Cross-cultural measurement is an important topic in social work research and evaluation. Measuring health related concepts accurately is necessary for researchers and practitioners who work with culturally diverse populations. Social workers use measurements or instruments to assess health-related outcomes in order to identify risk and protective factors for vulnerable, disadvantaged populations. Culturally validated instruments are necessary, first, to identify the evidence of health disparities for vulnerable populations. Second, measurements are required to accurately capture health outcomes in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for cross-cultural populations. Meaningful, appropriate, and practical research instruments, however, are not always readily available. They may have bias when used for populations from different racial and ethnic groups, tribal groups, immigration and refugee status, gender identities, religious affiliations, social class, and mental or physical abilities. Social work researchers must have culturally reliable and valid research instruments to accurately measure social constructs and ensure the validity of outcomes with cultural populations of interest. . In addition, culturally reliable and valid instruments are necessary for research which involves comparisons with different cultural groups. Instruments must capture the same conceptual understanding in outcomes across different cultural groups to create a basis for comparison. Cross-cultural instruments must also detect and ascertain the same magnitude in the changes in health outcomes, in order to accurately determine the impact of factors in the social environment as well as the influence of micro, mezzo, and macro-level interventions. This reference provides an overview of issues and techniques of cross-cultural measurement in social work research and evaluation. Applying systematic, methodological approaches to develop, collect, and assess cross-cultural measurements will lead to more reliable and valid data for cross-cultural groups.
Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz and Nagore Iriberri
Gender differences, both in entering negotiations and when negotiating, have been proved to exist: Men are usually more likely to enter into negotiation than women and when negotiating they obtain better deals than women. These gender differences help to explain the gender gap in wages, as starting salaries and wage increases or promotions throughout an individual’s career are often the result of bilateral negotiations. This article presents an overview of the literature on gender differences in negotiation. The article is organized in four main parts. The first section reviews the findings with respect to gender differences in the likelihood of engaging in a negotiation, that is, in deciding to start a negotiation. The second section discusses research on gender differences during negotiations, that is, while bargaining. The third section looks at the relevant psychological literature and discusses meta-analyses, looking for factors that trigger or moderate gender differences in negotiation, such as structural ambiguity and cultural traits. The fourth section presents a brief overview of research on gender differences in non- cognitive traits, such as risk and social preferences, confidence, and taste for competition, and their impact in explaining gender differences in bargaining. Finally, the fifth section discusses some policy implications. An understanding of when gender differences are likely to arise on entering into negotiations and when negotiating will enable policies to be created that can mitigate current gender differences in negotiations. This is an active, promising research line.
King Davis and Hyejin Jung
This entry defines the term disparity as measurable differences between groups on a number of indices. The term disparity originated in France in the 16th century and has been used as a barometer of progress in social justice and equality in the United States. When disparity is examined across the U.S. population over a longitudinal period, it is clear that disparities continue to exist and that they distinguish groups by race, income, class, and gender. African American and Native American populations have historically ranked higher in prevalence and incidence than other populations on most indices of disparity. However, the level of adverse health and social conditions has declined for all population groups in the United States. The disparity indices include mortality rates, poor health, disease, absence of health insurance, accidents, and poverty. Max Weber’s theory of community formation is used in this entry to explain the continued presence and distribution of disparities. Other theoretical frameworks are utilized to buttress the major hypothesis by Weber that social ills tend to result from structural faults rather than individual choice. Social workers are seen as being in a position to challenge the structural origins of disparities as part of their professional commitment to social justice.