Cross-Cultural Child Development for Social Workers

An Introduction

Lena Robinson

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781137607003
• eBook ISBN: 9781350314108
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

This innovative text explains child development from a cross-cultural perspective. Using examples to illuminate key points, it considers a range of topics from attachment to identity and communication to socialization. This is essential reading for social workers at all stages of their careers who want to develop culturally sensitive practice.

1	CROSS-CULTURAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT FOR SOCIAL WORKERS: AN INTRODUCTION

Introduction

In the 2011 Census, the majority of the British population, 48.2 million people (86.0 per cent of the population), reported their ethnic group as White. Within this ethnic group, White British was the largest, with 45.1 million people (80.5 per cent), followed by Any Other White with 2.5 million people (4.4 per cent). White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, while Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 per cent). England and Wales have become more ethnically diverse, with rising numbers of people identifying as part of minority ethnic groups in 2011 (Census, 2011). Indian was the next largest ethnic group with 1.4 million people (2.5 per cent), followed by Pakistani (2.0 per cent). South Asian countries (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) continue to rank highly within the most common non-UK countries of birth. The remaining ethnic groups each accounted for up to 2 per cent of the population in 2011. There were two new tick boxes in the 2011 Census: Gypsy or Irish Traveller and Arab.² Arab accounted for 240,000 usual residents (0.4 per cent of the population). Gypsy or Irish Traveller accounted for 58,000 usual residents (0.1 per cent of the population), making it the smallest ethnic category in 2011.

There is now a considerable proportion of children living in Britain who belong to minority ethnic groups and who differ ethnically and culturally from the majority population. However, there is a dearth of research and literature on the development of minority ethnic children in social work textbooks and professional journals. Some researchers predict that the racial and ethnic minority populations will become a numerical majority by the year 2025, while others expect this to happen by the year 2050 or 2080 (Sue & Sue, 2016).

As British society has become more heterogeneous, cross-cultural effectiveness has emerged as an essential skill for all social workers who work with children and young people. Over the past two decades, social scientists (mainly in the United States) have become increasingly aware of the contributions that cross-cultural research findings can make to our understanding of human development. Little of the current social work literature in Britain has addressed the issue of cross-cultural child development. Articles and books written for social workers on child development are Eurocentric in nature and as a result require considerable adaptation before they can be responsive to some of the needs of black children. Kagitcibasi notes that developmental psychology textbooks ‘tend not to include cultural differences, or they treat them as extraneous variables’ (2007, p. 4).

During the late 1980s, social work education in Britain ‘became increasingly aware of the impact of oppression and discrimination on clients and communities’ (Thompson, 1993, p. 1, 2016). For example, the Central Council for Education and Training of Social Workers (CCETSW) requirements for the DipSW (Diploma in Social Work) award attached a high priority to an anti-discriminatory approach in college and placement teaching and assessment (see CCETSW Paper 30, 1991). The CCETSW document, which outlined the guidance notes for the teaching of childcare in the DipSW course, stressed that ‘all social work students should have a sound knowledge of human growth and development, [and] the significance of race, culture and language in development must be understood’ (CCETSW, 1991, p. 14). Although CCETSW do not state that these theories are psychological or derived from psychology, it is obvious that these theories are psychological (Robinson, 1995, 2012). Anti-discriminatory practice ‘has now become very well established in social work … and is particularly important in view of the increasing inequality’ in society (Thompson, 2016, p. 2). The British Association of Social Work’s Professional Capability Framework (PCF) document presents the Social Work level Professional capabilities that social workers need to practice effectively: The ‘nine domains are interactive – they work together to describe the knowledge, skills and values that social workers need to practice effectively’. Social workers need to

recognise diversity and apply anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive principles in practice Social workers [need to] understand that diversity characterises and shapes human experience and is critical to the formation of identity. Diversity is multidimensional and includes race, disability, class, economic status, age, sexuality, gender and transgender, faith and belief. Social workers [need to] appreciate that, as a consequence of difference, a person’s life experience may include oppression, marginalisation and alienation as well as privilege, power and acclaim, and are able to challenge appropriately. [Social workers need to] demonstrate an initial understanding of difference and diversity within society and the implications of this for social work practice.

The PCF is an overarching professional standards framework, developed by the Social Work Reform Board. It applies to all social workers in England (including independent social workers), in all roles and settings.

The Children Act, 1989 (Department of Health) states that ‘In making any such decision [regarding a child looked after or proposing to be looked after] a local authority shall give due consideration … to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background’ (Section 22(5) (c)). Thus, the ‘race’, culture, language and religion of children and young people must be addressed in the provision of services. Social workers need to consider this when assessing children and families using the framework for assessment of needs (DfE, 2015). In order to meet the needs of and help the development of any child, black or white, it is essential that social workers operate with adequate knowledge, understanding and sensitivity (Robinson, 1998, 2012).

New legislation (Children Act, 2004) was introduced after the death of Victoria Climbie and the Laming Inquiry (Lonne & Parton, 2014). The Children Act 2004 amended the Children Act 1989, largely as a consequence of the Victoria Climbie inquiry. The Act ‘places a responsibility on parents, community and faith groups to safeguard children and to address underlying causes of maltreatment’ (Tedam, 2016, p. 191). It ‘emphasises that the responsibility for safeguarding children falls on all parents, communities, faith and community groups and professionals’ (Bernard and Harris, 2016, p. 13). The Children and Family Act 2014 takes forward a range of government commitments which are intended to improve services for key groups of vulnerable children (children in the adoption and care systems, those affected by decisions of the family courts, and those with special educational needs and disabilities) and to support families in balancing home and work life, particularly when children are very young.

Traditional psychological theories have not had sufficient explanatory power to account for the behaviour of black and minority ethnic children and young black and minority ethnic people. Shiva’s comments are insightful: ‘When knowledge plurality mutated into knowledge hierarchy, the horizontal ordering of diverse but equally valid systems was converted into a vertical ordering of unequal systems, and the epistemological foundations of Western knowledge were imposed on non-Western knowledge systems with the result that the latter were invalidated’ (Shiva, 2000, p. vii).

Studies of child development and behaviour are deficiency based and offer a Eurocentric perspective. There is an absence of appropriate conceptual models or frameworks that address the diversity and strengths of the black and minority ethnic population in Britain and other Western countries. Mainstream child psychology does not usually consider race and race awareness as an important variable in the child’s mental, emotional and personality development (Wilson, 1978). Consequently, psychological theories of personality, intelligence, motivation, learning, language development, self-concept and so forth were standardized on whites and applied to black children. Woodhead (1999) points out that ‘Intelligence testing, maternal deprivation, and cognitive development are but three of many topics in which developmental psychology has shaped beliefs and practices throughout Europe and North America’ (Woodhead, 1999, p. 9).

This book will adopt a cross-cultural, ecological and black perspective. It argues that a conceptual framework that incorporates a cross-cultural, ecological and black perspective for understanding the development of black and minority children is critical to address omissions in existing theoretical formulations and research in the discipline of child development. Pence and Benner (2015, p. 20) argue that to ‘develop a truly global knowledge base, it is not only the “draining of brains” but the “framing of brains” that must be addressed. We can no longer behave as though 5 per cent of the world is a suitable proxy, a generalizable base, for the 95 per cent unheard’.

Cross-cultural psychologists (mainly in the United States) have presented alternative perspectives on black and minority child development (Gardiner, 1994; Greenfield & Cocking, 1994, 2014; Wilson, 1978). A number of psychologists in the United States have recently begun to call for the inclusion of cross-cultural approaches to Western psychology (e.g., Segall et al., 1990). For example, Greenfield argues that ‘Psychology as the science of the individual was born and nourished by the philosophical foundations of individualism … the independent individual is not a universal fact, but a culture specific belief system about the development of a person. There is an alternative belief system that is held by about 70 per cent of the world’s population; it is called interdependence or collectivism’ (Greenfield, 2014, p. 3). He notes that when individuals migrate, ‘the [individualism and collectivism] scripts move with them’ (Greenfield, 2014, p. 8).

However, in Britain there is a lack of research from a cross-cultural perspective. The body of literature representing the deficit view of black and minority children and families has most strongly influenced the professional and personal perceptions of social workers in Britain (see Robinson, 1995, 2012). Cross-cultural perspectives in child development will provide social workers with ‘opportunities to expand their awareness and sensitivity to global similarities and differences in human development and to reduce ethnocentric thinking’ (Gardiner and Kosmitzki, 2014, p. 11).

The failure to include black and minority ethnic children in our conceptual thinking about service delivery has occurred in spite of strong empirical evidence supporting the need to integrate culturally sensitive perspectives in social work research and practice (Chow & Austin, 2008; Davis & Proctor, 1989; Pinderhughes, 1989). As a result, black and minority ethnic children and families are seen by social workers whose standards of behaviour, often perceived as being the norm, have little or nothing to do with designing ways to ensure effective therapeutic outcomes for black children (Fontes, 1995, 2012; Pinderhughes, 1989).

A black psychological perspective (Robinson, 2012) challenges the Eurocentric theoretical formulations and research paradigms that have a potentially oppressive effect on black people. It attempts to build a theoretical model that organizes, explains, and leads to understanding the behaviour of black people. Research knowledge and information from a black psychological perspective on black family life, black children, and young people are vital to the social work profession. Much of the work and research involved in developing a black perspective in psychology was initiated in the United States by black psychologists (Robinson, 1995, 2012). It may be some time before such perspectives are developed and articulated in Britain by psychologists and social workers but, in the meantime, some understanding of current research and theory is needed to guide present understanding, action, and research in Britain.

Some definitions

Throughout this book I use different labels to denote different ethnic and cultural groups. Sometimes I refer to black children, at other times I use the terms ‘minority ethnic children’ or ‘children from different cultural backgrounds’. My choice of a specific label is based on the most appropriate term for the topic being discussed.

Black: The term ‘black’ has direct relevance to the discussion throughout this book and has been used to describe people from South Asian, African, and Caribbean backgrounds. While it is necessary to emphasize the heterogeneity of black people, of equal importance is the consideration of how black people in Britain differ from the white group. In Britain, ‘Asian groups claim they are not “black” as part of their struggle to assert their own particularity in historical, cultural, ethical and linguistical terms’ (Dominelli, 1997, pp. 7–8). This book does not, however, use the term ‘black’ to deny the uniqueness of different ethnic groups. It is used ‘as an inclusive political term to counter the divisive aspects of racism’ (Dominelli, 1997, p. 7). It is not my intention to exclude other groups but to point out that some of the issues concerning these groups also apply to other minority groups (Dominelli, 2008, 2017).

Race: Popular definitions of ‘race’ have conceptualized the term within a biological classification system. However, the validity of ‘race’ as a purely biological variable has been hotly debated and rejected, and ‘race’ has come to have a social and political meaning that, in part, is related to its original assumed biological roots (Yee et al., 1993). Smedley (1993, p. 22) notes that ‘race’

was the cultural invention of arbitrary meaning applied to what appeared to be natural divisions within the human species. The meaning has social value but no intrinsic relationship to biologica diversity itself. Race has a reality created in the human mind, not a reflection of objective truths … the physical differences were a major tool by which the dominant whites constructed and maintained social barriers and economic inequalities; that is, they consciously sought to create social stratification based on visible differences.

Race ‘seems to persist as a sociopolitical phenomenon … and it is commonly accepted as a social reality’ (Fernando, 2017, p. 2).

Ethnicity: A great deal of confusion surrounds the meaning of the term ‘ethnic’ or ‘ethnicity’. Many uses and definitions of the terms can be found in the literature. My usage of the term ‘ethnic group’ parallels Yinger’s (1976, p. 200) definition:

A segment of a larger society whose members are thought, by themselves and/or others, to have a common origin and to share important segments of a common culture and who, in addition, participate in shared activities in which the common origin and culture are significant ingredients.

However, in the United States, ethnicity has been used as a euphemism for ‘race’ when referring to people of colour (that is, those persons whose ostensible ancestry is at least in part African, Asian, Latin American and/or combinations of these groups and/or white or European ancestry) and as a nonracial designation for whites (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993). Similar usages of the term ‘ethnicity’ can be found in Britain. Psychologists usually use the term ‘ethnicity’ as a category to describe differences among people – reporting, for example, ethnic differences in socialization.

Minority ethnic: My use of this term parallels Thoburn et al.’s use of it in their study of family placement for children of minority ethnic origin. Children of minority ethnic origin ‘were born to families who belonged to ethnic groups which are a minority in the UK [US and Western countries] population’ (Thoburn et al., 2000, p. 8).

Culture: The word ‘“culture” denotes a way of life (family life, patterns of behaviour and belief, languages, etc.) but it is important to note that cultures are not static, especially in a community where there are people from several cultures living side by side’ (Fernando, 1995, p. 5). Culture refers to ‘child rearing habits, family systems, and ethical values or attitudes common to a group’ (Fernando, 1991, p. 10).

According to Fernando (1991, 2010, 2017), culture is characterized by behaviour and attitudes; it is determined by upbringing and choice and perceived as changeable (assimilation and acculturation). In contrast to the usual perception of relatively fixed ‘cultures’, Fernando argues that ‘culture’ needs to be considered as something that is subject to a fluidity of movement (Fernando, 1991, 2010, 2017). Indeed, over the last decade the concept of culture has become a subject of critical debate in anthropology; the idea of a stable, bounded and territorially specific culture has been transformed into a conception of culture as fluid, complex, and transnational (Hannerz, 1996; Olwig & Hastrup, 1997).

Although cultural knowledge is important in helping a social worker identify potential conflict areas, he or she must be careful not to apply cultural information in a stereotypic way. White social workers need to identify possible gender differences within black and minority groups. According to Ahmed (1996, p. 126), ‘black [and minority] women negotiate between a number of cultures … the culture of “traditionalists” within black [and minority] communities … [and] the culture of resistance to “traditionalism” … [However,] above all, there is the culture of racism of the dominant society’ (see also Fernando, 2017). Thus, white practitioners also need to examine the impact of racism and discrimination on black child development. Locke (1992, p. 9) notes that ‘Racism and prejudice are inextricably entwined in the oppression of culturally diverse groups in the US [and Britain]. Furthermore, ‘culturally diverse individuals might...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Titlepage
• Titlepage
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1. Cross-Cultural Child Development for Social Workers: An Introduction
• 2. Attachment Theory: Cross-Cultural Perspectives
• 3. Racial/Ethnic Identity Development
• 4. Cognitive Development: Cross-Cultural Perspectives
• 5. Communication: Cross-Cultural Perspectives
• 6. Socialization: Cultural/Racial Influences
• 7. Conclusion
• References
• Index