Complementary Approaches to Individual Differences Using Paired Comparisons and Multidimensional Scaling: Applications to Multicultural Counseling Competence.

Abstract

Multicultural research has traditionally involved normative methodology and definitions of individual differences. To further our understanding of multicultural concerns, the authors urge researchers to broaden the repertoire of methods used in these inquiries. First, the authors highlight the differences among normative, idiographic, and idiothetic approaches. Then, the authors introduce the use of paired comparison methods and multidimensional scaling techniques for use within these approaches. Last, examples of research using idiographic and idiothetic approaches with multicultural counseling competence as the focus are provided. Several leaders in multicultural research have underscored the importance of nontraditional methods of inquiry to explore multicultural concerns (Fuertes, Bartolomew, & Nichols, 2001; Helms, 2002; Ponterotto, 2002; Ponterotto & Alexander, 1996). They argue that reliance on traditional quantitative methods and definitions of individual differences may limit the understanding of multicultural concerns. Traditional definitions of individual differences involve the assessment of individuals on a common construct and then the comparison of scores relative to others in the sample or population, that is, the normative approach. Seeking to expand the range of approaches used to explore multicultural issues, some researchers call for the use of less traditional quantitative methods (e.g., Helms, 2002), whereas others champion more qualitative methods (e.g., Ponterotto, 2002), which eschew the common normative definition of individual differences. Despite these calls for alternative approaches, an overwhelming reliance has been placed on more traditional quantitative methods that focus on normative differences. Although certainly such inquiries have enhanced our understanding of multicultural concerns, we too suggest that expanding our methodological approaches and analytical tools will result in a more complex understanding of multicultural issues as they pertain to counseling. Moreover, despite our present focus on the multicultural domain, we suggest that research and practice in counseling psychology broadly would benefit from similar applications. Echoing Allport (1937) in the personality realm, we argue for the complementary adoption of normative and idiographic approaches to assist in multicultural inquiries. As a way to bridge the normative–idiographic divide, we then introduce the use of idiothetic approaches (Klinger, 1995; Lamiell, 1981), in which both the group and individual level of analysis are the foci. First, we highlight the differences between normative, idiographic, and idiothetic approaches. We proceed by positing that the following two main issues may explain why researchers have not generally adopted idiographic and idiothetic approaches to explore multicultural concerns: (a) a lack of familiarity with these approaches and (b) a lack of knowledge of the analytic tools that could be used. We then introduce paired comparison and multidimensional scaling (MDS) as examples of assessment and analytic tools associated with idiographic and idiothetic studies. In the last section, we provide some examples of research applications in the multicultural area. Although we see our argument appropriate to all counseling research, we focus specifically on using examples in the multicultural counseling competence area because (a) this is a multicultural content area that has several normative studies and no quantitative idiographic or idiothetic research, (b) the nature and measurement of the common constructs used continues to be debated, and (c) social desirability and the issue of bias are particularly salient in this domain.