Praxis of cross-cultural social work practice (CCSWP): A critical discourse analysis of graduate student and faculty perspectives on cultural competence and relevant constructs
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.047 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".