Persson's (2012a) article is concerned with giftedness research in the light of cultural bias with a view to cultural dominance that derives from ethnocentricity. He questions the validity of current research that appears to ignore or sidestep cultural difference and proposes that an agenda for amelioration of such bias lies in greater awareness of causal factors coupled with concrete action. It is a point well taken and Persson substantiates his findings with quantitative data and theoretical discussion of qualitative approaches while drawing upon a variety of disciplines in detail to support his assertions. He points out that because American dominance is so prominent definitions of giftedness, research in giftedness and cultural values are crowded out and subsumed within a global view that is heavily weighted with Western (read American) concepts and other views are shunted aside. In this commentary, the author concludes that the target article had a wide range of implications for the researcher of giftedness in an international context. Persson (2012a) addresses ethnocentricity and provides practical strategies, illuminating the issues and guiding the researcher to appropriate methods for application in the field. The author contends that the best paradigm can only really work if all of the parts are integrated into the process and if the design itself is structured with a dynamic that has inherent flexibility, is responsive to change and refinement, and maintains acutely aware, balanced cultural sensitivity that stands firm against ethnocentricity and dominance. Educators of the gifted will need to take the issues discussed very seriously, and in a changing world, very soon.