Comparative analysis of english and american romanticism

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN ROMANTICISM.

PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
II. MAIN PART
1.Types of Cross-Cultural Studies
2.A Methodological Classification of Cross-Cultural Studies

3.Secondary Comparative Studies

4.Independent Concept Development

III. CONCLUSION
IV. REFERENCES


I. INTRODUCTION
From a methodological perspective cross-cultural studies in psychology differ in three dimensions. First, cross-cultural psychological studies can be exploratory or test specific hypotheses. Second, some cross-cultural studies compare countries or ethnic groups while other cross-cultural studies relate specific characteristics of a country or ethnicity (e.g., socialization patterns or religiosity) to psychological variables. Third, studies can compare either constructs (e.g., do Chinese and Kenyans mean the same when they say that a person is intelligent?) or score levels (e.g., are Americans more extravert than Italians?). A classification of cross-cultural psychological studies, based on the three dimensions, is presented and examples are given.
It is the purpose of this article to describe the methodological issues when designing qualitative cultural comparative studies, which may be used to address health disparities. Overall, two broad types of comparative studies were found: primary and secondary comparative studies. Methodological issues to consider when designing primary studies were reviewed. The main areas discussed in this paper relate to sampling and study purpose, sample boundaries, theoretical context, concept development, analogous comparisons and systematic comparisons. Nurses are in a prime position to pose the qualitative research questions needed to address health disparities within their clinical settings. It is suggested that awareness of the method types and issues might inspire further qualitative comparative work.
According to the National Institutes of Health, Institute of Nursing Research (USDHHS, 2007), studies explaining health disparities among many of our nations subpopulations are needed. Although advances have been made in many areas, reasons for health disparities in areas such as disability outcomes remain unexplained (Harrison, 2009; Tripp-Reimer, Coi, Kelley, & Enslein, 2001). Qualitative research may provide the methodological means for developing the foundational knowledgebase needed, but to develop theories of health disparities, the qualitative methods used for group comparisons need careful consideration.
When quantitative researchers compare quantitative data the assumption is that the data is representative, somewhat like a microcosm, of the groups from which it was sampled. When qualitative researchers make comparisons of data it is from non-randomized samples. The evidence used for comparisons are not generalizable—but they may be transferable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The qualitative data compared should be carefully crafted to complete a picture of a phenomenon of interest within each group in order to thoroughly understand the phenomenon prior to making comparison (Alasuutari, 1995; Morse 2003). If this is not considered carefully a critical advisor might pose the question: What was the point of making comparisons of two obviously different non-representative samples? When constructed well, qualitative comparative data may be highly useful for public health intervention because it may describe the context as well as the range of experiences leading to health disparities. The purpose of this article is to discuss the issues researchers might consider when designing studies using qualitative comparisons. In keeping with the purpose of this article, the types of qualitative comparisons found in the extant literature are briefly described. Next, issues researchers might consider prior to designing comparative studies are discussed.