Turner ( 1980) understanding of social science was based on three broad pre-
mises: (1) that all social science is inherently comparative; (2) that the compari-
son is essentially interpretive; and (3) that new explanations derived from broad
comparisons must be inductive. As a logical consequence of such inductive com-
parison, an interpretation of multiple studies must necessarily lose some degree
of specificity in order to gain a needed abstraction of the data as a whole. In
qualitative ethnology, material from each study is compared to all other stud-
ies, and new interpretations are generated ( Naroll, 1968; Naroll, Michik &
Naroll, 1976).

In one sense, findings from such a method of analysis constitute an interpreta-
tion of interpretations ( Noblit & Hare, 1988). The new interpretation is at once
analogical, metaphoric, and idiomatic. It must explain and interpret; it must in-
vite complexity rather than closure. The aim of this study was to be as inclusive
as possible. The research selected for examination spans almost four decades of
cross-cultural training research. Several fields of study are represented: educa-
tion, theology, health care, business, and counseling, as well as research gener-
ated in several organizations, including the U.S. military, the Peace Corps, and
Teacher Corps.

Cross-cultural training program literature meets few standardized research cri-
teria. Opinion papers, recommendations, information analyses, theoretical argu-
ments, course and program descriptions, as well as quantitative and qualitative
studies take on an ill-defined shape. Thus, not all studies consciously or consis-
tently adhere to a single theoretical base, a clearly defined set of variables, or a
particular method of training. In many cases, the inclusion of a control group and
statistical verification are lacking. Discerning which training effects are fully linked
to which causes is often difficult.

Furthermore, this study is limited by the treatment of cross-cultural training as
a generalizable construct, regardless of the field or vocation to which it is ap-
plied. Real differences in job task--not directly considered in this study--may
influence cross-cultural training outcomes. Finally, this study does not include
training literature pertaining to programs outside North America (specifically the
United States) although several countries have examined cross-cultural training
in a variety of occupations. These were eliminated for the sake of brevity. Also,
almost all of the training programs in the United States are offered for middle-
class whites. Because of the preponderance of this research perspective and in
order to maintain design consistency, historical perspectives from other cultures
were not specifically addressed.

Although this study encompasses many organizations and academic disciplines
working in the area of cross-cultural training and research, not all groups are
represented equally. The largest proportion of published research is in the area of

-xvi-