Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:19:35.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Surveying cultural and linguistic minorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

By
Janet Harkness ,
Mathew Stange ,
Kristen L. Cibelli ,
Peter Mohler  and
Beth-Ellen Pennell
Edited by
Roger Tourangeau ,
Brad Edwards ,
Timothy P. Johnson ,
Kirk M. Wolter  and
Nancy Bates
Janet Harkness
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Mathew Stange
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Kristen L. Cibelli
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Peter Mohler
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim
Beth-Ellen Pennell
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Roger Tourangeau
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Brad Edwards
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Timothy P. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Kirk M. Wolter
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nancy Bates
Affiliation:
US Census Bureau
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Cultural and linguistic minorities can be hard to survey either as the target population of interest or as a subpopulation of a general population survey. The challenges associated with studying these minorities are important to understand in order to assess and address the survey error that can be introduced when designing and implementing studies that include these groups. This chapter begins with a description of what constitutes cultural and linguistic minorities, based on a systematic review of the literature (see Chapter 5 in this volume, for a complete description of the process). We note that the literature in this area is largely limited to research among cultural and linguistic minorities in the context of Western and industrialized countries. Therefore, we supplement this literature by drawing upon our own experience and discussions with colleagues who conduct research among cultural and linguistic minorities in other parts of the world. This review is followed by a discussion of the potential challenges faced by researchers interested in surveying cultural and linguistic minorities and approaches taken to address these challenges in the areas of sampling, questionnaire development, adaptation and translation, pretesting, and data collection. We then discuss additional approaches to studying these hard-to-survey populations including qualitative, mixed-methods, and community-based research methods and how these can complement survey methods. The concluding section addresses needed improvements in the documentation and development of research methods to expand solutions and increase the quality of hard-to-survey cultural and linguistic minority research.

Defining cultural and linguistic minorities

This section sets out the key features of cultural and linguistic minorities. Three core concepts are defined and discussed. First, we define minority populations followed by a discussion of linguistic and cultural minorities. The distinct concept of hard-to-survey is also relevant and discussed in this context (also see Chapter 1 in this volume). On the one hand, it is a relatively straightforward task to define these concepts; however, as we discuss below, applying these definitions in a survey context is far more complicated. Formal definitions serve as a good starting point for this discussion, however.

Type
Chapter
Information
Hard-to-Survey Populations , pp. 245 - 269
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

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

Agustín, L. M. (2007). Questioning solidarity: outreach with migrants who sell sex. Sexualities, 10(4), 519–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andresen, E. M., Diehr, P. H., & Luke, D. A. (2004). Public health surveillance of low-frequency populations. Annual Review of Public Health, 25(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behrens, R., Freedman, M., & McGuckin, N. (2009). The challenges of surveying “hard to reach” groups: synthesis of a workshop. In Bonnel, P., Lee-Gosselin, M., Zmud, J., & Madre, J. (eds.), Transport Survey Methods: Keeping up with a Changing World (p. 145–52). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, S. J., & Luke, J. V. (2011). Wireless substitution: early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January–June 2011. Retrieved from .
Boehm, D. C. (2009). China’s failed war on terror: fanning the flames of Uighur separatist violence. Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law, 2, 61.Google Scholar
Canales, S., Ganz, P. A., & Coscarelli, C. A. (1995). Translation and validation of a quality of life instrument for Hispanic American cancer patients: methodological considerations. Quality of Life Research, 4(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter-Pokras, O., Zambrana, R. E., Mora, S. E., & Aaby, K. A. (1999). Emergency preparedness: knowledge and perceptions of Latin American immigrants. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18(2), 455–81.Google Scholar
Caspar, R., & Peytcheva, E. (2011). Pretesting. In Cross-Cultural Survey Guidelines. Retrieved from .Google Scholar
Chavez, L. R., Hubbell, F. A., Mishra, S. I., & Valdez, R. B. (1997). Undocumented Latina immigrants in Orange County, California: a comparative analysis. International Migration Review, 31(1), 88–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Childs, G. T. (2012). What’s the difference between dialects and languages? In Rickerson, E. M. & Hilton, B. (eds.), The 5 Minute Linguist: Bite-Sized Essays on Language and Languages (2nd edn.). Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Clark, V. L. P., Creswell, J. W., Green, D. O. N., & Shope, R. J. (2008). Mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. An introduction to emergent mixed methods research. In Hesse-Biber, S. & Leary, R. (eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods, (pp. 363–88). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Correa-Velez, I., & Gifford, S. M. (2007). When the right to be counted doesn’t count: the politics and challenges of researching the health of asylum seekers. Critical Public Health, 17(3), 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (1992). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (CETS 148).
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (3rd edn.). CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Clark, V. L. P., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Puente, M., & Stemper, D. (2003). The Enumeration of Colonias in Census 2000: Perspectives of Ethnographers and Census Enumerators (Final report). Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. D. (2008). Choosing the method of data collection. In de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. (eds.), International Handbook of Survey Methodology(pp. 113–35). New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International Handbook of Survey Methodology. NewYork: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Duffy, D., Goldberg, J., & Buchwald, D. (2006). Using mail to reach patients seen at an urban health care facility. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 17(3), 522–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elebro, K., Rööst, M., Moussa, K., Johnsdotter, S., & Essén, B. (2007). Misclassified maternal deaths among East African immigrants in Sweden. Reproductive Health Matters, 15(30), 153–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Science Foundation. (2001). The European Social Survey (ESS) – A Research Instrument for the Social Sciences in Europe – Summary (p. 59). Strasburg.Google Scholar
Eyler, A. A., Baker, E., Cromer, L. C., King, A. C., Brownson, R. C., & Donatelle, R. J. (1998). Physical activity and minority women: a qualitative study. Health Education & Behavior, 25(5), 640–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(4), 790–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanagan, S., & Hancock, B. (2010). “Reaching the hard to reach”–lessons learned from the VCS (voluntary and community Sector). A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garland, J., Spalek, B., & Chakraborti, N. (2006). Hearing lost voices. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 423–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garter, P. (2003). Sexual health. Research Matters, 16, 55–62.Google Scholar
Greenfields, M. (2009). Reaching Gypsies and Travellers. Primary Health Care, 19(8), 26–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey Methodology (2nd edn.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gryczynski, J., Feldman, R., Carter-Pokras, O., Kanamori, M., Chen, L., & Roth, S. (2010). Contexts of tobacco use and perspectives on smoking cessation among a sample of urban American Indians. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 21(2), 544–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haberstroh, S., Oyserman, D., Schwarz, N., Kühnen, U., & Ji, L. J. (2002). Is the interdependent self more sensitive to question context than the independent self? Self-construal and the observation of conversational norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 323–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, H. R., Kang, J., Kim, K. B., Ryu, J. P., & Kim, M. T. (2007). Barriers to and strategies for recruiting Korean Americans for community-partnered health promotion research. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 9(2), 137–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harkness, J. A., Pennell, B.-E. & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2004). Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In Presser, S., Rothgeb, J., Couper, M., Lessler, J., Martin, E., & Singer, E. (eds.), Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires (pp. 453–73). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkness, J. A., Villar, A., & Edwards, B. (2010). Translation, adaptation, and design. In Harkness, J. A., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T. P., Lyberg, L. E., Mohler, P. Ph., Pennell, B.-E., & Smith, T. W. (eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (pp. 115–40). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckathorn, D. D. (2007). Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociological Methodology, 37(1), 151–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, S. J. (2008). Cultural Psychology. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Higgins, D. L., O’Reilly, K., Tashima, N., Crain, C., Beeker, C., Goldbaum, G., et al. (1996). Using formative research to lay the foundation for community level HIV prevention efforts: an example from the AIDS Community Demonstration Projects. Public Health Reports, 111(Suppl. 1), 28–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Ji, L. J., Schwarz, N., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, autobiographical memory, and behavioral frequency reports: measurement issues in cross-cultural studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. M., & Delgado, J. L. (1989). Reaching Hispanics with messages to prevent alcohol and other drug abuse. Public Health Reports, 104(6), 588–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, T. P., O’Rourke, D., Chavez, N., Sudman, S., Warnecke, R., Lacey, L., et al. (1997). Social cognition and responses to survey questions among culturally diverse populations. In Lyberg, L. E., Biemer, P., Collins, M., de Leeuw, E. D., Dippo, C., Schwarz, N., & Trewin, D. (eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 87–113). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kalunta-Crumpton, A. (2004). A community without a drug problem? Black drug use in Britain. Social Justice, 31(1–2), 200–16.Google Scholar
Lavelle, B., Larsen, M. D., & Gundersen, C. (2009). Strategies for surveys of American Indians. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Question context and priming meaning of health: effect of differences in self-rated health between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 179–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, S., Nguyen, H. A., Jawad, M., & Kurata, J. (2008). Linguistic minorities in a health survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 470–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. P. (ed.). (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th edn.). Dallas: SIL International.
Lindenberg, C. S., Solorzano, R. M., Vilaro, F. M., & Westbrook, L. O. (2001). Challenges and strategies for conducting intervention research with culturally diverse populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 12(2), 132–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez, R. (2008). Por que? Questions of validity in Hispanic survey research. MRA Alert! Magazine, 46(6), 24–25,32,34,39,42.Google Scholar
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Mneimneh, Z., & Pennell, B.-E. (2011). Interview Privacy and Social Desirability Effects on Reporting Sensitive Outcomes Research. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ.
Mohler, P. P. (1978). Abitur 1917–1971: Reflektionen des Verhältnisses zwischen Individuum und kollektiver Macht in Abituraufsätzen. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Mohler, P. P., & Uher, R. (2003). Documenting comparative surveys for secondary analysis. In Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. Ph. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Survey Methods (pp. 311–27). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Neweklowsky, G. (2002). Serbisch. In Okuka, M. (ed.), Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens. Band 10. Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens. Klagenfurt and Celovec: Wieser. Retrieved from .Google Scholar
Ngo-Metzger, Q., Kaplan, S. H., Sorkin, D. H., Clarridge, B. R., & Phillips, R. S. (2004). Surveying minorities with limited-English proficiency: does data collection method affect data quality among Asian Americans?Medical Care, 42(9), 893–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Hegarty, M., Pederson, L. L., Thorne, S. L., Caraballo, R. S., Evans, B., Athey, L., et al. (2010). Customizing survey instruments and data collection to reach Hispanic/Latino adults in border communities in Texas. American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S159–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, Y., Landreth, A., Park, H., Hinsdale-Shouse, M., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2010). Cognitive interviewing in non-English languages: a cross-cultural perspective. In Harkness, J. A., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T. P., Lyber, L. E., Mohler, P. Ph., Pennell, B.-E., & Smith, T. W. (eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (pp. 91–113). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1991). The Social System. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Passel, J. S. (1997). The growing American Indian population, 1960–1990: beyond demography. Population Research and Policy Review, 16(1/2), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennell, B.-E., Harkness, J. A., Levenstein, R., & Quaglia, M. (2010). Challenges in cross-national data collection. In Harkness, J. A., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T. P., Lyberg, L., Mohler, P. Ph., and Pennell, B -E. (eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (pp. 269–98). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., et al. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasao, T. (1994). Using surname-based telephone survey methodology in Asian-American communities: practical issues and caveats. Journal of Community Psychology, 22(4), 283–95.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroepfer, T. A., Matloub, J., Creswell, P., Strickland, R., & Anderson, D. M. (2009). A community-specific approach to cancer research in Indian country. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(4), 317–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, N., Oyserman, D., & Peytcheva, E. (2010). Cognition, communication, and culture: implications for the survey response process. In Harkness, J. A., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T. P., Lyberg, L. E., Mohler, P. Ph., Pennell, B.-E, & Smith, T. W. (eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (pp. 175–90). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoultz, J., Oneha, M. F., Magnussen, L., Hla, M. M., Brees-Saunders, Z., Cruz, M. D., et al. (2006). Finding solutions to challenges faced in community-based participatory research between academic and community organizations. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(2), 133–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soifer, D. (2009). Linguistic isolation carries a heavy cost. IMDiversity.com. Retrieved from .
Stueve, A., O’Donnell, L. N., Duran, R., San Doval, A., & Blome, J. (2001). Time-space sampling in minority communities: results with young Latino men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 922–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Toktaş, S. (2006). The conduct of citizenship in the case of Turkey’s Jewish minority: legal status, identity, and civic virtue aspects. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 26(1), 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations. (1992). General Assembly Resolution 47/135. In United Nations Forum on Minority Issues (2008): Compilation of Recommendations of the First Four Sessions 2008–2011. Geneva.Google Scholar
US Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2012, September). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from .
Uskul, A. K., & Oyserman, D. (2006). Question comprehension and response: implications of individualism and collectivism, In Mannix, B., Neale, M., & Chen, Y. (eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: National culture & groups (vol. 9, pp. 173–201). Oxford: Elsevier Science Press.Google Scholar
Uskul, A. K., Oyserman, D., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Cultural emphasis on honor, modesty, or self-enhancement: implications for the survey-response process. In Harkness, J. A., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T. P., Lyberg, L. E., Mohler, P. Ph., Pennell, B.-E., & Smith, T. W. (eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural contexts (pp. 191–201). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, M. R., Bender, D. E., Kalsbeek, W. D., Suchindran, C. M., & Mouw, T. (2005). A church-based sampling design for research with Latina immigrant women. Population Research and Policy Review, 24(6), 647–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahnd, E. G., Holtby, S., & Grant, D. (2011). Increasing Cultural Sensitivity as a Means of Improving Cross-Cultural Surveys: Methods Utilized in the California Health Interview Survey (CHISS) 2001–2011. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×