Upload
ferdinand-bell
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation in Minority Communities:
Culturally Engaged Evaluation
Anthony J. Alberta
Sonoran Research Group
Collaborators
NDNS4Wellness, American Indian Prevention Coalition
Bonny Beach, John Whiteshirt, Jr., John Whiteshirt, Sr.,
Boyd Tsosie,Sr., Boyd Tsosie, Jr.
Larry Robinson, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Elizabeth Stadick, Valle del Sol
Ramon Valle, San Diego State University
Sonoran Evaluation Group
Molita Yazzie
Acknowledgements
The presentation of these ideas is meant to convey my personal respect for the cultures, communities and people who have allowed us to work with them to develop new ways of knowing.
I specifically intend to speak about my experiences trying to integrate indigenous wisdom and scientific knowledge, not to speak for anyone with whom we have worked.
Limitations
United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Center for Mental Health Services
Grant Numbers
TI13309, TI4254, TI14051, SMS4814
Financial Acknowledgements
Western European Culture: The culture of the industrialized democracies of central and northern Europe, identified by belief in humankind as dominant in the world.
Western European Science: The positivist, reductionist approach to the creation of knowledge through the application of specific, predefined methodologies documented through written communications.
Definitions
(My primary experience is with U.S. variant of Western European Culture)
Definitions
Indigenous Culture: The culture of agrarian or labor-based communities identified by belief in humankind as having a place in the world.
Indigenous Wisdom: The body of knowledge gained through the experience of a community in the world and maintained through an oral tradition.
Definitions
Minority Community: A social unit whose access to power/resources is limited because their physical and cultural attributes do not conform to those established as “normal”, “good”, or “right” by a dominant community.
Dominant Community: A social unit who have asserted control over definitions of “normal”, “good”, or “right” and use these definitions as the basis for allocating power/resources.
“I came, I saw, I conquered.”
Julius Caesar
During the past twenty years, a rich literature concerning the affects of culture on the outcomes associated with behavioral health interventions.
Sue, D. W., et al, 1982; Cross et al., 1989; Isaacs & Benjamin, 1991; Davis, 1997.
Culturally Engaged Evaluation
This work relies on a now widely recognized tripartite model of cultural competence through:
Culturally Engaged Evaluation
Awareness of Cultural Differences
Knowledge of Another Culture
Specific Skills for Acting Competently
In more recent literature, a number of authors have noted the value of recognizing communities’ strengths and the necessary role that members of minority communities must play in the definition of cultural competence.
Delgado, 1998; Reynolds, 2001; Sue, 2001
These same concepts can inform our practice of evaluation in communities with cultural foundations outside that of the
dominant, western European culture.
Culturally Engaged Evaluation
Affective Communication
Relationship Building
Diunital Reasoning
Customs and Practices
Model Management
Acknowledgment of Wisdom
Culturally Engaged Evaluation
Shared Findings
Community-based Oversight
Affective Communication
Although many authors refer to communication skills as a necessary component of culturally competent interactions, these references typify the “specific skill” approach referred to above.
Affective Communication
Thomason (1991) for example, describes a specific approach to initiating counseling with American Indians;
Delgado (1998) refers to the importance of language and other methods of conveying thought and meaning in Latino culture
Locke (1989) discusses specific methods for addressing differences in speech patterns between African-American children and school counselors.
Affective Communication
Culturally engaged evaluation calls for the use of observation to adopt the communication style of the people or person immediately at hand.
Evaluators should attempt to emulate the tone of voice, use of hand gestures, amount of eye contact, pace of speech, and voice volume of the group s/he is working with.
Note that the model does not call for the evaluator to mimic the communication style of the others, but to emulate it – to try to bring her/his own behavior in line with that of the people s/he is working with, instead of attempting to precisely act it out
Affective Communication
The model refers to “affective communication” because language represents both an important aspect of cultural competence and, at times, an overrated one.
This example also demonstrates the difference between cultural competence (the ability to speak the language of another culture) and cultural engagement (the ability to effectively interact with members of an unfamiliar culture).
Affective Communication
Members of different cultural groups, for example, may share a language but still experience a sense of disaffection in their relationships with one another.
Relationship Building
Indigenous cultures, on the other hand, tend to rely more heavily on personal relationships as the foundation for professional relationships (Ramirez, 1998, pp 18 - 21).
Western European culture presupposes the development of professional relationships based on credentials, market-based criteria and other “objective” factors
Relationship Building
At times, evaluators confuse “methodology” with “objectivity”.
Western European science requires evaluators to use a specific, pre-defined methodology. It does not require us to have no interest in the outcomes of our work.
Evaluators seeking to practice successfully in multi-cultural situations, then, should consciously set out to establish personal relationships with members of the communities in which they work.
Relationship Building
Within Culturally Engaged Evaluation, we recognize our ethical obligation to methodology, not objectivity.
Described by Myers (1988), diunital reasoning is the skill of recognizing the validity of two competing, even exclusionary, world views. In some of the cross-cultural psychological literature diunital reasoning is sometimes known as cognitive dissonance (Valle, 1998).
Diunital Reasoning
Evaluators can use a number of resources to develop an understanding of the customs and practices of a culture other than their own.
Any of these sources may provide either erroneous information, or information that does not accurately describe the practices of a particular subgroup of some larger cultural group.
Customs and Practices
As a result, evaluators cannot rely solely on any source outside the members of a specific cultural milieu as they enter culturally unfamiliar territory.
In Culturally Engaged Evaluation, understanding customs and practices begins with observation. Within the model, observation consists of three distinct components:
Customs and Practices
BE HUMBLE
Identifying patterns of behavior;
Using the information to enlarge one’s understanding of the world view supported by the culture (Valle, 1998).
Identifying the values and expectations that underlie the behavior;
Community-based Oversight
Members of the community involved in the Evaluation are best suited to provide oversight of participant protection activities.
Institutional Review Boards and Ethics Committees with a majority of members who share the cultural/ethnic/racial background of study participants can inform the oversight process.
The requirement to avoid conflicts of interest usually precludes participation on IRB’s/EC’s by people from the community actually involved in the Evaluation.
Community-based Oversight
Community-based advisory groups comprised of members of the community involved in the evaluation can help select methods, review instruments, and guide evaluators as they work in the community.
Members of the advisory group may also become involved in letting community members know about the evaluation – it’s purpose, what it means for the services, and what it means for the community.
“I’m trying to figure out how to work your science thing into what I know to be true
about the world.”
Boyd Tsosie, Sr.
Acknowledge Wisdom
Acknowledge Wisdom
Indigenous communities have always created knowledge.
That’s “knowledge”, not “folklore”.
Acknowledge Wisdom
Fire
Hammers
Blades
Wheels
This knowledge has included individual technological innovations such as:
Levers
Acknowledge Wisdom
As well as entire fields of knowledge, including things like:
Agriculture
Ceramics
Cooking
Weaving
Astronomy
Engineering
Education
The teleological, holistic and collectivist approach of indigenous healing practices capitalizes on the demonstrated role of expectation, belief, and human relationship in the healing process.
Acknowledge Wisdom
Indigenous cultures also developed knowledge with regard to healing practices.
1. 50% of the effect of anti-depressants has nothing to do with the medication.
'Listening to Prozac but Hearing Placebo' Sapirstein and Kirsch, presented at the 104th convention of the American Psychological Association, 1996.
2. Open administration makes pain killers work better.
Response Variability to Analgesics... Amanzio et al, Pain, 90 (2001) 205-15.
Acknowledge Wisdom
Acknowledge Wisdom
What’s my point?
Asking community members to share their community’s wisdom with us – and incorporating that wisdom into our work - begins to address the power imbalance that defines relationships between “majority” and “minority” community members.
Indigenous knowledge is as valid and legitimate as scientifically derived knowledge.
Grounding Evaluation in the knowledge base of the communities in which we work will enhance the relevance of the our work in those communities.
Acknowledge Wisdom
Applying Culturally Engaged Evaluation, then, may lead to the development of new ways of knowing through the integration of indigenous and scientific knowledge.
Share Findings
Share data with community members on a regular basis. This sharing should include involving community members in the interpretation of findings.
One might think of the model as a circle, with each of the skills fused with the others and forming a whole. Failure to employ one of the skills will break the circle and significantly reduce one’s ability to conduct culturally engaged practice.
Model Management
Culturally Engaged Evaluation
Relationship Building
Customs and Practices
Acknowledgment of Wisdom
Community-based Oversight
Affective Communication
Diunital Reasoning
Model Management
Shared Findings
Anthony J. Alberta
602-369-0075
www.sonoranresearchgroup.com