Shared knowledge and mutual respect: Enhancing culturally competent practice through collaboration with families and communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaboration with families and communities has been identified as one of six overarching principles to speech and language therapists’ (SLTs’) engagement in culturally competent practice (Verdon et al., 2015a). The aim of this study was to describe SLTs’ collaboration with families and communities when engaging in practice to support the speech, language and communication of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The study also aimed to identify the benefits and tensions related to such collaborations and to describe opportunities for SLTs to enhance their cultural competence through collaborative practice. The current study drew upon three data sources collected during the ‘Embracing Diversity – Creating Equality’ study: field notes, narrative reflections by the researcher, and semi-structured interviews with SLTs. This study was conducted in 14 international sites across five countries (Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy and the USA), representing a diverse range of cultural and practice contexts. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT, Engeström, 1987) was used as both an heuristic framework through which the study was conceptualized and as a tool for analysis to describe the varied nature of collaboration in different cultural contexts, the benefits of collaborating with families and communities, and the tensions that can arise when engaging in collaborative practice. The results illuminate the importance of SLTs’ collaboration with families in order to gain an understanding of different cultural expectations and approaches to family involvement, and to build partnerships with families to work towards common goals. Collaboration with communities was highlighted for its ability to both facilitate understanding of children’s cultural context and build respectful, reciprocal relationships that can act as a bridge to overcome often unspoken or invisible tensions arising in cross-cultural practice. The findings of this study highlight opportunities for professionals to enhance the cultural competence of their practice through engagement with families and communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".