- Email: [email protected]
Editorial Issues in Conducting Research in Culturally Diverse Communities
Editorial Issues in Conducting Research in Culturally Diverse Communities Any researcher who chooses to conduct legitimate research among culturally diverse populations must first recognize that, to these populations, one’s motives for conducting such research are of paramount importance. Thus, the first question that the researcher should ask is not “How can I conduct the study?” but rather “Why am I, in this place and time, willing to devote weeks, months, or years to the project, to gaining community support, and to ensuring that the community sees benefits to itself from the proposed research?” If the researcher is not a member of the culturally diverse group to be studied, the second question becomes “Is it possible for me to conduct the research?” If the researcher provides adequate answers to these questions, many complex considerations remain to be addressed. Cross-cultural researchers have identified a number of methodological considerations. These include: • • • • • •
Techniques for initial contact; The role of language(s) in the selection and construction of the instrument; The interviewing language (if an interview is the selected tool); Safeguarding respondent confidentiality; The selection and training of interviewers; and Researcher conduct at the interview site. (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 120)
This editorial will briefly summarize the literature on cross-cultural research, consider the issues in defining and identifying culturally diverse populations, and discuss data-gathering techniques. For illustrative purposes, I will draw from my own research, primarily the Gatekeeper Study, which examined information-seeking behavior of individuals residing in multicultural communities.
This essay is based on a presentation delivered at a doctoral student forum at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College, November 17, 1999, and was sponsored by SilverPlatter. Direct all correspondence to: Cheryl Metoyer, Director of Information Resources, Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center, 110 Pequot Trail, P.O. Box 3180, Mashantucket, CT 06339-3180 ⬍[email protected]⬎. Library & Information Science Research, Volume 22, Number 3, pages 235–242. Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-8188 235
236
Metoyer
LITERATURE REVIEW Library and Information Science Limited research in library and information science exists on the relationship between ethnic or cultural factors and the information-seeking behavior of culturally diverse groups. Even scarcer is information on the methodological issues related to cross-cultural research. The largest body of research was conducted more than 20 years ago. In the early 1970s, the National Education Resources Institute (NERI) investigated the use of library and information services by the Spanish-speaking sectors in several southwestern communities. While the report does not emphasize methodological concerns, it addresses non-English language data-gathering techniques and the use of bilingual, bicultural interviewers (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 18). Ruby Ling Louie (1976), who studied the information-seeking behavior of the Chinese immigrant population in Los Angeles, identified some problems when conducting research among immigrant groups, especially Chinese immigrants. She states: The language barrier is a recognized deterrent to effective intercommunication between the inner-city immigrant and the greater society. Unfamiliarity with public inquiries, such as the proposed community survey, also makes the immigrant feel aggressively on the defensive. He is suspicious of inquiry; every question is interpreted as an intrusion upon his privacy. His hidden fears prevent him from revealing any personal information directly. (p. 46) Carlson (1990) investigated the information needs of California’s multicultural communities (Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians) and supported Louie’s observations. With the introduction of the Internet and the World Wide Web, research has failed to address the information seeking of multicultural communities within a complex electronic information environment. Clearly, technology presents new methodological issues if the research is to produce findings having reliability and validity, or dependability, confirmability, trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, and consistency of the data gathered. Social and Behavioral Science Research Anthropology, psychology, sociology, communication studies, and education contain some fruitful insights concerning cross-cultural research methods. The amount of the research is too extensive to review here. Suffice it to say, although there are many studies of different ethnic groups, no definitive research methods textbook adequately treats this type of research. Green’s (1982) Cultural Awareness in the Human Services, however, partially fills the gap because
Editorial
237
he offers a conceptual basis to guide research in culturally diverse communities. He proposes that researchers cultivate “ethnic competence” to assist effectively in problem resolution. “To be ethnically competent,” he suggests, “means to be able to conduct one’s professional work in a way that is congruent with the behavior and expectations that members of a distinct culture recognize as appropriate among themselves” (p. 52). This is most difficult for an outsider to do.
THE GATEKEEPER STUDY In 1990, the California State Library funded a study of the information-seeking behavior of ethnolinguistic gatekeepers in the American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Latino communities in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. People within an ethnolinguistic community often depend on gatekeepers for the resolution of information needs. “The role of these gatekeepers is defined largely by their ability to function in their local ethnic community and in mainstream society. They link these two entities by the acquisition and dissemination of information to the community” (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 20). Five bilingual, bicultural interviewers conducted interviews with 129 formal and informal gatekeepers at sites selected by the interviewees. The interviews, which averaged more than two hours in length, focused on four questions: • • • •
How do they receive and transfer information? Where do they get their information? What types of information do they need for themselves and their communities? What is the role of language in the information-seeking behavior of gatekeepers?
Because the study compared the information-seeking behavior of gatekeepers from five ethnic groups, the design applied cross-cultural research methodologies (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 20). The study considered the impact of cultural factors in the sampling strategy, data-gathering techniques, data analysis, and dissemination of findings. Defining Culturally Diverse Communities While cultural variations among people in the United States have been a historical reality, it is increasingly difficult to identify and sample ethnic populations because people do not necessarily fit within conventional classifications; they may perceive themselves as members of more than one ethnic group (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 21). With Census 2000, for the first time, the U.S. Bureau of the Census recognize that individuals and families may comprise more than one ethnic group. The issue of ethnic identity was of paramount importance in developing the
238
Metoyer
sampling design for the Gatekeeper Study. Operational definitions that included language considerations were developed for the five ethnic groups. For example, the term Latino was used as a broad term to identify those individuals of Spanish-speaking background, heritage, or descent. In addition, the questionnaire contained a series of questions concerning self-identification, preferred identification, country of origin, and ethnic ancestry. Researchers who examine culturally diverse communities must both increase their awareness of the artificiality and subjectivity of some pre-assigned ethnic and cultural categories and recognize and account for ethnic variations within cultural traditions. For example, it is misleading and overtly simplistic to generalize about all aspects of American Indian tribal communities when there are more than 400 federally recognized American Indian tribes in the United States. Furthermore, most American Indians link their identity to tribal affiliation.
SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHERS EXAMINING CULTURAL DIVERSITY An important question is “How do you get culturally diverse people to agree to participate in the study?” First, the researcher must have knowledge of the community to be examined. This means that the researcher must: • • • • •
Ask or hire culturally diverse members of the community to contact potential participants in the study; Partner with an ethnic community organization to describe and promote the study, as well as to recruit participants; Consider some form of compensation for the participants (e.g., money or donation of a book to the library in their name); Provide a summary of the findings in the preferred language; and Capitalize on the positive perception that the community may have of the study by emphasizing that the findings may have value to the community.
Selection of the Data Collection Method The Advisory Panel of the Gatekeeper Study played a major role in the selection of the appropriate method of data collection. Almost every member of the panel had experience in conducting research in culturally diverse communities. The principal investigator and panel concurred that a personal interview, using a questionnaire translated into and administered in the chosen language of the respondent, was the most effective means of obtaining accurate, self-reported data. Telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires may be inappropriate for use in highly mobile communities, with significant percentages of undocumented individuals and others frequently lacking access to telephones (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 22).
Editorial
239
Interview Instrument: Cultural and Linguistic Factors Cultural and linguistic factors must be considered in the design of an interview instrument for administration in an ethnic community. In the Gatekeeper Study, special attention was directed to the following components of interview instrument construction: • • • • • •
Sequencing of questions; Sensitive or personal questions; Issues of confidentiality; Comprehension levels of respondents; Attention span of respondents; and Tone. (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 121)
Each of these components suggests an objective or problem that must be addressed in the content and structure of the instrument.
The Interviewing Process The key factors in the interviewing process include: selection and training of interviewers, verbal competency of the interviewer and respondent, time and place of the interview, credentials or legitimacy of the interviewer or sponsoring agency, concern for anonymity and confidentiality, and the length of the interview. One problem that researchers may face is limited access to a pool of bilingual and bicultural interviewers. They might contact a university, college, research institute, social welfare agency, or market-research firm to locate the appropriate interviewers. Based on the premise that information is culture specific, the Gatekeeper Study adapted traditional techniques during interviewer training to reveal any non-English language patterns or cultural behaviors that might affect the study’s reliability and validity. “Role-playing was central to the training of interviewers because it allowed experienced and inexperienced interviewers to engage in a mutual learning process and to identify potential problems, including nonverbal communication and ego threat” (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 22). Moreover, role-playing revealed the cultural factors that must be considered when conducting a study in five distinct ethnic communities. For example, the Chinese interviewer, while playing the role of respondent, commented that the sequencing of a group of closed-ended questions allowed the respondent the option of answering “no” to the series of questions. The interviewer noted that, in the Chinese community, especially among the older Chinese people, it might be considered impolite to answer “no” five times in succession, even if the true response is “no.” The problem was addressed by staggering the sequence of questions and by changing the structure of some questions from a closed-ended to an open-ended format (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 125).
240
Metoyer
Translation of Instruments Back-translation, also called double-translation, is the recommended procedure for establishing desirable wording in both the target and original language of the data-gathering instrument. Marin and VanOss Marin (1991) describe the back-translation method thusly: • • • •
The version in the original language is translated by translator A into the target language; A second translator (translator B) takes the product of the previous step and independently translates it back into the original language; The investigator compares both versions in the original language and checks with translators for inconsistencies; and A second round of translations may be necessary for sections in which there are a large number of inconsistencies. (p. 91)
The Gatekeeper Study used the back-translation method to translate the questionnaire from English into Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Spanish. An objective of the study was to develop culturally sensitive methods of data collection. Consequently, bilingual and bicultural translators and interviewers assisted in the development of the questionnaires and the conduct of the interviews (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 22).
CONCLUSION Demographers project that the culturally diverse population in the United States will continue to increase at a dramatic rate. Knowledge about this population is important for all of us in library and information science if we are to provide critical library services. Nonetheless, those researchers studying culturally diverse communities must deal with the lack of an established cross-cultural methodology. They might consider the following recommendations: • • • • • • • • •
Partner with individuals and organizations experienced in conducting community analysis; Promote the participation of the culturally diverse community during all phases of the study; Employ and train bilingual and bicultural research personnel; Use bilingual data-gathering instruments when appropriate; Develop a sound and defensible sampling strategy; Pretest data-collection forms; Engage in role-playing before finalizing the forms and the study procedures; Schedule interviews—if they are appropriate—at locations convenient for respondents; and Remain cognizant of the changing nature of the community.
Editorial
241
The researchers should also consider their debt to the community for its participation and be sensitive to the need to pay back the community, especially if the members have participated in prior studies. At a minimum, researchers should provide a summary of the findings to participants, community organizations, English and non-English mass media, other library agencies, and local and regional elected officials (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 24). In Gatekeepers in Ethnolinguistic Communities, I wrote: Knowledge of the culturally diverse community coupled with careful planning provides the foundation for sound cross-cultural research. At the beginning of the study, sufficient time should be allocated to learn about the history, culture, and experiences of the culturally diverse study group. A firm knowledge base and the application of the techniques discussed here will probably yield the desired results. (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 126) Today, I would qualify “provide the foundation for sound cross-cultural research,” with the word “probably.” Cross-cultural research is extremely difficult and time consuming, but it is essential. However, the leg work is not optional. The most important issue in conducting research in culturally diverse communities is the need to know a community, which includes sensitivity to its values, practices, and beliefs. Clearly, sound research involves more that the development and deployment of a mailed questionnaire to a population, assuming that the population can be ascertained. Tribes, for instance, may have legitimate reasons for withholding the names of their members (e.g., protecting children from identification and potential kidnapping for ransom). Failure to gain such knowledge does a disservice to the community and the research process itself, while a lack of sensitivity colors the findings and makes communities unwilling to cooperate with researchers in the future. Cheryl Metoyer
REFERENCES Carlson, David B. (1990). Adrift in a sea of change: California’s public libraries struggle to meet the information needs of multicultural communities. Sacramento, CA: California State Library. Green, James W. (1982). Cultural awareness in the human services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Louie, Ruby Ling. (1976). A community profile approach toward expanding public library services: Communication survey procedures reaching Chinese Americans in the Los Angeles Chinatown community in obtaining
242
Metoyer
their information-seeking patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Marin, Gerardo, & VanOss Marin, Barbara. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Metoyer-Duran, Cheryl. (1993a). Cross-cultural research in ethnolinguistic communities. Public Libraries, 32(1), 18–25. Metoyer-Duran, Cheryl. (1993b). Gatekeepers in ethnolinguistic communities. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Techniques for initial contact; The role of language(s) in the selection and construction of the instrument; The interviewing language (if an interview is the selected tool); Safeguarding respondent confidentiality; The selection and training of interviewers; and Researcher conduct at the interview site. (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 120)
This editorial will briefly summarize the literature on cross-cultural research, consider the issues in defining and identifying culturally diverse populations, and discuss data-gathering techniques. For illustrative purposes, I will draw from my own research, primarily the Gatekeeper Study, which examined information-seeking behavior of individuals residing in multicultural communities.
This essay is based on a presentation delivered at a doctoral student forum at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College, November 17, 1999, and was sponsored by SilverPlatter. Direct all correspondence to: Cheryl Metoyer, Director of Information Resources, Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center, 110 Pequot Trail, P.O. Box 3180, Mashantucket, CT 06339-3180 ⬍[email protected]⬎. Library & Information Science Research, Volume 22, Number 3, pages 235–242. Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-8188 235
236
Metoyer
LITERATURE REVIEW Library and Information Science Limited research in library and information science exists on the relationship between ethnic or cultural factors and the information-seeking behavior of culturally diverse groups. Even scarcer is information on the methodological issues related to cross-cultural research. The largest body of research was conducted more than 20 years ago. In the early 1970s, the National Education Resources Institute (NERI) investigated the use of library and information services by the Spanish-speaking sectors in several southwestern communities. While the report does not emphasize methodological concerns, it addresses non-English language data-gathering techniques and the use of bilingual, bicultural interviewers (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 18). Ruby Ling Louie (1976), who studied the information-seeking behavior of the Chinese immigrant population in Los Angeles, identified some problems when conducting research among immigrant groups, especially Chinese immigrants. She states: The language barrier is a recognized deterrent to effective intercommunication between the inner-city immigrant and the greater society. Unfamiliarity with public inquiries, such as the proposed community survey, also makes the immigrant feel aggressively on the defensive. He is suspicious of inquiry; every question is interpreted as an intrusion upon his privacy. His hidden fears prevent him from revealing any personal information directly. (p. 46) Carlson (1990) investigated the information needs of California’s multicultural communities (Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians) and supported Louie’s observations. With the introduction of the Internet and the World Wide Web, research has failed to address the information seeking of multicultural communities within a complex electronic information environment. Clearly, technology presents new methodological issues if the research is to produce findings having reliability and validity, or dependability, confirmability, trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, and consistency of the data gathered. Social and Behavioral Science Research Anthropology, psychology, sociology, communication studies, and education contain some fruitful insights concerning cross-cultural research methods. The amount of the research is too extensive to review here. Suffice it to say, although there are many studies of different ethnic groups, no definitive research methods textbook adequately treats this type of research. Green’s (1982) Cultural Awareness in the Human Services, however, partially fills the gap because
Editorial
237
he offers a conceptual basis to guide research in culturally diverse communities. He proposes that researchers cultivate “ethnic competence” to assist effectively in problem resolution. “To be ethnically competent,” he suggests, “means to be able to conduct one’s professional work in a way that is congruent with the behavior and expectations that members of a distinct culture recognize as appropriate among themselves” (p. 52). This is most difficult for an outsider to do.
THE GATEKEEPER STUDY In 1990, the California State Library funded a study of the information-seeking behavior of ethnolinguistic gatekeepers in the American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Latino communities in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. People within an ethnolinguistic community often depend on gatekeepers for the resolution of information needs. “The role of these gatekeepers is defined largely by their ability to function in their local ethnic community and in mainstream society. They link these two entities by the acquisition and dissemination of information to the community” (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 20). Five bilingual, bicultural interviewers conducted interviews with 129 formal and informal gatekeepers at sites selected by the interviewees. The interviews, which averaged more than two hours in length, focused on four questions: • • • •
How do they receive and transfer information? Where do they get their information? What types of information do they need for themselves and their communities? What is the role of language in the information-seeking behavior of gatekeepers?
Because the study compared the information-seeking behavior of gatekeepers from five ethnic groups, the design applied cross-cultural research methodologies (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 20). The study considered the impact of cultural factors in the sampling strategy, data-gathering techniques, data analysis, and dissemination of findings. Defining Culturally Diverse Communities While cultural variations among people in the United States have been a historical reality, it is increasingly difficult to identify and sample ethnic populations because people do not necessarily fit within conventional classifications; they may perceive themselves as members of more than one ethnic group (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 21). With Census 2000, for the first time, the U.S. Bureau of the Census recognize that individuals and families may comprise more than one ethnic group. The issue of ethnic identity was of paramount importance in developing the
238
Metoyer
sampling design for the Gatekeeper Study. Operational definitions that included language considerations were developed for the five ethnic groups. For example, the term Latino was used as a broad term to identify those individuals of Spanish-speaking background, heritage, or descent. In addition, the questionnaire contained a series of questions concerning self-identification, preferred identification, country of origin, and ethnic ancestry. Researchers who examine culturally diverse communities must both increase their awareness of the artificiality and subjectivity of some pre-assigned ethnic and cultural categories and recognize and account for ethnic variations within cultural traditions. For example, it is misleading and overtly simplistic to generalize about all aspects of American Indian tribal communities when there are more than 400 federally recognized American Indian tribes in the United States. Furthermore, most American Indians link their identity to tribal affiliation.
SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCHERS EXAMINING CULTURAL DIVERSITY An important question is “How do you get culturally diverse people to agree to participate in the study?” First, the researcher must have knowledge of the community to be examined. This means that the researcher must: • • • • •
Ask or hire culturally diverse members of the community to contact potential participants in the study; Partner with an ethnic community organization to describe and promote the study, as well as to recruit participants; Consider some form of compensation for the participants (e.g., money or donation of a book to the library in their name); Provide a summary of the findings in the preferred language; and Capitalize on the positive perception that the community may have of the study by emphasizing that the findings may have value to the community.
Selection of the Data Collection Method The Advisory Panel of the Gatekeeper Study played a major role in the selection of the appropriate method of data collection. Almost every member of the panel had experience in conducting research in culturally diverse communities. The principal investigator and panel concurred that a personal interview, using a questionnaire translated into and administered in the chosen language of the respondent, was the most effective means of obtaining accurate, self-reported data. Telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires may be inappropriate for use in highly mobile communities, with significant percentages of undocumented individuals and others frequently lacking access to telephones (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 22).
Editorial
239
Interview Instrument: Cultural and Linguistic Factors Cultural and linguistic factors must be considered in the design of an interview instrument for administration in an ethnic community. In the Gatekeeper Study, special attention was directed to the following components of interview instrument construction: • • • • • •
Sequencing of questions; Sensitive or personal questions; Issues of confidentiality; Comprehension levels of respondents; Attention span of respondents; and Tone. (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 121)
Each of these components suggests an objective or problem that must be addressed in the content and structure of the instrument.
The Interviewing Process The key factors in the interviewing process include: selection and training of interviewers, verbal competency of the interviewer and respondent, time and place of the interview, credentials or legitimacy of the interviewer or sponsoring agency, concern for anonymity and confidentiality, and the length of the interview. One problem that researchers may face is limited access to a pool of bilingual and bicultural interviewers. They might contact a university, college, research institute, social welfare agency, or market-research firm to locate the appropriate interviewers. Based on the premise that information is culture specific, the Gatekeeper Study adapted traditional techniques during interviewer training to reveal any non-English language patterns or cultural behaviors that might affect the study’s reliability and validity. “Role-playing was central to the training of interviewers because it allowed experienced and inexperienced interviewers to engage in a mutual learning process and to identify potential problems, including nonverbal communication and ego threat” (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 22). Moreover, role-playing revealed the cultural factors that must be considered when conducting a study in five distinct ethnic communities. For example, the Chinese interviewer, while playing the role of respondent, commented that the sequencing of a group of closed-ended questions allowed the respondent the option of answering “no” to the series of questions. The interviewer noted that, in the Chinese community, especially among the older Chinese people, it might be considered impolite to answer “no” five times in succession, even if the true response is “no.” The problem was addressed by staggering the sequence of questions and by changing the structure of some questions from a closed-ended to an open-ended format (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 125).
240
Metoyer
Translation of Instruments Back-translation, also called double-translation, is the recommended procedure for establishing desirable wording in both the target and original language of the data-gathering instrument. Marin and VanOss Marin (1991) describe the back-translation method thusly: • • • •
The version in the original language is translated by translator A into the target language; A second translator (translator B) takes the product of the previous step and independently translates it back into the original language; The investigator compares both versions in the original language and checks with translators for inconsistencies; and A second round of translations may be necessary for sections in which there are a large number of inconsistencies. (p. 91)
The Gatekeeper Study used the back-translation method to translate the questionnaire from English into Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Spanish. An objective of the study was to develop culturally sensitive methods of data collection. Consequently, bilingual and bicultural translators and interviewers assisted in the development of the questionnaires and the conduct of the interviews (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 22).
CONCLUSION Demographers project that the culturally diverse population in the United States will continue to increase at a dramatic rate. Knowledge about this population is important for all of us in library and information science if we are to provide critical library services. Nonetheless, those researchers studying culturally diverse communities must deal with the lack of an established cross-cultural methodology. They might consider the following recommendations: • • • • • • • • •
Partner with individuals and organizations experienced in conducting community analysis; Promote the participation of the culturally diverse community during all phases of the study; Employ and train bilingual and bicultural research personnel; Use bilingual data-gathering instruments when appropriate; Develop a sound and defensible sampling strategy; Pretest data-collection forms; Engage in role-playing before finalizing the forms and the study procedures; Schedule interviews—if they are appropriate—at locations convenient for respondents; and Remain cognizant of the changing nature of the community.
Editorial
241
The researchers should also consider their debt to the community for its participation and be sensitive to the need to pay back the community, especially if the members have participated in prior studies. At a minimum, researchers should provide a summary of the findings to participants, community organizations, English and non-English mass media, other library agencies, and local and regional elected officials (Metoyer-Duran, 1993a, p. 24). In Gatekeepers in Ethnolinguistic Communities, I wrote: Knowledge of the culturally diverse community coupled with careful planning provides the foundation for sound cross-cultural research. At the beginning of the study, sufficient time should be allocated to learn about the history, culture, and experiences of the culturally diverse study group. A firm knowledge base and the application of the techniques discussed here will probably yield the desired results. (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b, p. 126) Today, I would qualify “provide the foundation for sound cross-cultural research,” with the word “probably.” Cross-cultural research is extremely difficult and time consuming, but it is essential. However, the leg work is not optional. The most important issue in conducting research in culturally diverse communities is the need to know a community, which includes sensitivity to its values, practices, and beliefs. Clearly, sound research involves more that the development and deployment of a mailed questionnaire to a population, assuming that the population can be ascertained. Tribes, for instance, may have legitimate reasons for withholding the names of their members (e.g., protecting children from identification and potential kidnapping for ransom). Failure to gain such knowledge does a disservice to the community and the research process itself, while a lack of sensitivity colors the findings and makes communities unwilling to cooperate with researchers in the future. Cheryl Metoyer
REFERENCES Carlson, David B. (1990). Adrift in a sea of change: California’s public libraries struggle to meet the information needs of multicultural communities. Sacramento, CA: California State Library. Green, James W. (1982). Cultural awareness in the human services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Louie, Ruby Ling. (1976). A community profile approach toward expanding public library services: Communication survey procedures reaching Chinese Americans in the Los Angeles Chinatown community in obtaining
242
Metoyer
their information-seeking patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Marin, Gerardo, & VanOss Marin, Barbara. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Metoyer-Duran, Cheryl. (1993a). Cross-cultural research in ethnolinguistic communities. Public Libraries, 32(1), 18–25. Metoyer-Duran, Cheryl. (1993b). Gatekeepers in ethnolinguistic communities. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.