Praxis of cross-cultural social work practice (CCSWP): A critical discourse analysis of graduate student and faculty perspectives on cultural competence and relevant constructs

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK
Eunjung Lee, Marjorie Johnstone, Toula Kourgiantakis, Ran Hu, Vivian W. Y. Leung
{"title":"Praxis of cross-cultural social work practice (CCSWP): A critical discourse analysis of graduate student and faculty perspectives on cultural competence and relevant constructs","authors":"Eunjung Lee, Marjorie Johnstone, Toula Kourgiantakis, Ran Hu, Vivian W. Y. Leung","doi":"10.1177/14733250231153047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To examine how social work students and faculty perceive and embody cultural competence, we conducted five focus groups with graduate students ( N = 16) and faculty members ( N = 10) from Canadian schools of social work. We interrogated how different theoretical frameworks related to cross-cultural social work practice (CCSWP) have been circulated and reified in social work education, and how certain dominant frameworks have been translated to embodied cross-cultural interactions in social work practice. To examine the praxis of CCSWP, which is often subtle and embedded in the semantics of languages and discourses, we were informed by critical theories of power, language, and discourses to analyze the data. The interview transcripts of both student and faculty focus groups showed similar dominant discursive patterns: (1) critiquing the conceptual use of cultural competence, (2) having a preference for terms such as cultural humility, cultural safety, or other constructs, and (3) describing the embodied practice of these constructs mainly as a general practice and omitting cross-cultural work. Participants differed in their expressed opposition to cultural competence and the exact terms they preferred as an alternative. Overall, participants discursively changed from a critical debate on semantic and conceptual differences between these constructs to negating them altogether as meaningless, effacing the very notion of cross-cultural social work and its embodied practice. In the end, cultural competence was discounted as both oppressive and anti-oppressive, a position which is reflected in the contested scholarship on cultural competence.","PeriodicalId":47677,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Social Work","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250231153047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To examine how social work students and faculty perceive and embody cultural competence, we conducted five focus groups with graduate students ( N = 16) and faculty members ( N = 10) from Canadian schools of social work. We interrogated how different theoretical frameworks related to cross-cultural social work practice (CCSWP) have been circulated and reified in social work education, and how certain dominant frameworks have been translated to embodied cross-cultural interactions in social work practice. To examine the praxis of CCSWP, which is often subtle and embedded in the semantics of languages and discourses, we were informed by critical theories of power, language, and discourses to analyze the data. The interview transcripts of both student and faculty focus groups showed similar dominant discursive patterns: (1) critiquing the conceptual use of cultural competence, (2) having a preference for terms such as cultural humility, cultural safety, or other constructs, and (3) describing the embodied practice of these constructs mainly as a general practice and omitting cross-cultural work. Participants differed in their expressed opposition to cultural competence and the exact terms they preferred as an alternative. Overall, participants discursively changed from a critical debate on semantic and conceptual differences between these constructs to negating them altogether as meaningless, effacing the very notion of cross-cultural social work and its embodied practice. In the end, cultural competence was discounted as both oppressive and anti-oppressive, a position which is reflected in the contested scholarship on cultural competence.
跨文化社会工作实践(CCSWP):研究生和教师对文化能力和相关构念的批判性话语分析
为了研究社会工作专业的学生和教师如何感知和体现文化能力,我们对来自加拿大社会工作学院的研究生(N = 16)和教师(N = 10)进行了五个焦点小组的研究。我们探讨了与跨文化社会工作实践(CCSWP)相关的不同理论框架是如何在社会工作教育中传播和具体化的,以及某些主导框架是如何在社会工作实践中转化为具体的跨文化互动的。为了研究CCSWP的实践,它通常是微妙的,嵌入在语言和话语的语义中,我们通过权力、语言和话语的批判理论来分析数据。学生和教师焦点小组的访谈记录显示出类似的主导话语模式:(1)批评文化能力的概念使用,(2)偏爱文化谦逊、文化安全或其他构念等术语,以及(3)将这些构念的具体实践主要描述为一般实践,而忽略了跨文化工作。参与者在表达对文化能力的反对意见和他们更喜欢的替代术语方面存在差异。总体而言,参与者从对这些构念之间语义和概念差异的批判性辩论转变为完全否定它们,认为它们毫无意义,抹掉了跨文化社会工作及其具体化实践的概念。最后,文化能力被贬低为压迫性和反压迫性,这一立场反映在关于文化能力的争议学术中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: Qualitative Social Work provides a forum for those interested in qualitative research and evaluation and in qualitative approaches to practice. The journal facilitates interactive dialogue and integration between those interested in qualitative research and methodology and those involved in the world of practice. It reflects the fact that these worlds are increasingly international and interdisciplinary in nature. The journal is a forum for rigorous dialogue that promotes qualitatively informed professional practice and inquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信