Limited notions of culture ensure research failure.

The candor of Dr. Edward Foulks in discussing the problems encountered in this piece of research is highly appreciated. There are few of us that have not made major mistakes in the conduct of our work, yet it is not often that we are willing to have others scrutinize and comment on research that has misfired. Foulks' openness provides the opportunity to rectify some of the misguided approaches that have been all too prevalent in cross-cultural research. Discussion of the aftermath of this research can take place at several levels, but I would like to focus on an underlying issue that may explain a great deal of the controversy that was generated. Cultural change is most often seen as occurring along a single continuum from "traditional" to "modern." Anytime a traditional culture comes in contact with a more modern one, it is assumed that people will gradually move from the "old" to the "new" and that while in transit, they are confused, are experiencing "acculturation stress," and are generally unable to function competently. Furthermore, there is usually an implicit assumption that traditional is inferior and modern is superior. This latter point is often denied, yet there are ordinarily subtle, and not so subtle, indicators that this basic value position is held. Another element of this model holds that since movement is on a single continuum, something of the old culture is always lost when one embraces parts of the new culture — it is basically a zero-sum game. This is a very narrow and simplified view of how cultural change operates and has serious limitations from a research perspective. This view can also lead to a devaluing, either actual or perceived, of the culture of the people under study. When this occurs those of the minority culture are likely to become actively resentful or passively resistant. There is ample evidence that the Point Barrow research was guided by this one-dimensional model and that this led to many of the problems encountered. The perceived inadequacy of the Inupiat people is clearly demonstrated in the nearly total absence of their participation in the research. The project did include a steering committee comprised of Native people, but their participation in the research was minimal until the latter stages of the project when the research was completed and the recommendations formulated. At that point, they could only endorse the