behavior, thought, and 4 4
cultural processes is discussed
The multiple functions of cultural processes and how they 18 18
affect normative systems, knowledge acquisition, social
representation, and meaning systems (concrete and abstract)
are discussed
Other 2 2
Total 99 100
NOTE: Percentages are rounded off to the nearest whole number.
a. In this analysis, it is possible for an article to be counted more than once if there is evidence of more than
one type of category.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
differences, an ANOVA was conducted to test whether the total cultural-sensitivity scores of
the sampled articles varied across the following time frames: (a) 1950 to 1979 (N = 17), (b)
1980 to 1989 (N = 16), (c) 1990 to 1996 (N = 16), (d) 1997 to 1999 (N = 24), and (e) 2000 to
2004 (N = 26). Descriptive information for each composite is broken down by time frame in
Table 5. Results indicate that the total cultural-sensitivity scores did not significantly change
with time, F(4, 98) = 0.78, p = .54, clearly attesting to the depth of the challenges facing
regional researchers. As a further check on developmental changes, we conducted a one-way
MANOVA with time frame (as described above) as the independent variable and the com-
posites as the dependent variables. The Research Application composite was excluded from
the MANOVA because it violated the assumption of homogeneity and was problematic even
after being subjected to log and square root transformations. The Cultural Conceptualization
composite was skewed and subsequently subjected to a logarithmic transformation prior to the
analysis. The transformation worked and, therefore, this composite, together with the Main
Measure and Methods composites, was retained in subsequent inferential analyses. The results
indicated no significant overall differences across time when all composites were entered sep-
arately, F(4, 98) = 1.30, p = .22.
A COMPARISON OF ARTICLES THAT SCORED IN THE 20TH AND
80TH PERCENTILE ON THE TOTAL CULTURAL-SENSITIVITY SCORE
Despite the generally low total CSMPR scores, we conducted a MANOVA to examine
whether the three composite scores (Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity, Methods, and
Cultural Conceptualization) varied among articles that scored in the 20th percentile com-
pared to those that scored in the 80th percentile. A one-way MANOVA was conducted to
compare the three composite scores, high-scoring articles in the 80th percentile, and low-
scoring articles in the 20th percentile. As expected, articles scoring in the 80th percentile
(M = 27.56, SD = 5.2) received significantly higher scores than the 20th percentile articles
(M = 9.18, SD = 2.3), F(3, 37) = 70.85, p < .001. Looking at each F test for each composite,
the F test for the Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite showed a significant dif-
ference F(1, 39) = 79.1, p < .001, with the 80th percentile articles showing higher scores
(M = 14.40, SD = 3.96 ) than the 20th percentile articles (M = 5.23, SD = 2.41). It was also
significant for the Methods composite, F(1, 39) = 30.60, p < .001, with the following means
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 111
TABLE 5
Level of Cultural Sensitivity for Each Composite Across the Five Time Frames
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Up to 1979 1980 to 1989 1990 to 1996 1997 to 1999 2000 to 2004
(N = 17) (N = 16) (N = 16) (N = 24) (N = 26)
Main Measure of 8.41 (3.51) 9.08 (5.41) 8.56 (4.15) 8.71 (4.26) 9.42 (3.96)
Indigenization composite
Methods composite 5.71 (2.62) 7.62 (3.23) 7.47 (2.58) 6.61 (2.34) 7.97 (2.24)
Cultural Conceptualization 2.88 (1.73) 2.25 (2.18) 1.63 (1.15) 2.83 (2.63) 2.69 (2.60)
composite
Research Application 1.18 (.39) 1.19 (.54) 1.44 (.81) 2.04 (1.37) 1.65 (.80)
composite
Total CSMPR score 15.18 (5.26) 17.13 (9.22) 16.10 (5.85) 17.20 (7.64) 18.76 (6.23)
NOTE: CSMPR = Cultural-Sensitivity Measure for Published Research.
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
for the 80th and 20th percentile, respectively, 8.78 (SD = 2.72) and 4.54 (SD = 2.14). Finally,
significance was also observed for the Cultural Conceptualization composite, F(1, 39) =
96.3, p < .001, with the 80th percentile group scoring higher (M = .68, SD = .21) than the
20th percentile group (M = .09, SD = .17). These results show that all three measures con-
tributed to higher total cultural-sensitivity scores.
In light of these significant findings, a stepwise regression analysis was run to examine
which of the three composites accounted for most variance in the total score. The results,
provided in Table 6, show that the model significantly predicted the total CSMPR score
with each of the three independent variables significantly contributing to the equation. The
Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite accounted for the most amount of vari-
ance (79%) of the total CSMPR score; followed by the Cultural Conceptualization com-
posite, which accounted for 12.5% of the variance; and finally the Methods composite
(6.8%).
OVERALL DISCUSSION
METHODOLOGICAL PRACTICES
The current findings suggest that regional researchers do not engage in high levels of cul-
turally sensitive research practices and that these levels have not significantly changed with
time. Even studies with cultural-sensitivity scores in the 80th percentile show low levels of
culturally sensitive methodological practices. Moreover, low levels of cultural sensitivity
were observed in both qualitative and quantitative studies, and especially for studies that
employ borrowed measures, scales, and forms of analyses that were adopted with little mod-
ification, usually limited to translation and word substitutions (see also Khaleefa, 1999).
When authors did adopt scales, issues of validity were very rarely discussed (7%). New items
were rarely added and there were minimal attempts to make scales more culturally appro-
priate. To put this into perspective, recall that 82% of the studies in our data set involve tests,
surveys, and scales. A total of 198 measures were employed, approximately 67% of them
were not developed for Arab samples or even culturally related samples. These findings have
additional significance because 56% of the research samples were nonuniversity students,
which may have further necessitated the adaptation of measures and methods. This is espe-
cially true because the majority of the subjects were participating in psychological studies for
the first time and were likely to have had unexpected beliefs about how to be a “participant,”
what confidentiality means in psychological research, how to interpret complex instructions,
or how to perform task demands in the expected way (Lave, 1997).
Turning to locally developed measures, we do not have specific data about the method-
ological practices. However, we suspect that they are also problematic for locally developed
112 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 6
Results of the Stepwise Regression Analysis (N
==
99)
F p R² β
Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite 368.06 .001 .791 .65
Cultural Conceptualization composite 142.36 .001 .125 .38
Methods composite 400.28 .001 .068 .33
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
tests and scales because issues or validity and norming were rarely discussed in the entire data
set. This is one further indication, among others, revealing the depth of the challenges for
developing methodologically valid, culturally sensitive research practices in regional research.
The observed predominant use of tests and scales on regional samples without modifi-
cation may be of some value to scholars who want to validate their scales across cultures.
However, a predominant reliance on this type of psychological science will not substan-
tively contribute to culturally sensitive research or an appropriate psychology and will (in
the long term) hinder mainstream and international psychology. Researchers in emerging
nations, as well as in general, should not be so heavily dependent on any one methodol-
ogy, especially tests and scales that have been primarily constructed to be useful tools for
categorizing and comparing individuals or groups rather than for the purpose of under-
standing psychosocial processes per se. It is questionable whether such a heavy reliance
on survey methods will promote a better understanding of universal psychological
processes and causal mechanisms because the comparisons have little substance from
which to build causal models and generate empirically and theoretically rich observations
(see also Cole, 1996; Greenfield, 1997a; Shweder, 2003).
It is difficult at this stage to explain the reasons for these pervasive and enduring trends in
the methodological practices, especially considering our limited knowledge of indigenous
scientific practices, the deeper intellectual commitments that underlie these practices, and the
regional institutional contexts that support them, as well as how these practices are supported
(directly or indirectly) by the international and the mainstream discipline. The depth of the
challenges suggested by our findings do not seem to have been taken up by scholars in the
Arabic-speaking world, although similar issues have received considerable attention by cul-
tural psychologists, international scholars, and critics of positivism (Bruner, 1987; Cole,
1996; Enriquez, 1993; Greenfield, 1997b; Kim & Berry, 1993; Moghaddam & Taylor, 1986;
Smith, Harré, & Langenhove, 1995; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Todd et al., 2004; Willig,
2001). Reflecting on this cited body of work, it is clear that various epistemological positions
and institutional pressures motivate the uncritical transfer of methodological practices. A fol-
low-up study in our lab will involve interviewing prominent researchers in the region to
examine the factors that underlie regional research practices. However, even in the absence
of this type of research, we feel that at least one recommendation can be made at this time,
especially considering the depth of the methodological challenges ahead. We recommend
that regional scholars consider ways of achieving more appropriate methodological practices
and take up this endeavor boldly, as proposed by Moghaddam and Taylor (1986):
We believe that attention should be given to establishing criteria for appropriate methodology
for the developing world, irrespective of whether or not such methodology is appropriate for
the developed world. This constitutes a fundamental shift in goals and approach. (p. 260)
Developing more appropriate methods should not simply be about deciding whether to accept
or reject Western or “developed” methods, or any other methodological tradition for that
matter, although this is implied in the quote. Uncritical rejection of developed methods is as
detrimental as uncritical acceptance, to both regional and international psychology (Enriquez,
1993, p. 158). Other reasons to resist this “West versus the rest” framework is that it wrongly
assumes that psychological research in the Western tradition is homogenous, that methods
developed outside this tradition are completely foreign and irrelevant to it, and that main-
stream practices are uncontested. On all points, scientific practices in the Western tradition are
not easily described in this way. This is evident in the Western tradition’s methodological
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 113
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
diversity and its challenges to the positivist tradition, which have notably taken root in the
fields of cultural and indigenous psychology and have been debated more widely by advocates
of qualitative and mixed methods (Smith et al., 1995; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Todd et al.,
2004; see also Bruner, 1990; Greenfield, 1997a; Ratner, 1999; Shweder, 1995, 2000).
Developing appropriate methods can build on this critical tradition because many of the chal-
lenges posed are the same challenges that concern indigenous and emerging world psycholo-
gists. For example, they are concerned with developing tasks and research tools that allow for
valid comparisons across groups or culturally distinct samples without requiring one group
(typically the non-Western group) to engage in novel, nonintuitive, or even awkward tasks.
Although novel tasks are important for some research questions, a sole reliance on them is
problematic because processes that are highly contextualized and ecologically based are rarely
tapped. We agree with Greenfield (1997a) and Enriquez’s (1977b, 1993) view that a more pro-
ductive way to develop appropriate methods across groups (within or across cultures) is to
ensure that they are conceptually valid rather than directly comparable and replicable. Both
Greenfield and Enriquez provided examples of methods that have been developed with this
aim (for other examples see P. Miller, Wang, Sandel, & Cho, 2002; Vann & Cole, 2004). A
related issue is diversifying the methods used to include naturalistic methodologies, methods
that study material contexts and resources, as well as methods that examine cultural, histori-
cal, and developmental trajectories (Greenfield, 1997a). Another important way to develop
appropriate methods, which was very rarely observed in our data set, is to engage in smaller
scale research on subjectivity and shared cultural meaning before going on to quantify
and aggregate data (Greenfield, 1997a). This approach promotes reflexivity between the
researcher and the participant and helps reduce the cultural distance between them, which in
turn contributes to the quality and validity of the data (see Moghaddam et al., 2003). Another
issue is how to make methodological use of the cultural insider and outsider perspective, as
well as the naïve psychologist or the expert perspective. Although much has been written
about psychology from “within” and from “without,” little of this work has translated into
methodological procedures that could contribute to the development of appropriate methods
(however, see Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989). This brief discussion only begins to map out
various aspects of developing appropriate methods. There is much more to examine, espe-
cially with respect to the material and institutional contexts that shape what types of methods
are feasible in the Arab context. It is clear that there is much to be done in terms of method-
ology; however, the shared concerns of indigenous scholars, cultural psychologists, and crit-
ics of positivism can be a fertile group for genuine collaboration and development.
INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCE
The current findings also extend empirical support and more nuanced and detailed
observations to more than 60 years of scholarly commentaries that describe high levels of
uncritical acceptance of theories and findings from mainstream psychology. Many have
argued, as reviewed above, that this intellectual climate has resulted in three main condi-
tions: a one-way relationship with mainstream psychology, the irrelevance of research to
social problems in the region, and the reactive and repetitive nature of research (Abou-
Hatab, 1993, 1997; Ahmed & Gielen, 1998; Akil, 1965; Diab, 1965; Galioun, 1997).
Beginning with the one-way nonreciprocal relationship with mainstream psychology,
several findings offer a more complete and grounded picture of Abou-Hatab’s (1993, 1997)
observations that there is no zeitgeist of critiquing the applicability of imported ideas and
measures. The current findings support this and show how it is related to other research
114 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
practices. Let us begin with the most direct evidence. Only six authors critiqued main-
stream measures, whereas four studies (by three different authors) challenge or critically
assessed existing concepts or theories. It is interesting that all three authors discussed how
psychological theories from Western cultures are themselves forms of indigenous scien-
tific practices that were developed in specific social contexts and require critical adapta-
tion to Arab societies. We take this finding to indicate a healthy and mutually beneficial
form of self-reliance among these authors.
There are other dimensions that contribute to our understanding of this uncritical zeit-
geist. Close to half of the authors in the data set (47%) explicitly stated that their aim was
to either replicate research conducted abroad or to contribute cross-cultural data to already
developed research programs. For these authors, the focus was on cross-culturally validat-
ing existing findings rather than engaging in the fuller sense of cross-cultural research.
These findings resonate with Abou-Hatab’s (1997) view that a great deal of research is
reactive and repetitive. Historical trends in our findings suggest that regional research
involves a disproportionate percentage of strict replication studies with minimal extensions
rather than research that is locally grounded.
A slightly higher number of authors (53%) stated that they aimed to be locally relevant
and 30% offered examples of culturally significant behaviors or psychological processes,
which further suggests that there is a desire or rather an attempt to be relevant to local social
realities. It was hoped that these intentions would have resulted in more culturally sensitive
practices. However, these authors did little to support their stated aims, such as developing
hypotheses with culturally relevant considerations (13%), developing research questions that
are motivated by considerations from the local culture (13%), or commenting on how par-
ticipants’ expectations and social knowledge affected their task performance. Furthermore,
only 12% of the authors attempted to examine behaviors observed in a local context. This
interpretation is further supported by the findings from the Research Application composite
revealing that although 12% of the researchers aimed to address and contribute to the reso-
lution of social problems, many fewer examined issues of national concern (2%) or used their
results to better understand specific behaviors in applied contexts (5%). Instead, more
authors than those who aimed to conduct applied research (20%) used their results to make
broad recommendations that were not supported by their empirical results. The primary
problem, as we see it, is that applied research is used to make nonspecific recommendations
that are not clearly tied to the empirical findings and are not often grounded in detailed and
systematic knowledge of the applied setting. To improve this situation, more observational,
field, or ethnographic research is needed to complement basic research. For this, psycholo-
gists in the Arab world are fortunate to have well-developed fields in anthropology, political
science, and sociology to draw on for descriptive accounts of naturalistic behavior and for
basic empirical data that can serve as background knowledge for understanding macro influ-
ences on psychosocial phenomena. Moreover, the rising acceptance of qualitative methods
in psychology, if used to its potential, will contribute to this desire to make research more rel-
evant to applied domains.
To assess levels of intellectual dependency and self-reliance, we can also look at how
regional research is consumed and used. The current findings suggest that researchers, regard-
less of their subfield of specialization, tended to cite more local publications than researchers
in Khaleefa’s (1999) sample. Only 12 authors did not cite any local studies. The majority of
the reference lists (N = 61) contained between 11% and 60% local references. Adair et al.
(1993) argued that this practice contributes to more culturally sensitive research. However, our
findings suggest that this interpretation be treated with caution for two reasons. Many of the
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 115
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
cited publications were not publicly accessible documents and, thus, will inevitably have a
limited impact on the research community (such as in-house project reports and unpublished
dissertations). Others were not peer reviewed (i.e., magazine and newspaper articles).
Furthermore, our follow-up analysis (reported above) clearly suggests that although authors
are citing one another, a very small proportion of researchers (1%) actually critique, elaborate,
or follow up on published local research. It is also interesting and relevant to note that
researchers are often silent about the problematic research practices observed with such high
frequency in our content analysis.
Together, these converging findings show specific forms of intellectual dependency, espe-
cially in the formulation of research questions and the building of sustainable research
programs, theory adoption and development, and the way in which local research is used.
Although there is a desire or an awareness to contribute culturally sensitive research and there
is some awareness of regional scholarship, these efforts alone are not sufficient. This is espe-
cially true considering the clear emphasis on doing research for the sole aim of contributing
cross-cultural data to the international literature or replicating research in mainstream journals.
LEVELS OF CULTURAL SENSITIVITY FOR RESEARCH
PUBLISHED REGIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY
The current findings suggest other extensions on previous scholarship. Motivated by find-
ings from Adair et al. (1993) showing that Indian foreign publications involve a greater focus
on culture, we asked whether our results support this conclusion. Our findings clearly show
that the mean overall cultural-sensitivity score was low and that this was mostly driven by
foreign publications that constituted 89.1% of the sampled articles. Further probing the issue,
it is interesting to note that there was approximately the same ratio of foreign to regional pub-
lications in the 20th and 80th percentile groups. Adding to this emerging picture, the mean
total sensitivity score for publications in Arab regional journals (M = 23.9, SD = 7.8) was
slightly higher than the score for the entire data set (recall, however, that the number of stud-
ies in Arab journals was very small). Together, these findings suggest that research published
in international journals is not necessarily more culturally sensitive compared to research
published regionally, at least in the Arab region. As such, the suggestion by Adair et al. that
foreign (nonregional) journals, which they argued seek cross-cultural data and publish higher
quality research, are contributing to culturally sensitive research is questionable. In fact,
some researchers working in emerging national traditions, including the first author of this
article, have had to substantively modify and make their publications less culturally sensitive
because various locally relevant research questions and findings are deemed less palatable or
irrelevant to international audiences (for similar personal accounts see Bond, 1997). We raise
these issues to provide a critical perspective on the role of international journals in the devel-
opment of culturally sensitive research and not necessarily to advocate certain publication
venues. In some emerging research traditions, especially ones that have caught the attention
of mainstream psychology, international publications are an opportunity to engage in diverse
and reciprocal forms of culturally sensitive research, whereas for other traditions, interna-
tional journals will serve to only reestablish hegemonic approaches to psychological science.
What works for one emerging tradition may not work in the same way in another tradition.
Ongel and Smith (1999) made this point beautifully in their content analysis of research from
the former Soviet Union, which shows how cultural sensitivity can be achieved with a strong
emphasis on theoretical scholarship versus the more conventional view that empirical
research is needed to develop scholarly traditions. A further indication that high levels of
116 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
cultural sensitivity can be achieved in different ways was revealed in our first attempt to ana-
lyze the cultural sensitivity of Arabic-language publications (Alamuddin, 2005; Zebian,
2006). Using the cultural-sensitivity framework described in this project, we discovered that
this intellectual history, which makes culture an object of study and which is indigenous to
the Western intellectual tradition, is not reflected in Arabic publications. As such, it is not jus-
tified to use the current content analysis method, which assumes this intellectual history, with
publications that are influenced by very different intellectual traditions. It is hard to know, at
this stage in our research, whether an analysis of Arabic publications will give rise to a new
understanding of cultural sensitivity and its relation to an appropriate psychology. However,
it is clear that Arabic language research will reveal unique characteristics to those observed
in regional English publications and, therefore, such an analysis is needed to more fully
understand the regional field.
RESEARCH PRACTICES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
AN APPROPRIATE REGIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
As a means of summarizing and bringing some closure to our discussion, we will con-
sider whether some regional research practices are contributing to the development of an
appropriate psychology. A few positive signs were observed and some strategic points of
departure were discovered.
One positive sign is that almost half of the authors aimed to conduct research that was of
some relevance to the local context, either by stating that their research aimed to contribute
to local research or by addressing national concerns and special needs within a society.
Although this suggests that the majority of authors aimed to conduct research that was more
responsive, as opposed to the more traditional goal of contributing data to the international
scientific community, these objectives were rarely supported by research practices that can
help researchers actualize these intentions (as discussed above and in the results section).
Another positive sign is the diversity of the samples researched in these studies. This is a
very important characteristic in regional research, especially when contrasted to the historic
overuse of university student samples in Western research, which is estimated to be as large
as from 70% to 85% in social psychological and cross-cultural research (Moghaddam & Lee,
in press; Sears, 1986). This characteristic has the potential to substantively contribute to the
development of appropriate research if researchers accept the challenges of developing cul-
turally sensitive methods and instruments that fit their samples. The challenges that these
opportunities pose are being addressed in some bold psychology movements that we are
aware of: liberation psychology (Lira, 2000; Montero, 1994), critical psychology (Sloan,
2000), indigenous psychology (Enriquez, 1977a; Nsamenang, 1992; Yang, Hwang, Pederson,
& Diabo, 2003), and strong forms of culturalism (Bruner, 2005; Harré, 2005; Hutchins,
1995; Ilyendov as cited in Bakhurst, 2001, 2005; Latour, 1996; Shweder, 2003).
One final positive trend observed is the recent use of mixed methods designs. Mixed
methods designs have some main characteristics that support the development of culturally
sensitive research. They have the potential to reduce the cultural distance between
researchers and participants and they afford a more focused examination of behavior in its
natural context (Moghaddam et al., 2003). Furthermore, in mixed methods designs, there is
potential to observe the same phenomena at different levels of analysis within the same study,
subsequently revealing tensions between different epistemological positions (see readings
in Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). These research practices contribute to the development of
culturally sensitive research in ways that are often overlooked in strictly quantitative designs
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 117
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
grounded in positivism. Although our discussion here is brief, it may serve as the springboard
for a more in-depth exploration of the potential contributions of mixed methods to culturally
sensitive research practices.
Strategic directions for increasing cultural sensitivity. Beyond the observed positive
trends discussed above, we wish to bring together the empirical findings of this study and
the critical issues raised throughout the article to suggest some strategic directions for
increasing the level of cultural sensitivity in research and subsequently contributing to the
development of an appropriate psychology that has substantive relations with other
national psychologies.
The Main Measure of Cultural Sensitivity composite accounted for more variance than
any other composite (notably the Methods composite). This suggests that cultural sensitivity
involves conceptual and epistemological issues, in addition to the accepted view that the
development of emerging psychologies primarily depends on employing correct and valid
methodological procedures for generating empirical data. Unfortunately, the conceptual and
epistemological positions raised above are rarely discussed in Arab regional scholarship. If
progress is desired, our findings suggest that self-reflective and theoretically informed schol-
arship is required. There are several conditions that would facilitate this process, including
stronger connections between researchers and institutions in the Arabic-speaking world.
Moreover, scholars might benefit from becoming more familiar with scholarship in other
emerging psychologies, such as critical psychology, other indigenous psychologies, cultural
psychology, and in the traditions that critique positivism in psychological science. It is
notable that there is considerable overlap in the issues raised in these scholarly traditions and
the issues raised in our cultural-sensitivity framework, especially with respect to how cultural
processes influence psychological functioning. This gives us further confidence that scholar-
ship and empirical work that focuses on the relationship between cultural and psychological
processes offers a practical and enriching framework for developing diverse regional
research traditions. This conclusion is further supported by the regression findings that
showed the Cultural Conceptualization composite accounted for the second highest amount
of variance in the total cultural-sensitivity score, higher than the Methods composite score.
In addition to the epistemological and conceptual issues identified, sustained attention is
needed to develop culturally sensitive methods that address the specific needs of regional
research and publication practices. This is a long-term endeavor that will inevitably require
some difficult discussions about what counts as validity, objectivity, and reliability in psy-
chological research. Regional scholars in emerging traditions may need to explore how these
fundamental concepts shape research and its appropriateness. The success of this endeavor
may be facilitated if we have a better understanding of indigenous and more intuitive forms
of regional scientific practice, especially because methods from mainstream psychology
have been transferred with little success. In our lab, we have begun to conduct semistructured
interviews with prominent regional researchers to examine the underlying meaning systems
that motivate complex research practices. Alternatively, ethnographies of science in practice
are an effective way of understanding what motivates research practices. Although these
methods are time-consuming and are rarely used to examine the development of emerging
national traditions in psychology (although they are common in sociology), they overcome
the main limitations of content analyses that can say little about the subjective experiences
of researchers, the social nature of research practices, and the institutional contexts that pro-
mote or impede research development.
118 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
In this article, we have offered specific ways in which to systematically gauge the cultural
sensitivity of research in one emerging regional psychology. The cultural-sensitivity framework
offered in this article is a modest starting point for assessing some historically persistent char-
acteristics that have impeded the development of research in the Arabic-speaking world. It cer-
tainly is not an end point, as we have made clear throughout this article by raising several critical
issues that require further research and discussion. The findings and issues explored in this arti-
cle elaborate our view that psychology in the Arabic-speaking world, especially during this stage
of its development, requires focused attention on culturally sensitive research in all subfields.
REFERENCES
Abou-Hatab, F. (1993). Psychology in the Arab world: Case study from developing nations [in Arabic]. Egyptian
Journal of Psychological Studies, 2, 1-27.
Abou-Hatab, F. (1997). Psychology from Egyptian, Arab, and Islamic perspectives: Unfulfilled hopes and hope-
ful fulfillment. European Psychologist, 2, 356-365.
Adair, J. (1995). The research environment in developing countries: Contributions to the national development of
the discipline. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 643-662.
Adair, J. (1998). Factors facilitating and impeding psychology’s contribution to national development. InterAmerican
Journal of Psychology, 32, 13-32.
Adair, J. (1999). Indigenization of psychology: The concept and its practical implementation. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48, 403-418.
Adair, J., & Kagitcibasi, C. (1995). Development of psychology in developing countries: Factors facilitating and
impeding its progress. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 633-641.
Adair, J. G., Puhan, B. N., & Vohra, N. (1993). Indigenization of psychology: Empirical assessment of progress
in Indian research. International Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 149-169.
Ahmed, R. (2004). Psychology in Egypt. In M. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.), The handbook of international psy-
chology (pp. 387-403). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Ahmed, R., & Gielen, U. (1998). Psychology in the Arab countries. Cairo, Egypt: Menoufia Press.
Akil, F. (1965). One hundred years of Arab scholarship in the human sciences: Syria [in Arabic]. In A. Al-Hafid,
M. Dajani, A. Al-Musaan, K. Haseeb, L. Diab, F. Akil, et al. (Eds.), One hundred years of Arab scholarship
in the human sciences (pp. 306-330). Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut Press.
Alamuddin, R. (2005). An empirical investigation of the degree of cultural grounding in psychological research
and the factors that impede and promote such research: The case of Lebanon. Unpublished master’s thesis,
American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
Alamuddin, R., & Zebian, S. (2004). Coding manual for the Cultural Sensitivity Measure for Published Research
(CSMPR). Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut.
Alamuddin, R., & Zebian, S. (2005). Psychology in the Arab world [A working annotated bibliography].
American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
Al-Soud, N. (2000). The progress of the science of psychology in the Arab world and its prospective develop-
ment [in Arabic]. Intellectual Studies Magazine, 1, 155-183.
Arab PsyNet. (n.d.). ArabPsy reviews guide. Retrieved from http://www.arabpsynet.com/HomePage/Psy-Reviews.htm
Bakhurst, D. (2001). Memory, identity, and the future of cultural psychology. In D. Bakhurst & S. Shanker (Eds.),
Jerome Bruner: Language, culture, and self (pp. 184-198). London: Sage.
Bakhurst, D. (2005). Strong culturalism. In C. Erneling & D. M. Johnson (Eds.), The mind as a scientific object:
Between brain and culture (pp. 413-430). New York: Oxford University Press.
Birashk, B. (2004). Psychology in Iran. In M. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.), The handbook of international psy-
chology (pp. 405-418). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Bond, M. (Ed.). (1997). Working at the interface of cultures: Eighteen lives in social science. London: Routledge.
Bond, M., & Tedeschi, J. (2001). Polishing the Jade: A modest proposal for improving the study of social psy-
chology across cultures. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 309-324). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Boski, P. (1993). Between West and East: Humanistic values and concerns in Polish psychology. In K. Uichol &
J. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 79-103). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 119
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Boski, P. (2005). Humanism-materialism: Polish cultural origins and cross-cultural comparisons. In U. Kim &
K. Yang (Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies (pp. 373-402). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54, 11-32.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (2005). Ignace Meyerson and cultural psychology. In C. Erneling & D. M. Johnson (Eds.), The mind
as a scientific object: Between brain and culture (pp. 402-412). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Connolly, K. (1986). Psychology and the Third World: A commentary on Moghaddam & Taylor. Bulletin of the
British Psychological Society, 39, 8-11.
Diab, L. (1965). One hundred years of Arab scholarship in the human sciences: Lebanon [in Arabic]. In A. Al-Hafid,
M. Dajani, A. Al-Musaan, K. Haseeb, L. Diab, F. Akil, et al. (Eds.), One hundred years of Arab scholarship in
the human sciences (pp. 330-345). Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut Press.
Dwairy, M. (1998). Cross-cultural counseling: The Arab Palestinian case. New York: Haworth.
Dwairy, M. (1999). Toward psycho-cultural approach in Middle Eastern societies. Clinical Psychology Review,
19, 909-915.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C., & Rennie, D. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies
in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 214-229.
Enriquez, V. (1977a). Filipino psychology in the Third World. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 10, 3-18.
Enriquez, V. (1977b). Toward cross-cultural knowledge through cross-indigenous methods and perspectives.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 12, 9-16.
Enriquez, V. (1993). Developing a Filipino psychology. In U. Kim & J. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies:
Research and experience in a cultural context (pp. 152-169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fish, J. (2000). What anthropology can do for psychology: Facing physics envy, ethnocentrism, and a belief in
“race.” American Anthropologist, 102, 552-563.
Galioun, B. (1997). The reasons for impeded progress in general scientific research in the Arab world [in Arabic].
Bahithat, 3, 320-335.
Greenfield, P. M. (1997a). Culture as a process: Empirical methods for cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry,
Y. Poortinga, & J. Pandely (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Theory and method (pp. 301-346).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greenfield, P. M. (1997b). You can’t take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American
Psychologist, 52, 1115-1124.
Greenfield, P. M. (2000). What psychology can do for anthropology, or why anthropology took postmodernism
on the chin. American Anthropologist, 102, 564-576.
Gregg, G. (2005). The Middle East: A cultural psychology. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
Harkness, J., van de Vijver, F., & Mohler, P. (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Harré, R. (2005). The relevance of the philosophy of psychology to a science of psychology. In C. Erneling &
D. M. Johnson (Eds.), The mind as a scientific object: Between brain and culture (pp. 20-33). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Henwood, K. (2004). Reinventing validity: Reflections on principles and practices from beyond the quality-quantity
divide. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown, & D. Clark (Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology: The integration
of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice
(pp. 37-57). Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Henze, R. (1992). Informal teaching and learning: A study of everyday cognition in a Greek community.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holdstock, L. (2000). Re-examining psychology: Cultural perspectives and African insights. London: Routledge.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hutz, C. S., & Adair, J. G. (1996). The use of references in Brazilian psychology journals reveals trends in
thought and research. International Journal of Psychology, 31(2), 145-149.
Institute for Development, Research, Advocacy and Applied Care. (n.d.). Search engine of Arab research.
Retrieved from http://www.idrac.org.lb/sub.aspx?ID=169&MID=50&PID=46&SECID=46
Kagitcibasi, C. (1994). Psychology in Turkey. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 729-738.
Kazarian, S., & Khoury, B. (2003, December). Psychology in Lebanon: Challenges and prospects. Paper
presented at the Middle East and North Africa Regional Conference in Psychology, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.
Khaleefa, O. (1999). Research on creativity, intelligence, and giftedness: The case of the Arab world. Gifted and
Talented International, 14, 21-29.
Kim, U., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (1993). Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context.
London: Sage.
120 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Latour, B. (1996). A review of Ed Hutchins’ “Cognition in the wild.” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 54-63.
Lave, J. (1997). What’s special about experiments as contexts for thinking? In M. Cole,Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez
(Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition
(pp. 57-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lira, E. (2000). Reflections on critical psychology: The psychology of memory and forgetting. In T. Sloan (Ed.),
Critical psychology: Voices for change (pp. 82-90). New York: St. Martin’s.
Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextu-
alist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1-20.
Melikian, L. (1984). The transfer of psychological knowledge to the Third World countries and its impact on devel-
opment: The case of five Arab Gulf oil-producing states. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 65-77.
Miller, J. (1997). Theoretical issues in cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 87-128). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Miller, P., Wang, S., Sandel, T., & Cho, G. (2002). Self-esteem as folk theory: A comparison of European
American, and Taiwanese mother’s beliefs. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 209-239.
Moghaddam, F. (1989). Specialization and despecialization in psychology: Divergent processes in the three
worlds. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 103-116.
Moghaddam, F. (1993). Traditional and modern psychologies in competing cultural systems: Lessons from Iran
1978-1981. In J. Berry & U. Kim (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural con-
text (pp. 118-132). Newbury Park: Sage.
Moghaddam, F. (1997). The specialized society: The plight of the individual in an age of individualism. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Moghaddam, F., Bianchi, C., Daniels, K., Apter, M., & Harré, R. (2000). Psychology and national development.
Psychology and Developing Societies, 11(2), 119-141.
Moghaddam, F., & Lee, N. (in press). Double reification: The process of universalizing psychology in the three
worlds. In. A. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of psychology. New York: New York University
Press.
Moghaddam, F., & Taylor, D. (1986). What constitutes an appropriate psychology for the developing world?
International Journal of Psychology, 21, 253-267.
Moghaddam, F., Walker, B., & Harré, R. (2003). Cultural distance, levels of abstraction, and the advantages of
mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural
research (pp.111-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montero, M. (1994). Consciousness raising, conversion, and de-ideologization in community psychosocial work.
Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 3-11.
Naboulsi, M. A. (1995a). The reality of psychiatry in the Arab world [in Arabic]. Paper presented at the Arab
Association of Psychology, Lebanon, Beirut.
Naboulsi, M. A. (1995b). Toward an Arab psychology [in Arabic]. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Taleea.
Nerlich, B. (2004). Coming full hermeneutical circle. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown, & D. Clark (Eds.),
Mixing methods (pp. 17-36). Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Nsamenang, A, (1992). Human development in a cultural context: A third world perspective. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Nsamenang, A. (2000). Issues in indigenous approaches to developmental research in sub-Saharan Africa.
International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development Newsletter, 1(37), 1-4.
Ongel, U., & Smith, P. B. (1999). The search for indigenous psychologies: Data from Turkey and the former
USSR. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(4), 465-479.
Prothro, E. T., & Melikian, L. H. (1955). Psychology in the Arab Near East. Psychological Bulletin,
52(4), 303-310.
Ratner, C. (1999). Cultural psychology. New York: Kluwer.
Safwata, A. (1996). Psychology in the Arab nations and its challenges in the future century [in Arabic].
Psychological Studies, 6, 1-4.
Sayed, M. (2002). Arabic psychiatry and psychology: The physician who is a philosopher and the physician who
is not a philosopher: Some cultural considerations. Social Behaviour and Personality, 30, 235-242.
Sayed, M. (2003). Conceptualization of mental illness within Arab cultures: Meeting challenges in cross-cultural
settings. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31, 333-342.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of narrow data base on social psychology’s
view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
Shweder, R. (1995). The confessions of a methodological individualist: Comment. Culture & Psychology, 1, 115-122.
Shweder, R. (2000). The psychology of practice and the practice of the three psychologies. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 3, 207-222.
Zebian et al. / CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH 121
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Shweder, R. (2003). Why do men barbeque? Recipes for cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Shweder, R., & Sullivan, M. (1993). Cultural psychology: Who needs it? Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 497-535.
Sinha, J. (1993). The bulk and the front of psychology in India. Psychology & Developing Societies, 5, 135-150.
Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of
cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 129-169). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sloan, T. (Ed.). (2000). Critical psychology: Voices for change. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan.
Smith, J. A., Harré, R., & Langenhove, L. (1995). Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tobin, J., Wu, D., & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures. New Haven, CT: Harvard University Press.
Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S., & Clarke, D. (2004). Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qual-
itative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. New York: Psychology Press.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. (2002). Arab human development report 2002: Creating opportunities
for future generations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1998). World science report. Paris: Elsevier
Vann, K., & Cole, M (2004). Method and methodology in interpretive studies of cognitive life. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich,
S. McKeown, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative
methods in theory and practice (pp. 149-168). New York: Psychology Press.
Wagner, D., & Spratt, J. (1987). Cognitive consequences of contrasting pedagogies: The effects of Quranic
preschooling in Morroco. Child Development, 58, 1207-1219.
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press.
Yang, K. (1997). Indigenizing Westernized Chinese psychology. In M. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of
cultures (pp. 62-76). London: Routledge.
Yang, K. S., Hwang, K. K., Pederson, P. B., & Diabo, I. (Eds.). (2003). Progress in Asian social psychology:
Conceptual and empirical contributions. Westport, CT.: Praeger.
Zebian, S. (2006). Scientific research practices in Arabic-language publications and their relation to other emerg-
ing psychological traditions in the region. Manuscript in preparation, American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
Samar Zebian is an assistant professor of psychology in the Department of Social and Behavioral
Sciences at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. She received a PhD in cognitive science with an
emphasis in cultural cognition from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. Her research investigates
the cultural origins of human cognition in the following domains: numeric cognition, everyday mathe-
matics, the development of higher order critical thinking in school mathematics, and cross-cultural/sub-
cultural differences in thought styles. More recently, she began research on the development of Arab
psychology. She is the recipient of the 2002 Triandis dissertation award and is an executive member of
the Lebanese Psychological Association.
Rayane Alamuddin received her MA in psychology from the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, and
is currently an instructor of psychology. Her research interests include youth issues in developing nations,
the development of emerging national psychologies, and applying psychological research to post-conflict
human development efforts.
Mariane Maalouf received an MSc in addictive behaviors from the University of Liverpool, United
Kingdom. Her current interests lie in the areas of biological and cultural psychology.
Yasmine Chatila, BA, is a research assistant working with several institutions. Her research interests
include a variety of topics covering mental health in Lebanon.
122 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on June 10, 2007 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
