Methodological sources of cultural insensitivity in mental health research.

Abstract

The concept of procedural norms, which is taken from the analysis of science as an institutionally structured social process, is used to explain the persistence of cultural insensitivity in research. The concept refers to the canons of research that tell scientists what should be studied and how, and they are taught to successive generations of researchers. An examination of cross-cultural studies in mental health reveals that cultural insensitivity stems from procedural norms in the development of content validity based on experts' rational analysis of concepts, in linguistic translations that try to conform to the exact terms of standardized instruments, and in the uncritical transferring of concepts across cultures. We need a wide-ranging examination of our procedural norms, with the objective of keeping such norms from suppressing, biasing, or deflecting cultural understandings. This article proposes a dialogue on the intricate connections between culture and our customary methodologies.

Cultural relevance and equivalence in the NLAAS instrument: integrating etic and emic in the development of cross‐cultural measures for a psychiatric epidemiology and services study of Latinos

“…To the contrary, the majority of studies of mental health issues to date continue to be based on assumptions of universality of the American mainstream experience. This assumption is justified on the basis of results from the standardized measures commonly employed in both psychiatric epidemiology and services research studies that themselves have not been developed to be culturally sensitive (Rogler, 1999). Over the last decade, many cross-cultural psychiatric studies used measures that were standardized on the mainstream population to assess correlates of psychiatric disorder and unmet need for mental health care without knowing for certain whether the correlates of interest were relevant for or that the standardized measures were applicable to ethnic minority populations.…”

“…Most investigators agree on the value of cross-ethnic and cross-cultural research findings and on the need to make research culturally sensitive (Canino, Lewis-Fernández, and Bravo, 1997), as it will increase the scientific accuracy of the research rather than merely promote multicultural political correctness (Rogler, 1999;Beals et al, 2003). However, there is disagreement as to the extent of revisions that should be incorporated into research instruments in order to obtain cultural equivalency and cultural relevance.…”

A violence-prevention and evaluation project with ethnically diverse populations

“…This ethnocentric perspective usually explained differences across ethnic groups as genetic or inferior aspects of the non-Caucasian culture. 5,12 On the other hand, anthropologists have suggested that researchers develop measures that are culturally sensitive, by using the "emic" perspective, which attempts to understand a phenomenon from the "natives'" point of view. 4 This approach accounts for the values and traditions of different ethnic groups.…”

“…4,8,15 Several approaches exist for establishing linguistic, conceptual, and measurement equivalence for instruments administered to different language groups. 4,8,12,15,33 One step is to translate the instruments into the language(s) spoken by the ethnic group(s) in the target population. 34,35 Several researchers have suggested that translations follow specific guidelines: (1) third-grade reading level English, (2) no colloquial language, (3) bicultural and bilingual people should do the translations, and (4) back-translation to the original language should be done by a second person.…”

“…9,12,36 For the Chinese-language instruments and informational letters, one bilingual person translated the instruments into Mandarin, and then a second translator reviewed the documents. This procedure was more efficient and acceptable than back-translation because there are many cultural nuances that affect the meaning of words.…”