Cultural Humility: A Paradigm Shift ThroughGlobal Engagement Experiences

Eloise Hockett, Linda Samek, Scot HeadleyPresented at the ICCTE conference

Azusa Pacific UniversityMay 25, 2012

Who are we?: 3 educators from George Fox University

Global engagement with common global experiences in Kenya

Global Engagement

GFU’s commitment:

Engaging Globally and Connecting Culturally: We value worldwide experiential learning aimed at understanding and improving the human condition. We desire to connect genuinely with people from diverse cultures both locally and globally through relationships and reciprocal teaching and learning. (George Fox University Website)

Collaborative work even at the governmental level

What is the result of our work?

Wrestling with the terminology:Cultural awareness: “...a cognitive function, not necessarily involving an emotional component” (Hardy and Laszlosfly, 1995)

Cultural intelligence: “ a person’s capability for successful adaptations to new cultural settings” (Early & Ang, 2003)

Cultural sensitivity: “a capacity to relate to differences in a manner that is sensitive and respectful....the capacity to respond to culturally different material in a tactful, respectful, and genuine way....invites us to examine the impact of our own culture of origin on our manner of relating to cultural differences” (Hardy and Laszlosfly, 1995)

A Paradigm ShiftCultural Humility

• A lifelong commitment to self-evaluation and self-critique, to redressing the power imbalances in the patient-physician dynamic, and to developing mutually beneficial and nonpaternalistic clinical and advocacy partnerships with communities on behalf of individuals and defined populations (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998).

• Humble reflection on how one’s knowledge is always partial, incomplete, and inevitably biased” (Wear, 2008).

• Reynoso-Vallejo (2009) contrasted cultural competence with humility by equating competence with knowledge and humility with understanding.

Cultural Humility Applied in Education

Reflecting on our experiences:Reflective practice allows for the educator or practitioner to further assess the motives and outcomes of their work, which can lead to further growth and development as a professional. The reflective process involves examining one’s own behaviors and identifying how those behaviors impact our responses and future work (Osterman & Kottman, 1993).

Cultural Humility and Application to Classroom Practice

Reflections of Educator 1• Ausland’s (2010) framework:

– Staying for Tea: building honest relationships– Process Matters: people are at the center of the process– Focus on Values: community vision based on their values– Check your Filter: See Christ in all (names, faces, stories)– Cultivate a Servant’s Heart: eye-level work; keeping our

pride aside

• Focus on relationships: How well do I know my students, their names and stories?

• Teaching holistically-the entire student: head, heart, and hands

• Not making general assumptions about my students

• Careful and intentional listening

Cultural Humility and Application to Personal Worldview

Reflections of Educator 2

Cultural Humility and Participatory Continuum (Corbett and Fikkert, 2009).• Coercion --------------Doing to• Compliance----------Doing for• Consultation---------Doing for• Cooperation---------Doing with

• Co-learning---------------Doing with• Community Initiated---Responding to

Applications

• SOE Diversity Committee: focus of the work• Director of Office of Services to Communities• Challenges Public School policies as related to

gender identification

Cultural Humility

What would be the implications in our classrooms?

References• Ausland, A. (2010). Staying for tea: Five principles for the

community service volunteer. The Global Citizen: A Journal for Young Adults Engaging the World Through Service, 2. Retrieved from www.kristafoundation.org

• Corbett, S. and Fikkert, B. (2009). When helping hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor and yourself. Chicago: Moody Press.

• Early, C.P. & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.

• George Fox University (2012). Mission statement. Retrieved from: http://www.georgefox.edu/about/mission_vision_values/index.html

• Hardy, K. & Laszlosfly, T. (1995). The cultural genogram: Key to training culturally competent family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 227-237.

• Osterman, K.F. & Kottman, R.B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators. Corwin Press: Newbury Park, CA.

• Reynoso-Vallejo, H. (2009). Support Group for Latino Caregivers of Dementia Elders: Cultural Humility and Cultural Competence. Ageing International, 34(1-2), 67-78. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s12126-009-9031-x

• Tervalon, M. & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117-125.

• Wear, D. (2008). On outcomes and humility. Academic Medicine, 83(7), 625-626.

Contact Information

• Eloise Hockett– ehockett@georgefox.edu

• Linda Samek– Lsamek@georgefox.edu

• Scot Headley– sheadley@georgefox.edu