CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSISfrom whole cultures or subunits such as communi-
ties or institutions (e.g., family, school, or work-
place). The appropriateness of individuals as the
basic unit of analysis has been a hotly debated issue
in sociology. The problem is even more acute in
cross-cultural analysis, especially in cultures ‘‘that
lack the individualistic, participatory characteris-
tics of Western societies’’ (Armer 1983, p. 62). In
addition to the special difficulties of representa-
tive, theoretical, or random sampling of cases
(Elder 1973; Van Meter 1990), cross-cultural re-
searchers must also deal with ‘‘Galton’s problem.’’
According to the British statistician, Sir Francis
Galton, ‘‘valid comparison requires mutually inde-
pendent and isolated cases, and therefore cultural
diffusion, cultural contact, culture clash or out-
right conquest—with their consequent borrow-
ing, imitation, migrations etc.—invalidates the re-
sults of comparative studies’’ (Sztompka 1988, p.
213). Although several researchers have presented
strategies for dealing with Galton’s problem for
correlational studies of data archives (see Naroll,
Michik, and Naroll 1980), the problem of cultural
diffusion is often overlooked in many quantitative
and qualitative cross-cultural studies.
Undoubtedly, ensuring conceptual equivalence
and achieving valid measures are the most chal-
lenging methodological problems of cross-cultural
research. Central to these problems is the wide
variation in language and meaning systems across
cultural groups. Anthropologists have attempted
to address the problem of conceptual equivalence
with the distinction between ‘‘emic’’ and ‘‘etic.’’
Emics refer to local (single culture) meaning, func-
tion and structure, while etics are culture-free (or
at least operate in more than one culture) aspects
of the world (Pike 1966). A major problem in
cross-cultural analysis is the use of emic concepts
of one culture to explain characteristics of another
culture. In fact, many cross-cultural studies involve
the use of ‘‘imposed etics,’’ that is Euro-Ameri-
can emics that are ‘‘imposed blindly and even
ethnocentrically on a set of phenomena which
occur in other cultural systems’’ (Berry 1980, p.
12). A number of procedures have been developed
to ensure emic-etic distinctions and to estimate the
validity of such measures (Brislin 1980; Naroll,
Michik, and Naroll 1980).
Addressing conceptual relevance in cross-cul-
tural research does not, of course, ensure valid
measures. All forms of data collection and analysis
are dependent on implicit theories of language
and communication (Cicourel 1964). As social
scientists have come to learn more about commu-
nicative systems within and across cultures, there
has been a growing awareness that problems relat-
ed to language in cross-cultural analysis are not
easily resolved. There is also a recognition that
these problems go beyond the accurate translation
of measurement instruments (Brislin 1970; Grimshaw
1973), to the incorporation of findings from stud-
ies on communicative competence across cultural
groups into cross-cultural research (Briggs 1986;
Gumperz 1982).THE FUTURE OF CROSS-CULTURAL
ANALYSISThere is a solid basis for optimism regarding the
future of cross-cultural analysis. Over the last twen-
ty years there has been remarkable growth in
international organizations and cooperation among
international scholars in the social sciences. These
developments have not only resulted in an in-
crease in cross-cultural research, but also have led
to necessary debates about the theoretical and
methodological state of cross-cultural analysis (Øyen
1990; Kohn 1989).Cooperation among international scholars in
cross-cultural analysis has also contributed to the
breaking down of disciplinary boundaries. In the
area of childhood socialization and the sociology
of childhood, for example, there have been a
number of cross-cultural contributions to what
can be termed ‘‘development in sociocultural con-
text’’ by anthropologists (Heath 1983), psycholo-
gists (Rogoff 1990), sociologists (Corsaro 1997),
and linguists (Ochs 1988). Developing interest in
children and childhood in sociology has resulted
in the establishment of a new research committee
(‘‘Sociology of Childhood’’) in the International
Sociological Association (ISA) and a new journal
titled Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research,
as well as the publication of several international
reports and edited volumes (see Qvortrup, Bardy,
Sgritta, and Wintersberger 1994). Less interdisci-
plinary, perhaps, but no less impressive, has been
the degree of international cooperation that has
developed around a number of other research
committees of the ISA. The ISA Research Com-
mittee on Stratification, for instance, has had a