From the article The Pedagogy of discomfort: Enhancing reflectivity on stereotypes and bias

Nadan, Y., & Stark, M. (2016). The pedagogy of discomfort: Enhancing reflectivity on stereotypes and bias. British Journal of Social Work, 47(3), 683-700.

Developing cultural competence in social work education

Developing cultural competence in social work education Over the years, the concept of ‘cultural competence’ has been assigned numerous definitions. According to the American National Association of Social Workers (NASW), this term refers to the process by which individuals and systems respond respectfully and effectively to people of all cultures, languages, classes, races, ethnic backgrounds, religions and other elements of diversity, in a manner that recognizes, affirms and values the worth of individuals, families and communities, and protects and preserves the dignity of each (NASW, 2015). ‘Cultural competence’ is also frequently defined as ‘a set of congruent behaviours, attitudes and policies that come together in a system, agency or among professionals and enable the system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations’ (Cross et al., 1989, p. iv).

Educating social work students to become more culturally competent has traditionally focused on three primary elements (Green, 1999; Sue, 2006; Lum, 2011; NASW, 2015):

1. Awareness: this refers primarily to students’ self-awareness of their own cultural values, beliefs and attitudes, as well as their stereotypes and biases and their emotional and cognitive processing of cross-cultural encounters.

2. Knowledge: pertaining to a specific cultural or ethnic group, depending on the context in which the students are working (such as knowledge regarding the group’s history, norms, traditional cultural characteristics, values, communication styles, behaviours, attitudes, etc.).

3. Skills: the particular interventions developed in congruency with the specific culture of the clients; a rich body of knowledge has evolved around the knowledge and skills required for culturally competent practice with specific groups—often those marked in society as ‘Others’.

Overall, to become culturally competent and to work effectively with diversity, students are expected to possess knowledge about different cultural practices and worldviews, to develop an awareness of their own cultural perspectives, to have a positive attitude towards cultural differences and to develop cross-cultural skills.

The concept of cultural competence has also been the subject of criticism, particularly regarding its focus on the transmission of cultural knowledge and skills. Learning about ‘Others’ brings with it the risk of over-generalization, as well as the risk of overlooking the intersectionality of different categories of difference (such as gender and class) (Crenshaw, 1989) and other personal circumstances and attributes. This, in turn, can lead to stereotypical attitudes towards people and the tendency to ignore their unique needs and life stories (Ben-Ari and Strier, 2010). Moreover, focusing on knowledge transmission among students may foster an essentialist approach towards difference, based on the belief that categories of difference represent ‘real’ objective essence. Such an approach may promote the view of groups as natural, homogenous, static and detached from macro structures (e.g. socio-political context) (Dean, 2001; Williams, 2006). Focusing on the ‘Other’ may therefore run counter to more constructivist educational approaches, which strive to foster student reflectivity (Nadan, 2014). When students are encouraged primarily to gain knowledge about the ‘Other’, they are less challenged to examine their own ‘Self’—that is, their own identities, values and social positions, and their assumptions, attitudes and biases regarding the ‘Other’. In light of this criticism, social work education in recent years has witnessed a growing tendency to place greater emphasis on developing cultural awareness and reflectivity than on the provision of knowledge and skills (Dominelli, 1998; Sisneros et al., 2008; Nadan et al., 2015)."

Reflectivity in social work education 

"Reflectivity in social work education In social work, the concept of reflectivity has received broad attention since the early days of the field and is perceived as a central element of professional training, identity and skills development (Kondrat, 1999). The discussion on reflectivity within social work has been largely influenced by Schon’s (1983) conceptualization of a ‘reflective practitioner’ as one who creates new meanings through observing and analyzing case experiences, either during the experience (reflection in action) or in retrospect (reflection on action).

In the context of multicultural social work education, Sisneros et al. (2008) have argued for developing more critical reflectivity, especially concerning the situation of disadvantaged minority groups in society living under personal, institutional and cultural forces that restrict, oppress, humiliate and prevent them from obtaining equal access to resources and opportunities. The development of critical reflectivity among students is also related to their exploration of their own identities and (largely privileged) social positions and the ways in which these shape their assumptions, attitudes and images with regard to the ‘Other’ (Kondrat, 1999; Nylund, 2006; Abrams and Gibson, 2007; Nadan et al., 2015). It also facilitates knowledge and acknowledgement of the ways in which fears, ignorance and the ‘isms’ (racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, etc.) influence students’ attitudes, beliefs and feelings in both their personal and professional lives (Latting, 1990; NASW, 2015).

Critical reflectivity urges a shift in attention from the ‘Other’ to the ‘Self’ and calls for the exploration of the power relations and white privileges involved in such constructions of the ‘Other’ (Kondrat, 1999; Jeyasingham, 2012). Frankenberg (1993) conceptualises ‘whiteness’ as a location of structural advantage of race privilege; a ‘standpoint’ from which white people view themselves, others and society; and a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed. These critical perspectives, it appears, are generally not given priority in the majority of pedagogical programmes in multicultural social work.

The literature in social work education has employed various pedagogical practices to develop reflectivity among students and practitioners regarding different aspects of human diversity such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, immigration and religion. Segev and Nadan (2016) have suggested the incorporation of pedagogical practices that integrate events from the surrounding reality into classroom learning as a means of developing context-focused reflectivity among students. Some social work programs offer their students the opportunity to take part in inter-group dialogues, which encourage reflectivity with regard to the social construction of the ‘Self’–‘Other’ relationship (Nagda et al., 1999; Nadan et al., 2015).

The development of critical reflectivity is no simple undertaking. It requires the revelation of conceptions, views and emotions that are not always comfortable to confront, particularly when accompanied by a discourse obligating ‘political correctness’. In light of the inherent complexity of the development of reflectivity, it is no surprise that social work students and social work education professionals alike are tempted to circumvent the difficulty and unpleasantness involved with an honest inquiry into the values, inclinations and preconceptions implicated in their own racist, sexist and homophobic views, beliefs and behaviours (Sue, 2006; Abrams and Moio, 2009).

Our experience in the training of social work students indicates that students typically do not feel comfortable voicing opinions that are inconsistent with pluralism, cultural relativism and the acknowledgement of needs of unique groups. Rather, they typically refrain from voicing reservations regarding practices and cultural patterns of behaviour that respect the cultural uniqueness of the ‘Other’ in order to avoid appearing insensitive, judgemental, discriminatory or racist in their own eyes and the eyes of their colleagues.

One means of fostering such reflection is the IAT, which facilitates reflection and discussion in a manner that can contend with possible internal contradictions and with the inherent complexity of examining one’s own perceptions, attitudes and values with regard to the ‘Other’ and the ‘Self’ (Nadan, 2016).