ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This Project Report is a result of efforts, time and skills contributed by a number of people. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have worked towards successful completion of this project report.

I must also acknowledge me deep gratitude to my faculty guide, Ms. Kushi Sharma, Sr. Lecturer, Amity School of Business for her valuable guidance, corrective criticism and unflinching moral support during the tenure of the project. I must also express my indebtedness to Brig. S K Dubey, Professor, Amity School of Business for helping me in the successful completion of the project. I must also extend my sincere thanks to the Amity School of Business Library, Amity University, Noida for their invaluable assistance during the project. Thanks are also due to all those whose writings and data I have drawn upon in the preparation of the report.

Lastly, I must not forget to thank my family and friends for their constant support and understanding during the work.

SHUBHANGI SINGH
A3907508034
IMBA A-16 (2008- 2012)
Amity School of Business e- Mail – shubhangi_singh@live.in
INDEX

SERIAL NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Abstract 03
2. Introduction 04
3. Methodology 07
4. Literature review 08
5. Discussion 14
6 Conclusion 15
7. Suggestions 16
6. Appendices 17
7. References 18

ABSTRACT

Confronted by the globalization of markets, increasing competition, deregulation and rapid technological developments, speed and flexibility become key sources of competitive advantage for organizations.
This calls for radically different management approaches and a new breed of leaders. New mindsets and new sets of learning skills will be key factors of success in the knowledge intensive corporations of the future.
The research field of cross-cultural management suffers from an absence of theory capable of explaining the role of culture in organizational behavior. Methodological issues that are at least partly responsible for the above shortcoming are explored in this paper. The central argument is that, despite efforts to resolve these issues, many methodological problems continue to resist the remedies prescribed by researchers. This paper seeks to evaluate the reasons for this, and based on these evaluations, proposes some suggestions for future research.

INTRODUCTION

What is Cross-Cultural Research? Human communities have a variety of practices, beliefs, social roles, norms, expressions, forms of organization and conflicts (economic, political, legal, religious, expressive and artistic) that exhibit various sorts of internal coherence as well as cleavages within communities. These coherences and cleavages bear many close connections to the different historical experiences, physical and social environments in which people live. They include configurations of elements and characteristic ways of interrelating that are shared with neighboring and interacting groups, and shared among dispersed groups that have common historical experiences and similarities, including common origin, common membership in historical civilizations, and languages that are mutually understood or that derive common families. Lines of cleavage, conflict, and marginality, of course, are part of cultural phenomena.
Elements and relationships that individuals or communities have in common are shared in a variety of ways. Some, such as the more intensive patterns of interaction that derive from common residence, joint experience, and discourse in a common language or system of signs, are relatively well bounded. Other patterns of sharing or similarity derive from processes of dispersal: migration, diasporas, the trajectory of lives lived through spatial movements, social mobility, careers, distinctive histories. Interactions are by no means limited to localities, but to the trajectories of inhabitants who move through and between localities.
From the 1960s onwards, management researchers have shown interest in the concept of culture because it was believed that culture has an influence on managerial behavior and performance (Sekaran 1983: 67). At the same time, there have been many problems that obstruct the advancement of research in culture, making it difficult to reach a clear understanding of the relationship between culture and management.

The problems faced are accompanied by an increasing necessity to find cultural solutions to organizational problems in a world that has begun to resemble a ‘global village’ (Doktor et al. 1991a: 259). The heightened pace of global integration, brought about by technological and economical forces, suggests that managers will increasingly have to deal with counterparts from cultures quite unlike their own. It is believed that substantial competitive advantages will be derived by those managers who are able to tackle these cultural issues appropriately.

Research to date, spanning several disciplines such as psychology, sociology, marketing, and management, has attempted to provide insightful analyses and solutions for these problems (Adler 1984; Ajiferuke and Boddewyn 1970; Barrett and Bass 1970; Berry 1979; Cavusgil and Das 1997; Child 1981; Kraut 1975; Malhotra et al. 1996; Nasif et al. 1991; Negandhi 1974; Peng et al. 1991; Schollhammer 1969; Sechrest et al. 1972; Sekaran 1983; Tayeb 1994). Yet, as we argue in this paper, many of these problems seem to have remained generally intractable or have simply been ignored. We first illustrate that a general theory of culture does not exist in the field of cross-cultural management research. Then, causes of the inability to arrive at a general theory are examined through the investigation of methodological problems. The structure of this investigation adapts, in part, that of Adler (1984: 45--48), Cavusgil and Das (1997: 72), and Nasif et al. (1991: 81). Specifically, a process approach is used to discuss the problems and difficulties at each successive stage of the research process (Nasif et al. 199 1: 8 1). The stages are classified into the following five broad categories: definition, sampling, instrumentation and measurement, data collection, and data analysis and interpretation.

At each successive stage, solutions to the problems proposed in prior research are discussed. Their workability to tackle the problems is evaluated and suggestions are made for future research. A summary of these issues, problems, and solutions is listed in Table 1. We believe our contribution to the existing body of literature lies in our evaluation of remedies and our proposals for future research. We also hope to increase the awareness of the seriousness of these issues. Given the broad range of our focus, our research is limited in its comprehensiveness. The range covered in the study of organizations comes from so many disciplines that it is ‘virtually impossible to think simultaneously about the multitude of problems and research strategies’ (Roberts 1997: 5).

Our research findings imply that despite several decades of development, meaningful cross-cultural management research continues to remain an extremely ‘slippery’ task. Theoretically, the field is not yet capable of objectively explaining cultural influences on organizational behavior. Methodologically, although some aspects of the problems may be solvable, limitations such as cost, time, and accessibility seem to continually inhibit researchers from paying attention to these problems. Although we try to argue that methodological factors contribute to a lack of theory in cross-cultural management research, we submit that this is not the whole story. As Morgan and Smircich (1980: 491) suggested, ‘all approaches to social science are based on interrelated sets of assumptions regarding ontology, human nature, and epistemology.’ At the outset, assumptions about ontology and human nature (respectively, the objective versus the subjective, and the determinist versus the volunteerism continuum (Smircich 1983: 340; Schein 1997: Ch. 6, 7)) ‘define the researcher’s view of the social world,’ and incline the researcher ‘to see and interpret the world from one perspective rather than from another’ (Morgan 1983: 21).

The researcher then attempts to generate meanings as guided by the chosen ontological assumptions of social reality. This process is normally manifested through a preferred metaphor (Morgan 1980; Smircich 1983) that locks the researcher in a particular epistemological stance, which in turn leads to certain kinds of insight, understanding, and propositions. Similarly, whether methodology should primarily adopt a qualitative or a quantitative approach depends on the fundamental ontological assumptions (Morgan and Smircich 1980: 497-499). Our premise is that, with a given set of ontological assumptions and epistemological preferences as proposed for the field of cross-cultural management research (Smircich 1983: 343-347), methodological issues do play a significant role in ‘blocking’ researchers from reaching a theoretical consensus.

Objectives
• To evaluate the various methodologies of cross cultural research
• To study the problems faced in the cross cultural research
• To give suggestions for the proposed problems

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design – Descriptive Research: Descriptive research, also known as statistical research, describes data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. Descriptive research answers the questions who, what, where, when and how. Although the data description is factual, accurate and systematic, the research cannot describe what caused a situation.
Literature Survey – The existing literature about the Cross Cultural Research: Problems, Solutions and Proposals has been studied and reviewed. The books and magazines or reports consulted have been listed in the reference section.

Data Collection Method – Most of the data has been collected from secondary published sources. Most of the data presented in the report have sources mentioned there under.

Analysis and Interpretation – The analysis of the data collected has been performed appropriately and inferences have been drawn. LITERATURE REVIEW
AN ABSENCE OF THEORY
The main interests of cross-cultural management researchers lie in the issue of cultural influences on organizational behavior and outcomes. Specifically, can it be proven that cultural factors influence human behavior in organizations? Or, can it be posited that organizational performances are a consequence of cultural elements? In essence, is there an acceptable theory that can be used to explain relationships among culture, human behavior in organizations, and the outcomes of organizations? Unfortunately, the research to date suggests that there is no general theory.

Development of Cross-Cultural Research Questions

In this stage, researchers must decide whether their study will be approached from an etic or an emic perspective, and they must establish the way in which they will define or consider culture in the context of their research. The emic approach, as it applies to cross-cultural research, focuses on studying a construct from within a specific culture, and understanding that construct as the people from within that culture understand it. The etic approach, on the other hand, involves developing an understanding of a construct by comparing it across cultures using predetermined characteristics. Researchers have recognized the importance of both of these approaches.

From a measurement standpoint, criteria in an emic approach are relative to the characteristics of the particular culture being studied, and so differences or variability in one setting may not have the same significance as they would in another setting. The etic approach is more suited for broader analyses, usually involving two or more cultures. The main assumption in etic research is that there is a shared frame of reference across culturally diverse samples, and that construct measurement can be applied to all of the samples in the same way, ultimately allowing for more generalizability (Ronen & Shenkar, 1988). Since cross-cultural organizational research often involves comparative studies between two or more cultures, much of the research is conducted with an etic perspective. From a measurement standpoint, criteria in an etic approach are considered absolute or universal, with less attention being given to the internal characteristics of a particular culture (Berry, 1989). The use of an etic approach may be the most practical for organizational researchers, in terms of financial limitations and time pressures. However, if etic constructs are used to make cross-cultural comparisons, researchers risk not capturing all of the culture-specific (emic) aspects of the construct relative to a particular culture in the study. On the other hand, if an emic strategy is used, a more precise and thorough description of the construct within one culture is obtained, but the ability to make cross-cultural comparisons becomes more difficult (Church & Katibak, 1988).

When researchers fail to consider the emic aspects of the different cultures involved in their studies, and when they assume that the concepts being tested exist across all cultures, they are applying imposed etics, or pseudo etics (Barry, 1990). This problem has been recognized as being fairly common in cross-cultural research (see Ongel & Smith, 1994), and in our review we found a similar pattern. A best-practice suggestion for dealing with this problem is to use a combined emic-etic approach, or a derived etic approach. Rather than identifying emic dimensions from one culture and simply applying those dimensions to the other culture(s) in the study, a derived etic approach requires researchers to first attain emic knowledge (usually through observation, and/or participation) about all of the cultures in the study (Berry, 1990; Cheung, Conger, Hau, Lew, & Lau, 1992). This allows them to put aside their culture biases, and to become familiar with the relevant cultural differences in each setting. When this is done, it may then be possible to make cross-cultural links between the emic aspects of each culture. While some emic dimensions will emerge in all cultures, some dimensions may emerge in only one of the cultures (Cheung, et. al, 1992). Only where there are observed commonalities can cross-cultural comparisons be appropriately made. The comparisons here are considered derived etics since they are derived by first doing emic research in each of the cultures, and not just one (Berry, 1990).

In the first stage of developing the research question, researchers must also determine how the term culture will be operationalized in their study. In many of the studies we examined, “country” or “nation” was used as a proxy for culture (e.g., Kim, Park, & Suzuki, 1990). While country may in fact be a suitable and convenient indicator of culture, using it as the sole operationalization of culture has limitations. For example, in a cross-cultural study, there may be certain within-country differences that are actually greater than between-country differences along certain dimensions (Samiee & Jeong, 1994). While some countries like Japan have a relatively homogeneous culture, other countries like Canada and Switzerland may have more distinct sub-cultures within their borders (Peterson & Smith, 1997). Recognizing that there may be other delimiters of culture besides country, Peterson and Smith (1997) provided a comprehensive list of cultural determinants meant to assist researchers with this issue. These determinants include language, religion, technology, industry, national boundaries, and climate. Adding these characteristics to ‘country’ as possible delimiters of culture can enhance the integrity of cross-cultural research. A best practice in this area, then, would involve researchers establishing which characteristics are relevant to their specific research context, and then using them to more accurately assess cultural boundaries.

Alignment of Research Contexts

The alignment of research contexts refers to actions that researchers can take to assure congruence between the different cultures being studied. In our review, two main issues seemed to be particularly relevant to this stage. First, researchers should establish equivalency among the samples in their cross-cultural studies, and second, they should maintain consistency in the survey administration procedures used across different samples.

Because researchers sometimes have limited access to organizations, it is often difficult for them to establish the equivalency of samples. Many times, the choice of samples is arbitrary and opportunistic (Yu, Keown, & Jacobs, 1993), with convenience being the deciding factor. Samples can differ in terms of demographic characteristics, in terms of environmental characteristics, and in terms of respondents’ levels of experience related to both their work history and to their exposure to certain measurement instruments. All of these differences become a concern when they are not relevant to the research topic being studied. Demographic differences in gender, age, education, and marital status can all be sources of unwanted variation. In trying to match organizational structures for research design purposes, researchers are often forced to sacrifice demographic proportions across two or more cultures (Chikudate, 1997). Environmental characteristics become a concern in cross-cultural research when differences exist in terms of social, economic, legal, education, and/or industry structures (Janssens, Brett, & Smith, 1995). We found that cross-cultural studies sometimes fail to control for these types of factors. Finally, differences in respondents’ experience levels can be problematic. Because cross-cultural studies often involve highly dissimilar groups (Van de Vijver & & Leung, 1997), respondents from different samples are likely to have different levels of past work experience, in terms of both tenure and breadth of exposure to different functional areas (e.g., Schneider & De Meyer, 1991). In addition, differences may exist in terms of respondents’ experience levels with measurement instruments and with general testing procedures, both of which can be undesirable performance-related sources of variation (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).

To assure sample equivalency, researchers should try to minimize the effects of these sample differences in their cross-cultural studies. If samples cannot be matched on the basis of some predetermined variables, then the variables should be controlled for methodologically (Sekaran & Martin, 1982; Hudson, Baraket, & LaForge, 1959).

Another important issue related to contextual alignment is whether the administration of surveys is consistent across the different research settings. This involves technical equivalence, and includes establishing equivalent data collection methods, instrument formats, instrument scaling procedures, and survey-timing across the samples (Ortega & Richey, 1998; Sekaran & Martin, 1982; Yu et al., 1993). For example, if items on a written instrument were read to a sample of respondents in one culture (because of literacy levels), and administered in the standard way in another culture, the measurement reliability and validity of the study could be compromised, thus making an interpretation of the results difficult (Ortega & Richey, 1998). Similarly, when surveys are administered to each sample at different time periods, the sample of respondents receiving the later survey might be subject to a higher attrition rate (Kok et al., 1995), and the results of the study could be distorted because of a category of respondents that were present in the first sample, but less representative in the second sample.

For the purposes of establishing contextual alignment in cross-cultural research, we identified the following best practices related to sample equivalence and technical equivalence. First, as mentioned before, efforts should be made to match samples on the basis of demographics, environmental factors, and levels of experience. However, researchers may not always be able to use a matching strategy, since resources and subjects have varying degrees of availability, and since different cultural groups may sometimes have contrasting profiles in terms of these characteristics (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Therefore, researchers should statistically control for any differences that remain between the samples (e.g., Peterson et al. 1995). Second, researchers can use insiders’ and outsiders’ perspectives together to help identify some problematic contextual issues. For example, researchers might work together with top executives from a different culture to clear up ambiguities about items on an employee survey (see Johns & Xie, 1998). This type of interaction between outsiders and insiders can be particularly helpful in alleviating some of the problems that could lead to respondents’ feelings of uneasiness with the interventions. Third, explicit instructions and examples should be included in all cross-cultural survey instruments, and these should be provided to each of the samples in a consistent manner. For example, if an instrument is translated into another language for a sample, then the instructions should also be translated. Finally, instruments can be used in pilot studies, when possible, to help identify contextual problems. These studies can help researchers identify unforeseen issues related to survey administration, such as translation problems and specific ambiguities associated with item phraseology (see Smith, Peterson, & Wang, 1996; Kanter & Corn, 1994; Gowan & Ochoa, 1998).

Validation of the Research Instruments

The final stage in our framework involves the validation of the research instrument. Researchers must ensure that the measures of a construct developed in one culture can be applied to another culture before they can establish a basis for theoretical comparisons. For this objective, establishing both semantic equivalence and measurement equivalence are essential. In establishing semantic equivalence, the goal for the researcher is to ensure that the multiple versions of a self-report instrument used cross-culturally fully account for linguistic differences among the samples. The main concern should be for the meaning of each item after translation to be consistent across the different respondents from each culture. This is rarely an easy task. Even in situations where researchers and linguists work together to produce a common version of an instrument for a cross-cultural study, there is still the possibility that remaining differences in meaning will have an influence on some of the study’s findings (Holtzman, 1968). For measurement equivalence to be established, constructs and their meanings should apply equally across the different cultures being studied (conceptual equivalence), and respondents across different cultures should be consistent in their interpretations or calibrations of the scoring formats (scaling equivalence) (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994).

We identified the following best practices for establishing semantic equivalence. First, researchers should employ back-translation when they intend to administer an instrument to respondents who speak a foreign language. In this process, bilingual experts translate the instrument from language A to language B, and then back again to language A (Ortega & Richey, 1998). The purpose of this double translation is to allow experts to examine each survey item on both versions to establish meaning conformity. If inconsistencies are found, then items can be reworded or, if necessary, eliminated. Second, researchers should avoid using certain figures of speech, terminologies, or phrases in their survey instruments that may be common in the home-base culture, but unfamiliar to other cultures. This may be particularly important when the second culture is English-speaking, and is responding to an English version of the survey. For example, respondents from non-U.S. cultures may interpret the phrase, “I put everything I have into my work”, in a number of different ways. Does the phrase refer to how much effort you put forth while doing your job, or does it mean taking all of your possessions and applying them to the work you do? Third, cross-cultural researchers need to explicitly describe the procedures they used to establish semantic equivalence. Most of the studies in our review included statements about measurement equivalence, while only some mentioned semantic equivalence. In order for cross-cultural studies to be properly evaluated and replicated, these kinds of statements become necessities.

For assessing measurement equivalence, we refer to two best-practice statistical approaches that have been previously established by researchers. These are 1) covariance structure analysis (e.g., Yang et al., 2000; Cheung & Rensvold, 1999; Ryan et al., 1999; Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994), and 2) item response theory (e.g., Butcher & Han, 1996; Hambleton & Kanjee, 1995; Ellis, Becker, & Kimmel, 1993; Hulin & Mayer, 1985). Typically, researchers have used a multiple-groups covariance structure analysis (if comparing more than two samples) to examine measurement equivalence, because such an analysis allows for direct testing of equivalency assumptions through a series of nested constraints placed upon selected parameters across the samples (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994; Ryan et al., 1999). Measurement equivalence, including both conceptual and scaling equivalence, can be examined in a series of increasingly restrictive hypothesis tests. Cross-cultural researchers have normally determined measurement equivalence by observing the same number of constructs and items loading on a factor, along with an invariance of factor loadings (Ryan et al., 1999). Importantly, these approaches to examining measurement equivalence allow the researchers to specify constraints a priori, with some theoretical justification for proceeding with the analyses (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Riordan & Vandenberg’s (1994) examination of three work-related measurement instruments across samples of Korean and American employees is an example of this covariance structure analytic approach.

Another approach for dealing with measurement equivalence, and for identifying items that do not function similarly across different cultures, is to use statistical methods based on item response theory, or IRT (Ellis et al., 1993). IRT is a theory-grounded process that models the distribution of respondents’ success at the item level (Fan, 1998). This process produces item statistics independent of respondent statistics, and person statistics independent of the survey items administered. This invariance property of the theory has made it possible to solve important measurement problems that have been difficult to address with other frameworks, and it has established the basis for theoretically justifying the use of IRT models (Fan, 1998). The models generated from this process describe the relationship between a respondent’s observable response to an item and the respondent’s standing on the unobservable trait measured by the survey instrument (Ellis et al., 1993). An item characteristic curve (ICC) can then be used to display this relationship, showing the response probability as a function of the trait measured by the instrument. When ICCs estimated separately for the same item for two samples are the same, the item is said to function equivalently for both groups, and when the ICCs differ by more than sampling error, then there exists what is called differential item functioning, or DIF (Ellis et al., 1993; Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985; Hulin, Drasgow & Parson, 1983; Lord, 1980; Thissen, Steinberg & Wainer, 1988, 1989). DIF is an indication of a lack of measurement inequivalence for a particular item in a survey. DIF items should therefore not be used to compare samples in cross-cultural research, because such comparisons would be based on response tendencies rather than on true differences in the construct of interest.

DISCUSSION

After nearly four decades of cross-cultural management research, there has yet to be an acceptable theory capable of explaining cultural influences on organizations. Despite this drawback, researchers hold on to the belief that culture does have an impact on organizations, but are not able to hypothesize exactly how and when culture is an influence. The inability to arrive at a theory to explain the cultural impact may be found in the shortcomings of methodology.

Cultural biases of both respondents and researchers continue to prevent them from recognizing one another’s important facets, resulting in faulty data collection. But the core of these problems is the lack of consensus among researchers on the term ‘culture.’ The inability of researchers to see eye-to-eye on this key term has led, to a large extent, to the inability to develop a theory capable of explaining cultural influences on organizations.

Researchers sometimes have been quick to admit that methodological problems are not easily rectified. Such is the case of sampling, in which representative or independent data cannot be obtained easily, if at all. When solutions are not at hand, the most logical ‘escape route’ researchers take is to describe, for example, the characteristics of samples in detail, especially those that have potential influence on the data analysis, interpretation, and external validity. However, this is not exactly a ‘solution’ to problems in the real sense. At best, this alternative resembles an admission of defeat and an inability to solve the methodological problem.Still, there is little doubt that cross-cultural management research shall go on.

CONCLUSION

The increased international focus in organizational research has required many researchers to apply commonly used survey instruments to new cross-cultural settings. This paper has reviewed some of the complexities involved in administering these instruments to culturally diverse samples. Specifically, we have presented three stages of the research process, and for each stage we have identified some best practices which are meant to deal with these complexities. These best practices will hopefully be employed by researchers as a checklist for verifying the validity and methodological soundness of their cross-cultural practices.

SUGGESTIONS

What does the future hold for cross-cultural management research?

Suggestions hinge on striking a trade-off between the idealistic and the pragmatic, and the less-attainable and the more-attainable; all within the constraint of cost, accessibility, staff, and time factors. Above all, we urge researchers to promptly reach a consensus on the term ‘culture.’ There is certainly an urgency to speak in the same ‘tongue’ if we are to establish any coordinated academic progress. In sampling decisions, we propose the acceptance of two-culture comparisons as much as multipleculture comparisons. Results from these comparisons will provide fodder for subsequent studies to corroborate or contradict general patterns. Whenever possible, studies encompassing larger samples of culture should be attempted.

Opportunistic sampling should not be viewed as merely being unscientific. It does bring with it data collection efficiency and reduction of biases of sorts. In tackling the issues of sample representativeness and independence, we remind researchers that absolute representativeness and independence is unlikely to be attained. We recommend the use of matched samples as a reasonable trade-off between pragmatic workability and idealistic desirability of sample representativeness and independence.

APPENDICES

ISSUES PROBLEMS PROPOSALS sampling 1. Number of cultures limited to two
2. Opportunistic sampling of cultures
3. Non- representatives of samplings 1. Accept two-culture samples
2. Be flexible and aim for efficiency in access
3. Use matched samples for standardization
4. Pursuance is unfeasible and undesirable
Instrumentation and measurement 1. Non-equivalence of variables
2. Translation of words and meaning
3. Non-equivalent scaling 1. Use localized etic constructs
2. Conduct forward and back-translation
3. Use local norms as reference
Data collection 1. Non-equivalence of subject response
2. Biases
3. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal data 1. Use identical procedures to solicit responses
2. Pre-test and get advice from local research
Data analysis and interpretation 1. Qualitative versus quantitative data
2. Bivariate versus multivariate analysis
3. Ecological fallacy 1. Use triangulation method for both data types
2. Use multivariate analysis when possible
3. Exercise caution for external validity

REFERENCES

• Cross-Cultural Research: An Introduction for Students1 Douglas R. White 2002

• CROSS-CULTURAL PRACTICES INFLUENCING MANAGEMENT By P.N. Reebye M.D. FRCPC, S.E. Ross M.Sc. RDN, K. Jamieson M.A. With the Assistance of Jason M. Clark B.A. (Hons.)
• Cross-cultural Methodologies for Organizational Research Using Self-Report Measures: A Best Practices Approach Brian S. Schaffer Schaffer@uga.edu Christine M. Riordan criordan@uga.edu University of Georgia Department of Management Terry College of Business Athens, GA 30602-6256
•
• Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions Marcus W. Dicksona,*, Deanne N. Den Hartogb, Jacqueline K. Mitchelsona A Psychology Department, Wayne State University, 71 West Warren Street, Detroit, MI 48202, USA Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Accepted 2 September 2003

• Cross-Cultural Communication Alyssa J. O’Brien, Christine Alfano, Eva Magnusson Stanford University, Örebro University

• Methodological issues in cross-cultural management research: Problems, solutions, and proposals LRONG LIM’ AND PETER FIRKOLA* ‘Department of Business Administration, Kagawa University, 2-1 Saiwai, Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan 760-8523 E-mail: Irong@ec. kagawa-u.ac.jp 21nternational Student Center, Hokkaido University, North 8, West 8, Sapporo, Japan 060-0808

• Problems of Translation in Cross-Cultural Research Lee Sechrest Council for Intersocietal Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201. Todd L. Fay University of Western Ontario S. M. Hafeez Zaidi Karachi University
BOOKS
 Berry John W. , Poortinga Ype H. , Breugelmans Seger, 5th edition, M.2006 , Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications.
 Liamputtong Pranee, 2008, Doing cross-cultural research: ethical and methodological perspectives