Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:25:33.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-cultural gerontology research methods: challenges and solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2011

IRIS CHI
IRIS CHI*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Southern California, USA.
*
Address for correspondence: Iris Chi, 669 W. 34th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cross-cultural research in the behavioural and social sciences uses data from several societies or distinct cultural groups to describe the diversity of human behaviour and test hypotheses about behaviour and culture. This paper reviews the historical development and current state of cross-cultural research in the social sciences and gerontology. Cross-cultural research in gerontology is important because the social processes of ageing vary. It aims to distinguish universal from culturally-specific processes and determine how cultural factors influence individual and population ageing. It has to overcome many challenges: how to design an equivalent and unbiased study, how to access different cultures, how to contextualise these cultures, and how to ensure that questions are meaningful for different cultures. Appropriate strategies include using an international multicultural research team, becoming familiar with the local culture, maintaining good relationships with community leaders, studying only those aspects of behaviour that are functionally equivalent while avoiding the idiosyncratic, using appropriate measures, and encouraging equal partnership and open communication among colleagues. Cross-cultural research has been growing and has become a basis for globally-relevant social gerontology. To highlight the complexity of cross-cultural research and lessons learnt from such research experience, this paper describes an example study of long-term care that involved researchers from more than 30 countries and from many disciplines.

Keywords

cross-culturalgerontologymethodageinginternational
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 31 , Issue 3: Methodologies for Ageing Populations , April 2011 , pp. 371 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, M. 1999. The seductiveness of agelessness. Ageing & Society, 19, 3, 301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkanovic, J. E., Kitano, H. H. L. and Chi, I. 1995. The physical, mental, and social health status of older Chinese: a cross-national study. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 6, 3, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W. 1997. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology. Second edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1976. Comparative research methodology: cross-cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 3, 215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, B. 2008. ‘Healthy Ageing’ policies and anti-ageing ideologies and practices: on the exercise of responsibility. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 11, 4, 475–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, A. C. M., Phillips, D. R., Cheng, S. T., Chi, I. and Ho, S. S. Y. 2004. Constructing a quality of life scale for older Chinese people in Hong Kong (HKQOLOCP). Social Indicators Research, 69, 3, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, N. L., Lai, F. D., Lin, G. E., Chi, I. and Gui, S. 2000. International differences in life satisfaction among urban-living elders: Chinese and Canadian comparisons. Hallym International Journal of Aging, 2, 2, 105–18.Google Scholar
Chi, I. 2004. Cross-national comparison of the profiles of nursing home residents. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 4, S1, 286–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, C. R. 1994. Improvements in cross-cultural research methods. Cross-cultural Research, 28, 4, 364–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, C. R. and Ember, M. 2000. Cross-cultural Research Methods. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Feng, Z., Hirdes, J., Smith, T., Finne-Soveri, H., Chi, I., Du Pasquier, J., Gilgen, R., Ikegami, N., and Mor, V. 2009. Use of physical restraints and antipsychotic medications in nursing homes: a cross-national study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 10, 1110–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedemann, M. L., Pagan-Coss, H. and Mayorga, C. 2008. The workings of a multicultural research team. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 19, 3, 266–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holstein, M. B. and Minkler, M. 2003. Self, society, and the ‘New Gerontology’. The Gerontologist, 43, 6, 787–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooyman, N. R. and Kiyak, H. A. 2008. Social Gerontology: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Eight edition, Pearson Education, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. S. 2002. Conceptual and methodological linkages in cross-cultural groups and cross-national aging research. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 4, 825–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendig, H., Koyano, W., Asakawa, T. and Ando, T. 1999. Social support of older people in Australia and Japan. Ageing & Society, 19, 2, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinman, A. 1978. Clinical relevance of anthropological and cross-cultural research: concepts and strategies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 4, 427–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Kohn, M. L. 1987. Cross-national research as an analytic strategy: American Sociological Association 1987 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 52, 6, 713–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laungani, P. 2007. Understanding Cross-cultural Psychology: Eastern and Western Perspectives. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, A., Chi, I. and Lui, Y. 2006. A cross-cultural study in older adults' learning experience. Asian Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 1, 2, 78–83.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Chi, I., Zhang, K. and Guo, P. 2006. Comparison of health services use by Chinese urban and rural older adults in Yunnan province. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 6, 4, 260–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., Chi, I., Chen, G., Song, X. and Zheng, X. 2010. Spatial variations and correlates in disability-free life expectancy among older adults in China. BMC Public Health, 10, 446–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr, de Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Marusic, I., Bratko, D., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C. and Chae, J. 1999. Age differences in personality across the adult life span: parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 2, 466–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, G. 2000. Cross-cultural methodological issues in ethical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 1/2, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mui, A. C., Burnette, D. and Chen, L. 2002. Cross-cultural assessment of geriatric depression: a review of the CES-D and GDS. In Skinners, J. F. (ed.), Multicultural Measurement in Older Populations. Springer Publication Company, New York, 147–77.Google Scholar
Mui, A. C. and Shibusawa, T. 2008. Asian American Elders in the Twenty-first Century: Key Indicators of Well-being. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, A. C. Y., Phillips, D. R. and Lee, W. K. 2002. Persistence and challenges to filial piety and informal support of older persons in a modern Chinese society: a case study in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 2, 135–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omram, A. 2001. The epidemiologic transition: a theory of the epidemiology of population change. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79, 161–70.Google Scholar
Palmore, E. B. 1983. Cross-cultural research: state of the art. Research on Aging, 5, 1, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, J. and Kahn, R. 1997. Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 37, 4, 433–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sykes, J. T. 2007. A global challenge to gerontological research and advocacy strategies. The Gerontologist, 47, 6, 854–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, S. 1999. A culturally-relevant theoretical framework for the study of successful ageing. Ageing & Society, 19, 1, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, S. 2002. Relational values and ideas regarding ‘Successful Aging’. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 3, 417–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, S. 2003. A preliminary empirical test of a culturally-relevant theoretical framework for the study of successful aging. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 18, 1, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treas, J. and Wang, W. 1993. Of deeds and contracts: filial piety perceived in contemporary Shanghai. In Bengtson, V. L. and Achenbaum, W. A. (eds), The Changing Contract Across Generations. Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 87–98.Google Scholar
Tylor, E. B. 1889. On a method of investigating the development of institutions: applied to laws of marriage and descent. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 18, 245–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. V. D. and Leung, K. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-cultural Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Yancik, R. and Ries, L. A. G. 2004. Cancer in older persons: an international issue in an aging world. Seminars in Oncology, 31, 2, 128–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhan, H. J. 2004. Willingness and expectations: intergenerational differences in attitudes toward filial responsibility in China. Marriage and Family Review, 36, 1/2, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar