Culture & Psychology Summer School in Nagoya, Japan

We are super-excited to announce all the details for the next IACCP Culture & Psychology Summer School. The Culture & Psychology School is open to students at PhD and MSc level and is sponsored by the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP). The goal is to provide specialized training by experts in topics of importance and relevance for studying psychology and culture in context.  In addition to its educational benefits, the programme is designed to facilitate cross-cultural contact and understanding among future academic leaders and to broaden their academic vision.  We really look forward in bringing bright minds from all corners of the world together and help them develop new research ideas and collaborations. The Culture & Psychology School is run in association with the 23rd IACCP conference to take place in Nagoya, Japan. 

A project presentation during the 2012 Stellenbosch Culture & Psychology School

There have been numerous changes based on the feedback and suggestions that we received after the last one in Reims, France. We are super-excited about the line-up and new programme. Here is an overview of the new programme, the stream leaders and content.

The new programme

We have received a lot of feedback and we have remodeled how we plan to run it. The major difference this year is that we have more methods. You will be able to choose both a content stream and a method stream. On the first day after some introduction and overview, you will be working with people in your content stream. On the second day, you can then choose one of three method streams and work hands-on under the guidance of experts. On the third day, you rejoin your content stream and you will integrate your new methods learned to your content area of study.

To make this work, we will expect that you do some prep work before coming to Nagoya. The stream leaders will provide some reading lists and tasks for you to complete before you arrive in Nagoya to get everyone up to speed with basics. Think of it as a mini-online course to help you get familiar with some of the material to make the most of your learning experience. We will facilitate this as best as possible and we are confident that you will enjoy this opportunity to interact online with your stream colleagues.  

Here are the stream leaders and their content and methods sections:

Cristine Legare

Cristine is a cognitive scientist who studies the ontogeny of cultural learning. She examines the interplay of the universal human mind and the variations of human culture to address questions about cognitive and cultural evolution. Her research and training reflect her commitment to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of cognitive development. Cristine draws on insights from cognitive, cultural, developmental, educational, and evolutionary psychology as well as cognitive and evolutionary anthropology and philosophy, with the aim of facilitating cross-fertilization within and across these disciplines. Her website can be found here. 

Content Stream: Cognition in Cultural Context

Human cross-cultural variation is unique among all animals in both its extent and structural complexity. Cultural variability is one of our species’ most distinctive features, yet the vast majority of psychological research continues to examine a population that is unrepresentative of human culture globally and historically—those from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) backgrounds. Cristine proposes that cultural diversity is inextricably tied to childhood. The human capacity for cultural variability within and between groups must be ontologically prepared by a set of characteristics that enable, structure, and stabilize group-specific cultural information much beyond anything that has been observed in other primates. She will discuss how the capacity to learn, create, and transmit culture increases our understanding of the cognitive and cultural evolution of our species. Cristine will describe how my experimental and ethnographic research integrates theory and methodology from cognitive and evolutionary anthropology, psychology, and philosophy to examine the co-construction of cognition and culture. She will also provide an overview of research conducted at field sites in southern Africa, the U.S., Brazil, and Vanuatu (a Melanesian archipelago).

Methods Stream: From Ethnography to Experiments and Back Again

Cristine conducts mixed-methodological, cross-cultural research to examine cognition in context. She will discuss how she “mines ethnography” to inform her experimental research and the ways in which experimental research can be used to test hypotheses about the cognitive psychological underpinnings of cultural beliefs and practices. Cristine will also discuss best practice for elevating the state-of-the-science in cross-cultural research as well as strategies for publishing interdisciplinary research.

Matt Easterbrook

Matt is part of the Social and Applied Psychology Research Group at the University of Sussex, UK, where he researches and lectures on the psychology of inequality.  His research investigates how selves and identities are influenced by different social structures, cultural orientations, and group memberships, and the consequences of these things for personal well-being, trust, motivation, and socio-political outcomes.  His research often uses multilevel and longitudinal study designs and advanced statistical analyses to investigate these issues. His website is here.

Content stream: The self and social inequality 

Against a backdrop of unprecedented and rising levels of inequality across the world, this stream will cover contemporary social psychological theories of inequality and social class.  We will begin by reviewing the broad consequences of inequality for nations and individuals, before discussing the pivotal role of the self as the explanatory nexus between structural inequality and individual characteristics.

Method stream: Multilevel modelling

This stream will begin with a discussion of the research designs that give rise to multilevel data, and why multilevel modelling of nested data is important and useful.  We will then cover how to manage and set up multilevel data in SPSS, and how to import, run and understand different multilevel models using HLM.  

Nicolas Geeraert

Nicolas is a senior lecturer in Psychology at the University of Essex (UK). He trained as a social psychologist (PhD, 2004, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) looking at stereotypes and attribution theory. His current research interests are in cross-cultural psychology and acculturation. He has extensive experience in conducting longitudinal projects which he has used in a number of acculturation projects. His website is here.

This is Nicolas one or two weeks ago ;)

Content stream: Acculturation & intercultural contact

Intercultural contact leads to challenges and changes. This stream will explore how acculturation unfolds as a process requiring the acculturating individual to copes with cultural stressors and cognitively organize their heritage and settlement cultures. We will discuss how acculturation takes place within the ecological context of families, institutions, and society.

Methods stream: Longitudinal methods

Longitudinal research is an increasingly popular tool for cross-cultural researchers. This workshop will explore the strengths and advantages of longitudinal research and how to practical set-up a longitudinal study in terms of design, participant management, data preparation, etc. Different methods to analyse longitudinal data will also be discussed. 

Endorsement by Previous Participants

Ceren Gunsoy

I attended the IACCP summer school in Reims, France, as a third year PhD student at Iowa State University. It was a great experience! Not only the topic stream that I was part of but also the talks, discussions, and social activities were very informative, thought-provoking, and fun. On top of that I met great people and am still in touch with them. I strongly recommend this program!

Colin Scott

The 2014 Summer School in Reims, France, was a fantastic opportunity to connect with researchers interested in a range of topics in cross-cultural psychology.  Seminars with leaders in the field offered a hands-on opportunity to build new collaborations while getting critical and constructive feedback from faculty and students on our own work.

Costs

The cost for the summer school will be 200 Euro for participants from high-income countries (as per IACCP fee structure) and 150 Euro for participants from low income countries. The fee includes accommodation, welcome dinner, lunches and coffee breaks. This is pretty damn good value for a three full day workshop with world leaders in the field of psychology and culture, providing you with cutting edge skills and material. 

The Schedule

March 20: Deadline for applications

April 3: Decisions on applications

April 4: Work in online study groups commences

June 20: Submitting initial research ideas to stream leaders

July 26- 30: Culture & Psychology School in Nagoya Hill

July 26 evening – arrival at Nagoya hill station, general welcome and get to know each other

July 27– Introduction & work in content streams

July 28– work in methods streams

July 29 morning – we bring content and methods back together, discussion of research ideas and plans

July 29 afternoon – sharing experiences by stream leaders on how to publish cultural research

July 30 – transfer to Nagoya.

July 30 – Aug 3: IACCP conference in Nagoya

Accommodation & Logistics

The school will take place in a mountain retreat two hours away from Nagoya. It will be a fascinating cultural experience since we are going to be in a small community off the beaten track in a more traditional Japanese environment. All sleeping places are shared and we will sleep on futons. Please bring your own toiletries and towels be prepared to share a communal space. There will be NO towels available and only shared shower facilities. It is a traditional setting and we only have one hour per day in the evening when you can take a shower. I realize that this may be unusual or inconvenient, but I really hope you will be able to use this as a cultural learning experience and enjoy this cultural challenge. 

We have your dietary requirements and will try our best to accommodate them. The food will be in traditional Bento style. Feel free to buy additional food of your preference on the way, there is some (limited) refrigerator space where it can be stored. Here is the link to the place (use google translate to get it in English).

Application and Further Info

The application form is now available. Check here for any updates. A poster to share with colleagues and friends is here. Print it and spread the word! If you have any questions about the programme, the stream leaders or the general procedure, please do not hesitate to contact me or Yasin.  

Happy to answer your questions and look forward to seeing you all in Nagoya in a few months!

A crisis in cultural psychology? Lack of replications, bias & publication pressures

Social psychology is facing an existential crisis. Ype Poortinga and I took the opportunity to examine how cross-cultural psychology fares in comparison. What is the background? A collective drive for presenting novel, sexy and sensational findings has propelled social psychology into a minefield of public mistrust and claims of being a pseudoscience. The list of sins in the eyes of the public are long: Central methods at the core of the discipline such as priming have been challenged, the drive to find significant differences has led to a neglect of the meaningfulness of psychological findings, publication pressures opened the doors for unscientific data massaging and most notoriously, glamorous stars of the discipline have been found to fabricate their data. There has rarely been a month since the now infamous Staples affair, when the field was not in the spotlight of public and internal scrutiny. This series of events has led to some agonizing soul-searching among psychologists.

Addressing methodological vulnerabilities in research on behavior and culture

Ype Poortinga and myself used the opportunity of the 22nd International conference of Cross-Cultural Psychology (organized by IACCP) to critically examine how cross-cultural psychology as a sister discipline of social psychology is faring. We assembled an A-list of leading cross-cultural psychologists and former editors of the flagship journal for research on culture and psychology (Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology). Our instructions were simple: we requested them to critically evaluate the methods of our field and comment on ways how our field may move forward. Ype and I also provided a summary of our own concerns about the state of the field. The session was exceptionally well attended and the panel managed to create a lively debate and exchange of views with each other and the audience. This was particularly remarkable given the technical challenges, the double booking of the room and the incredible heat, lack of seats and oxygen in the late afternoon (it felt like a 2 hour sauna session). I have received quite a few requests for our slides, so I am summarizing some key points from our introductory presentation, the talks by Peter Smith, Johnny Fontaine and David Matsumoto as well as discussion that followed the presentations. I will also outline some ideas of the next steps that we are considering taking.

Poortinga and Fischer: Why questionable null-hypotheses and convergent search for evidence erode research on behavior and culture

Null hypothesis significance testing is the modus operandi for conducting research in psychology overall. At the same time, it has come under increasing pressure and scrutiny. Some quotes from some recent papers illustrate the various problems with the state of psychology:

Ioannides (2005): “[A] research finding is less likely to be true when … when effect sizes are smaller; when there is … lesser preselection of tested relationships; … greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; … and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance”
Vul et al. (2009) report on “voodoo correlations” in fMRI: “We show how … nonindependent analysis [of voxels] inflates correlations while yielding reassuring-looking scattergrams”
Simmons et al. (2011) on “false-positive psychology”: “… flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not”.

The application of the experimental research paradigm with an emphasis on null-hypothesis significance testing is particular problematic in cross-cultural psychology, because some of the basic assumptions of experimental design are violated by default:

a) There is no random assignment of respondents to conditions and

b) The experimenter has little control over conditions and ambient events.



This figure shows these problems in a nice way and clearly highlights that cross-cultural studies do not even meet the conditions for good quasi-experimental designs and have significant shortcomings. 

Further challenging current experimental practices, Simmons, Nelson and Simonsohn (2011) eloquently exposed the problems of researcher degrees of freedom and the impact of quite innocent appearing research practices on significance levels. They demonstrated how a logically impossible hypothesis (listening to songs about age will decrease the age of listeners) can be empirically supported. Applied to the topic of their investigation, they discovered the psychological equivalent of the proverbial fountain of youth by using questionable research practices. The following figure shows the outcomes of their simulation study and the impact of four researcher degrees of freedom on significance levels. We highlighted the relevance of these conditions for cross-cultural research. 

First, assuming per definition that culture is a shared meaning system, any two cultural variables will be correlated to a significant degree. The very nature of the phenomena under investigation makes finding significant differences more likely. This non-independence is well recognized and the negative impact on significance testing is well recognized in methods circles but not well-understood in general cross-cultural research circles.

Second, a researcher may add 10 more observations or cases to the study if a first examination did not reveal any significant differences. This is probably a more common practice in cultural priming studies, but may be less of an issue in comparative survey studies.

The third questionable practice is controlling for third variables, especially if their impact is not theoretical grounded. In their case study, Simmons et al. used gender as an example, but in cross-cultural psychology it is often GDP at the country level or some demographic variables at the individual level that is entered as a covariate. This is a double-bind of cross-cultural psychology, on one hand we need to control for other variables that may explain any differences between samples, on the other hand, these simulations demonstrated that such practices have a sizable impact on significance levels.

The last questionable practice is to drop (or not) one of the conditions. The equivalent in cross-cultural psychology is to omit samples that may not fit the expected pattern (outlier removal). Talking to other researchers, this seems a common practice.

These individual practices individually increase the likelihood of finding significant results only in a relatively minor way, but the combination of these practices will lead to substantively inflated ratios of significance results: a significant result at the magical .05 significance level is 60% more likely if you combine all four of these questionable practices! Based on conversations with colleagues and observations of publication trends, these practices are common in cross-cultural psychology. This now means that we probably need to question a good number of empirical findings published!

A further issue is that the null hypothesis of no difference is likely to be rejected if there is a difference on any third variable that is related to the dependent variable. In such instances, there is a high rate of Type 1 errors (false positive results). One pressing issue is method bias. In questionnaire studies, response biases such as acquiescence or yes-saying are particularly salient.

The next figure shows the probability of finding a significant result as a function of sample size and the size of the bias. The various lines show the various levels of bias in terms of the standard deviation. If the bias effect is small (e.g., 1/16th of the standard deviation on the DV), increasing sample sizes are not increasing the probability of finding a significant effect by much. However, when bias approaches a .25 of the standard deviation, the probability of finding a significant effect in a sample of 100 participants approaches 60%. You may argue that ¼ of a standard deviation is large. However, it is not an unrealistic scenario given the prevalence and extent of response styles in questionnaire research – see for example our earlier research showing that response styles produce bigger effect sizes than 1/3 of theoretically important research studies.



These two simulation studies suggest that cross-cultural differences might be spurious and driven by method effects. In addition, our field seems to be driven by differences and appears to pay unduly emphasis on differences, without questioning their validity. The next figure shows the emphasis on differences and the lack of studies hypothesizing and finding similarities. This graph is adapted from a review by Brouwers and others, published in JCCP in 2004. As can be seen, the majority of studies expect differences only (N=55) and only 25 studies expected differences and similarities. At the same time, 57 studies found both. Most importantly, given laws of probability, we should also have studies that expect and report only similarities. Brouwers and colleagues did not find a single study that either hypothesized or reported similarities only. Where are these studies?




The points raised so far should not be understood as challenging the experimental methods underlying comparative research. We would urge our colleagues to critically question some of our designs and analytic procedures. In the larger experimental literature, a number of strategies have been proposed, including:

- stricter designs (larger n, Button et al., 2013) for more power
- stricter analysis (p < . 005, Johnson, 2013)
- prevention of experimenter bias (O. Klein et al., 2012)
- more transparency (e.g., pre-registration of hypotheses)
-replication across multiple researchers and labs (R. A. Klein et al., 2014)

We see it as a good sign that replication studies have achieved new status. For example, an earlier attempt of our lab to replicate the culture-level value structure by Schwartz using data from the Rokeach Value Survey faced some real uphill battle in getting it published. The saving grace to get it published seemed to be the appearance of a new value type that was not evident in the earlier Schwartz circle (a replication of this new value type is still outstanding). The new emphasis on replication in my opinion is a major achievement. The first findings of this new wave of replications are coming in. For example, the following graph shows the replication success of a number of studies in the ‘many labs’ replication report. Some of the older studies hold up well to scrutiny, but many of the newer findings, in particular priming studies are not replicable.

What is also noteworthy is that in the original dissemination of these findings, the lack of cross-cultural differences in the patterns was emphasized. Some commentators were quick to jump on that and suggested that careful and experimentally strict replications will do away with cross-cultural differences. We may want to challenge such an assumptions, but these comments clearly demonstrate that we as cross-cultural and cultural psychologists need to engage with the replication debate. We cannot sit back and pretend that the replication crisis does not affect us!

Replications vary along an underlying dimension, with exact replications being at one end and conceptual replications forming the opposing end. The conventional experimental wisdom is to prioritize exact replications or to stick as closely as possible to the original designs (close replications) with large samples sizes to have high power to detect effects. Of course, we know that exact replication in a cross-cultural context is problematic due to the different cultural conditions of participants.

However, an even more important point for us is that the presence of bias (e.g., response styles, speed-accuracy trade-offs) challenges the validity of exact or close replications. A replication of a biased study is a replication of a biased study.

In addition, if we have two samples and we define one sample as belonging to X culture and the other sample as belonging to a Y culture (this could be anything: collectivistic vs individualistic; independent vs interdependent self-construals, honour vs dignity; holistic vs analytic thinking), then any difference on whatever variable will be statistically related to the presumed X-Y difference. Therefore, replications in cross-cultural psychology need to be positioned towards the conceptual replication end and require additional methodological safeguards.

We suggest that cross-cultural replications need to:

-ensure validity of procedures in local context

-empirical checks on the postulated antecedent (what theoretical process is likely to drive these expected patterns and to empirically test these theoretical processes)

-manipulation checks (including a “no-difference” condition, on what variable or set of variables do we NOT expect a difference)

-control on likely alternative explanations (e.g., response styles).


In summary of the points so far, cross-cultural psychology suffers from many of the same shortcomings that have created the crisis in social psychology. A somewhat humorous account borrowing from Dante’s version of hell is provided by this cartoon (by the Neurosceptic, published in Perspectives in Psychological Science). Our research culture that emphasizes differences instead of similarities leads a state of limbo, overselling and post-hoc story-telling. Our narrow orientation towards ghost in the machine variables (such as collectivism, self-construals and values) lead to overselling (everything needs to be explicable by single dimensions, typically of personal relations or self-construals), post-hoc story telling and p-value fishing. From personal experience publishing cross-cultural research, nearly any difference can with a bit of theoretical creativity be related back to individualism-collectivism, self-construals or any of the other fashionable constructs these days. These biases in orientation and the researcher practices and researcher degrees of freedom then lead to p-value fishing and creative outlier utilization. Of course, the absence of no-difference studies suggest a significant file drawer problem.

Our suggestions are therefore:

Better designs (including efforts to reduce bias, testing of alternative theoretical processes, etc.)

Planned replications

Depositing hypotheses and methods in a public archive prior to data collection

Peter Smith: To understand cultural variation let’s sample cultural variations

Peter Smith and colleagues suggested a rather straightforward approach for addressing some of the concerns. Their recommendation was to go beyond two culture comparisons and to sample cultural variation more broadly, e.g., by studying multiple Asian and non-Asian samples that are typically lumped together as collectivist, interdependent, holistic, etc. In addition, Peter and colleagues included more diverse instruments capturing conceptually similar constructs to examine variability in intended constructs across a broader range of instruments. Peter presented some preliminary data that supported the usefulness of this approach. However, he also acknowledged that the current study has some important limitations, including studying students, not having enough samples yet to properly examine effects (e.g., though multi-level modeling) and a high demand on participants (e.g., completing long sets of questionnaires).

Johnny Fontaine: A plea for domain representation

Johnny presented a more technical account of domain representation that examined the meaning of constructs across a larger number of languages and cultural contexts. Using examples from the emotion domain, he showed that we can avoid confusion and biases in meaning through the use of sophisticated non-metric statistical methods in combination with elaborate designs that allow separating situational and personal characteristics. His approach demands a theoretical analysis of possibly important variables that need to be incorporated into the research design. Johnny really got the methods guns blazing in his presentation and I have to admit that the heat of the room by that time had fried my brain. As a consequence, I was not able to follow all the intricate steps in the procedure and not having a seat did not allow me to take good notes (but the graphs looked very convincing). He is working on a manuscript detailing the procedures and I am certainly looking forward to reading it when it is ready.

David Matsumoto: Random thoughts about methodological vulnerabilities in research on behavior and culture.

David broadened the symposium by focusing on the broader research climate in culture and psychology. Most people in this overheating room will have appreciated his first demand: before he started talking he requested everyone to stand up from their seats. Beyond bringing some oxygen into our brains, this also then became a beautiful point of reference for his short and sharp presentation. Here are his three main arguments (my paraphrasing):

Point 1: Study behavior

Point 2: Respect the literature

Point 3: The current pressures on young academics makes following recommendations 1 and 2 challenging

The first point is obvious – our discipline confuses self/other/peer-reports of behavior for behavior. I do not have hard stats here, but from memory – I cannot remember a single cross-cultural social psyc study in the last year or two in JCCP that studied actual behavior. He pointed out that everyone had stood up when he asked at the beginning of his presentation – a success rate of 100%. In contrast, when asking people whether they would stand up in a seminar room when asked by the presenter (e.g., on a scale from 1-7), there would have been significant variability and the mean would definitely been lower than 100%. Drawing upon his own research on emotion display, he argued that triangulation of research method is necessary.

The second point highlights the emphasis of getting to know more about previous research. In the current research environment, researchers need to present novel result and theory. There is no incentive for (or penalty for not) reading older research that may have been conducted 10 or 40 years ago. Journal editors are keen to get citations to recent papers to increase the journal’s Impact Factor. Yet, this leads to impoverished and non-cumulative research.

The last point highlights the constraints that young researchers pre-tenure are facing: more publications in less time. Studies of behavior are time consuming and therefore are less appealing. Reading relevant literature in one’s field or neighboring disciplines is also detracting from writing articles and funding applications. David emphasized that IACCP has a richer intellectual tradition than many mainstream researchers who have discovered culture and now publish in high-impact journals.

Some of the discussion points

The discussion turned repeatedly on a number of points. I will try and summarize some of the key ones that stood out for me.

Representativeness of samples: One key concern that came up repeatedly was that studying students is not appropriate for making claims about cultural processes. Students are not good representatives of the larger population.

Studying nations: One early comment that drew spontaneous applause from the audience was that psychology has failed in studying culture. Instead, psychologists are studying nations. Yet, nations are highly diverse and consist potentially of many subcultures. Various other commentators picked up similar themes throughout the discussion. One issue that is related here was the relative emphasis on between-country/culture differences and the lack of attention to within-country/culture differences. Both Geert Hofstede and Shalom Schwartz were in the audience, but they remained silent – it would have been nice to hear their responses to some of these comments (and both have done some interesting work that would have been informative in this debate).

Lack of strong theory: Peter Richerson argued that psychologists lack strong theory and recommended looking to neighboring disciplines such as biology for inspiration. David Matsumoto defended psychology in his response, suggesting that psychology has some good theories. But he also added that we need truly exploratory work that can understand phenomena on their own terms. My thought on this is that we have not enough strong theory (in a philosophy of science perspective) and that exploratory research with attention to various alternative explanations may bring us closer to developments of stronger theories of culture (e.g., by including the possibilities of no differences, attention to alternative processes beyond the usual suspects in current psychological thinking on culture).

Validity of findings: One point that occurred in various disguises in a number of comments was the importance of validity of findings in the local context. Amina Abubakar was the first to get this point across in the debate: To what extent can cultural psychology and cross-cultural research as a method of choice yield insights into the minds and behaviours of people in a specific context? How applicable and relevant is cross-cultural research for people around the world? This is a major question and needs some serious contemplation as we face a rapidly changing world and need to collectively respond to multiple pressing challenges (e.g., increasing intergroup conflict, climate change, decreasing natural resources).

Next steps

An immediate opportunity following this debate arose the next day after the round-table discussion. Ype challenged the assembly that methods issues need more attention and in response Walt Lonner as the founding editor of JCCP suggested a methods oriented special issue for JCCP. We had a discussion during the coffee break and he invited us to write a proposal for a special issue. Any thoughts for topics and contributors for such a special issue addressing the methods challenges are much welcome (please flick me an email or respond below – I would love to hear from you).

Looking at some other associations (APS comes to mind here), we could adopt some of their criteria for publication – there have been some interesting suggestions and changes in policies recently. Even JPSP now publishes replications (hooray!!!!!!)!

Overall, I think that the overall change in research climate is promising. There has never been a more positive time to discuss how we collectively do research, there is much promise of change in the air and I strongly believe that collectively we can make a positive change. Without this conviction, we would not have had the symposium and such a large crowd keen to brave tropical temperatures and horrible conditions in the late afternoon to debate a topic so passionately. I felt humbled by this enthusiasm of the audience and the positive comments that we received over the next couple of days. I look forward to continuing this debate and hearing your opinions and suggestions!

The next IACCP Summer School coming up

It has been a while in the making, but finally we have the first details for the next IACCP Summer School. It will be the third installation of a programme that started in a very informal way in 2009 during the Cameroon Regional IACCP conference and since then has grown and matured. The Summer School is open to students at PhD and MSc level and is sponsored by the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP). The goal is to provide specialized training by experts in topics of importance and relevance for studying psychology and culture in context.   In addition to its educational benefits, the programme is designed to facilitate cross-cultural contact and understanding among future academic leaders and to broaden their academic vision.  The next Summer School is conducted in association with the 22nd IACCP conference to take place in Reims, France. 

I am super-excited about the programme and the streamleaders that we have managed to get for this next version. Here is a quick overview of the three streams, the experts leading each stream and some ideas for improvements. A poster advertising the Summer School can be found here (print it and pass it around your department).

Culture and Human Development: Methodological and Conceptual Perspectives

Developmental trajectories reflect the interaction between individual abilities on the one hand, and the ecological and socio-cultural niche in which one grows up on the other hand. Informed by bioecological models, I will provide an overview of how different ecological niches have produced varying childrearing values and strategies, which in turn have created variations in the contexts in which developmental trajectories evolve. The workshop will be in two parts. In the first part, I will dedicate a significant amount of time to discussing how cultural and contextual factors influence development. More importantly, I will discuss conceptual and methodological approaches that need to be taken into consideration in order to adequately study human development in context. I will highlight issues of measurement, sampling, and analysis which are of importance in (cross) cultural developmental psychology. Lastly, translational behavioral research is gaining more prominence in psychology. We will discuss ways in which we can design studies that inform practice and policy.In the second part, students will be placed in small working groups based on earlier submitted work to discuss research ideas. Each working group will aim at developing a research plan with achievable milestones, for them to implement as a concrete outcome from participation in the workshop.

About the Stream Leader

Amina is associated with the Centre for Geographic Medicine Research, KEMRI/Wellcome Trust Research Programme Kenya; Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Tilburg University, Netherlands; Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, Netherlands; Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK.Dr Amina Abubakar studied Educational psychology at Kenyatta University in Kenya, before proceeding to study Developmental Cross-Cultural Psychology at Tilburg University where obtained her PhD in 2008. She currently works at the Kenya Medical Research Institute/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, in Kenya.

Dr. Amina Abubakar is a Psychologist whose research concerns three broad areas: the sequelae of various childhood diseases, neurodevelopmental disorders, specifically Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and contextual predictors of psychological well-being across cultural context. Her main interests are in the study of developmental delays and impairments among children exposed to various health problems such as HIV, malnutrition and malaria. Her main focus in this regard is on developing culturally appropriate strategies for identifying, monitoring and rehabilitating at-risk children. In addition, she is also interested in examining the prevalence of and risk factors for neurodevelopmental disorders, specifically ASD, within the African context. Lastly, alongside collaborators from more than twenty countries, she is developing a line of research where we investigate how various contextual factors (familial, school, peer and cultural) impact on wellbeing (mental health, life satisfaction and identity formation) of adolescents across cultural contexts.

Cultural Genomics: Understanding Gene-culture Coevolution from the Molecular Evolution Perspective

In this stream, I will introduce the basic concepts about human evolution, molecular approach to recent natural selection, data sets such as the HapMap and 1000 Genomes Projects and the Beijing Genes-Brain-Behavior Project, and ways to navigate, download, and analyze the data. Participants can select particular genes to examine their evolutionary history and current behavioral correlates.

About the stream leader

Chuansheng Chen is Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior and Professor of Education at the University of California, Irvine. He was trained as a developmental psychologist (Ph.D., 1992, University of Michigan) interested in cultural variations in developmental trajectories. Over the years, he has integrated multi-disciplinary methods into his work through extensive collaborations with developmental psychologists, anthropologists, molecular geneticists, and cognitive neuroscientists. His current work focuses on the intricate relations among genes, brain, and behavior through both molecular and evolutionary genetic methods and brain-imaging techniques (fMRI and ERP).

Contextualizing Acculturation: Multi-level and Multi-group Perspectives

As today’s societies are becoming increasingly diverse, cross-cultural research on contact and acculturation increasingly focuses on diversity and its outcomes, which are not always positive. This workshop starts from the question to what extent and when diversity is an asset for immigrant minorities and for societies at large. We will investigate how minority and majority group members experience culture contact in organizations or societies with different diversity climates (e.g., norms, values, ideologies …). To this end, students will be encouraged to engage with multi-level (at the level of individuals, organizations and societies) and multi-group (minority and majority group perspectives) approaches, data, and methods.

About the stream leaders

Karen Phalet (PhD 1993 University of Leuven) is full professor at the Centre for Social and Cultural Psychology, University of Leuven, and a senior research fellow of the European Research Center On Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht University. Her cross-cultural research is broadly concerned with the psychological dimension of cultural diversity across immigrant minorities and European societies. She has published extensively on processes of cultural transmission, acculturation, self and identity, and their consequences for minority adjustment, acceptance, attainment, and political voice. Current comparative research lines investigate religion and acculturation among European Muslim minorities, as well as minority identity and acculturation in ethnically diverse schools and organizations.

Gülseli Baysu (PhD in 2011 from University of Leuven) is an assistant professor at Kadir Has University. Her main research interests concern minority perspectives on intercultural relations and minority outcomes, ranging from political mobilization to academic performance. She is well-versed in the full range of cross-cultural research data and methods, including cross-national (web)surveys, experiments, and multi-group, multi-level, and longitudinal analyses. Her main publications focus on how positive and negative experiences of culture contact affect minority acculturation and achievement across different migration contexts. In addition to continuing this line of research, another research line extends her earlier work on social identity and political mobilization to Turkey.   

Endorsement by Previous Participants

Hi, I am Dr Humera Iqbal and was lucky enough to be part of the first ever summer school in Istanbul. This was a wonderful experience for so many reasons. I met excellent young researchers with similar interests, some of whom I have continued to collaborate with. I was taught by some of the best minds in cross-cultural psychology and learned so much from them. The group discussions we had allowed me to think about my own research in a novel way and the articles we examined really helped in writing up my cross-cultural research. I also made some amazing friends. If you are doing your PhD in anything cross-cultural (at whatever stage), I really encourage you to apply for Paris 2014.

Hi, I am Saija Kuittinen. The IACCP PhD winterschool in Stellenbosch South-Africa (2012) was a great opportunity to meet fellow PhD students and senior colleagues from all around the world who share the same interests in cultural issues and psychology as I do. During the few intensive days of group work, besides learning more about conducting cross-cultural research, I also enjoyed the casual networking and talking about relevant issues - especially since I am the only one doing this line of research back in my home university.

New Ideas for Reims 2014

We have looked at the feedback and comments from previous years and are working on making it an even more enjoyable, educational and fun event. One suggestion was to provide an opportunity for members to briefly present their research work. We think this is a brilliant idea. Our current plan is to have some mix of Pecha Kucha, Ted-Talk and Three Minute Thesis Presentation. The current idea is that each member has 3 minutes and some combination of 1, 3, 6 or 9 slides (with no animations) to present his or her topic and research interests to the group on the first or second night. We are still ferociously debating whether we should include some important presentation rules like that you have to have at least one photo of you as a baby  plus one picture of the place where you grew up (after all, the summer school is about connecting people and increasing your understanding of cultural diversity - and baby pictures are highly relevant to at least one stream ;) 

Furthermore, people were keen to get more of an overview of what is happening in each stream and what each stream-leader is going to focus on. Hence, we have decided to add a few more lectures to provide a better overview of the various topics and streams. 

We also hope that all members will form their research groups and start reading and discussing their plans well before getting to Reims. We will ask for volunteers in each stream as facilitators that can work with me and the stream-leaders to getting the discussion and learning going early next year. 

If you have any thoughts or comments or suggestions of how we can make the summer school better, please get in touch.

Costs

The cost for the summer school will be 200 Euro for participants from high-income countries (as per IACCP fee structure) and 150 Euro for participants from low income countries. The fee includes accommodation, welcome dinner, lunches and coffee breaks. This is pretty damn good value for a three full day workshop with world leaders in the field of psychology and culture, providing you with cutting edge skills and material. 

The Schedule

	Human development	Cultural genomics	Contextualizing Acculturation
March 20	Application deadline
March 31	Decision on applications
April-01	Beginning of work in study groups (reading, discussing & exchanging ideas)
May-01	Finalizing study groups (each group to select a contact person)
Jun-01	Preliminary ideas submitted to stream leaders
Jul-11	Arrival in Reims (informal get-together in the evening)
Jul-12
9-10am	Introduction
10-11am	Lecture 1 (SL 1)
11.15-12.15pm	Lecture 2 (SL 2)
12.15-2pm	Lunch
2-3pm	Lecture 3 (SL 3)
3-6pm	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
6-7pm	Break
7-8pm	Dinner
8pm-10.30pm	Your research topic in 3 min (Presentation on PhD/MSc research by all participants)
Jul-13
9-11am	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
11-12.15pm	Lecture: Cultures are different, p < .05? Thinking about research beyond significance values
12.15-2pm	Lunch
2-6pm	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
Evening	Free
Jul-14
9-11am	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
11-12.15pm	Lecture: TBC
12.15-2pm	Lunch
2-6pm	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
Evening	Presenting your research proposals
Jul-15
9-11am	Joint workshop: Writing for publication
11-12pm	Wrapping up
Noon	Lunch
Afternoon	Transfer to conference

Application and Further Info

You will be able to apply here, the link is now active. If you have any questions about the programme, the leaders or the general procedure, please do not hesitate to contact me. The poster with all the relevant info can be found here. Print it and pass it on to your friends and colleagues!

Happy to answer your questions and look forward to seeing you all in Reims in a few months!

J'espère te voir bientôt!