Advertisement

Ethical Issues in Cultural Research on Human Development

  • Namrata Goyal
  • Matthew Wice
  • Joan G. Miller
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter addresses ethical issues in cultural research on human development. We argue for the importance of attending to culture in all phases of the research process and highlight ways that promoting the ethical sensitivity of cultural research enhances its validity and explanatory force. The first portion of the chapter focuses on early phases of the research process. We underscore the need to operationalize constructs in culturally valid ways and identify challenges that arise when objectively comparable procedures involve culturally variable meanings. The next section focuses on ethical issues in sampling, including the importance of tapping understudied populations and respecting local cultural norms in securing informed consent. We next address ethical aspects of study design and data collection, pointing out ways that harm, coercion and invasion of privacy that may result from inadequate attention to cultural meanings and practices. Lastly, we discuss the impact of drawing unsound or stereotypical conclusions about culture and human development, while discussing the insights cross-cultural research has to offer in terms of broadening psychological constructs, contributing to basic psychological theory, and making the discipline less culturally parochial. We conclude by outlining ways in which culturally sensitive research can enhance both ethics and research quality.

Keywords

Ethics Confidentiality Informed consent Privacy Harm Attachment Parenting Motivation Culture 

References

  1. Abramovitch R, Freedman JL, Henry K, Van Brunschot M. Children’s capacityto agree to psychological research: knowledge of risks and benefits and voluntariness. Ethics Behav. 1995;5:25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth MD. The development of infant-mother interaction among the Ganda. In: Foss BM, editor. The determinants of infant behaviour II. London: Methuen; 1963. p. 67–112.Google Scholar
  3. Allen A. Coercing privacy. In: Goldman J, Choy A, editors. Privacy and confidentiality in health research, vol. 2. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1999. p. C1–C34.Google Scholar
  4. Arnett JJ. The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. Am Psychol. 2008;63:602–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber BK, Olsen JE, Shagle SC. Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Dev. 1994;65:1120–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr RG. Infant crying behavior and colic: an interpretation in evolutionary perspective. In: Trevarthen WR, Smith EO, McKenna JJ, editors. Evolutionay medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 27–51.Google Scholar
  7. Baumrind D. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Dev. 1966;37:887–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumrind D. The discipline controversy revisited. Fam Relat J Appl Fam Child Stud. 1996;45(4): 1405–14.Google Scholar
  9. Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Owens E. Effects of preschool parents’ power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parent Sci Pract. 2010;10:156–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beauvais F, Trimble JE. The role of the researcher in evaluating American Indian alcohol and other drug abuse prevention programs. In: Orlandi MA, editor. Cultural competence for evaluators: a guide for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention practitioners working with ethnic/racial communities. Rockville: US Department of Health & Human Services; 1992. p. 173–201.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks-Gunn J, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Rights to privacy in research: adolescents versus parents. Ethics Behav. 1994;42:109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carey S. Are children fundamentally different thinkers and learners from adults? In: Chipman SF, Segal JW, Glaser R, editors. Thinking and learning skills, vol. 2. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1985. p. 485–517. Reprinted by Open University Press: Open University Readings in Cognitive Development.Google Scholar
  13. Casas JM, Thompson CE. Ethical principles and standards: a racial-ethnic minority research perspective. Couns Values. 1991;35:186–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chao RK. Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Dev. 1994;65:1111–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chao RK. Chinese and European American cultural models of the self reflected in mothers-childrearing beliefs. Ethos. 1995;23:328–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chao RK. Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Dev. 2001;72:1832–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conger RD, Conger RD, Elder GH, Lorenz FO, Simons RL, Whitbeck LB. A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Dev. 1992;63:526–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coplan RJ, Hastings DP, Lagace-Seguin DG, Moulton CE. Authoritative and authoritarian mothers’ parenting goals, attributions, and emotions across different childrearing contexts. Parent Sci Pract. 2002;2:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as a context: an integrative model. Psychol Bull. 1993;113:487–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dornbusch SM, Ritter PL, Leiderman PH, Roberts DF, Fraleigh MH. The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Dev. 1987;58:1244–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernald A. Getting beyond the “convenience sample” in research on early cognitive development. Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33:91–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher CB. Participant consultation: ethical insights into parental permission and confidentiality procedures for policy relevant research with youth. In: Lerner RM, Jacobs F, Wertlieb D, editors. Handook of applied developmental science, vol. 4. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2002. p. 371–96.Google Scholar
  23. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33:61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofstede G. Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories apply abroad. Organ Dyn. 1980;9:42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hofstede G. Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pac J Manag. 1984;1:81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackon-Newsom J, Buchanan CM, McDonald RM. Parenting and perceived maternal warmth in European American and African American Adolescents. J Marriage Fam. 2008;70:62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markus HR, Kityama S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98:224–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason CA, Walker-Barnes CJ, Tu S, Simons J, Martinez-Arrue R. Ethnic differences in the affective meaning of parental control behaviors. J Prim Prev. 2004;25:59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meléndez L. Parental beliefs and practices around early self-regulation: the impact of culture and immigration. Infants Young Child. 2005;18:136–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller VA, Feudtner C. Parent and child perceptions of the benefits of research participation. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2016;38(4):1–7.Google Scholar
  31. Monshi B, Zieglmayer V. The problem of privacy in transcultural research: reflections on an ethnographic study in Sri Lanka. Ethics Behav. 2004;14:305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nisbett RE. The geography of thought: how Asians and westerners think differently – and why. New York: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  33. Norton IM, Manson SM. Research in American Indian and Alaska Native communities: navigating the cultural universe of values and process. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64:856–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Papousek M. Persistent crying, parenting, and infant mental health. In: Osofsky JD, Fitzgerald HE, editors. WAIMH handbook of infant mental health, vol. 4. New York: Guilford Press; 2000. p. 326–38.Google Scholar
  35. Parra-Cardona JR, López-Zerón G, Villa M, Zamudio E, Escobar-Chew AR, Rodríguez MM. Enhancing parenting practices with Latino/a immigrants: integrating evidence-based knowledge and culture according to the voices of Latino/a parents. Clin Soc Work J. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-016-0589-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rajaramn D, Jesuraj N, Geiter L, Bennett S, Grewal H, Vaz M. How participatory is parental consent in low literacy rural settings in low income countries? Lessons learned from a community based study of infants in South India. BMC Med Ethics. 2011;12:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ross N, Medin DL, Coley JD, Atran S. Cultural and experiential differences in the development of folkbiological induction. Cogn Dev. 2003;18:25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rothrauff TC, Cooney TM, An JS. Remembered parenting styles and adjustment in middle and late adulthood. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64B(1):137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaefer E. Children’s reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child Dev. 1965;36:413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Small MF. Our babies, ourselves: how babies and culture shape the way we parent. New York: Anchor Books; 1998.Google Scholar
  41. Stevenson HC, DeMoya D, Boruch RF. Ethical issues and approaches in AIDS research. In: Ostrow DG, Kessler RC, editors. Methodological issues in AIDS behavioral research. New York: Plenum Press; 1993. p. 19–51.Google Scholar
  42. Tai MC, Lin CS. Developing a culturally relevant bioethics for Asian people. J Med Ethics. 2001;27:51–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Takahashi K. Attachment behaviors to a female stranger among Japanese two-year-olds. J Genet Psychol. 1982;140:299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Takahashi K. Examining the strange-situation procedure with Japanese mothers and 12 month old infants. Dev Psychol. 1986;22:265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Takahashi K, Hatano G. Toward a valid application of the adult attachment interview to the Japanese culture and language: the need for ethnographic adaptations. Sacred Heart Univ J. 2009;112:42–63.Google Scholar
  46. Tronick EZ, Cohn JF. Infant-mother face-to-face interaction: age and gender differences in coordination and the occurrence of miscoordination. Child Dev. 1989;60:85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tronick EZ, Als H, Adamson L, Wise S, Brazelton TB. The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. 1978;17:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)62273-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew School for Social ResearchNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations