PhD/PsyD Multiculturalism's role in psychology? Strengths/weaknesses/critiques/questions

[calimich]

@Fan_of_Meehl: I don't follow what you mean by 'rigging the game', can you elaborate?

@smalltownpsych: are you referring to the "relapse is part of recovery" belief? I'd love to read your study.

It seems we (broadly) are finding consensus on the need to both better define terms/ensure scientific methodology AND engage in investigation of phenomena disproportionately affecting persons of color. It seems we're also agreeing that most contemporary training models lack robust research/clinical training addressing the aforementioned issues.

I have suggested (and was socialized to believe during my training program) that counseling psych has devoted more resources to these topics than clinical psych. Thoughts? Are these types of questions and phenomena more likely to be addressed by counseling psychologists and are we (counseling psychs) more likely to be reinforced and rewarded by institutions/peers than are clinical psychologists for investigating the same issues?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smalltownpsych]

@Fan_of_Meehl: I don't follow what you mean by 'rigging the game', can you elaborate?

@smalltownpsych: are you referring to the "relapse is part of recovery" belief? I'd love to read your study.

It seems we (broadly) are finding consensus on the need to both better define terms/ensure scientific methodology AND engage in investigation of phenomena disproportionately affecting persons of color. It seems we're also agreeing that most contemporary training models lack robust research/clinical training addressing the aforementioned issues.

I have suggested (and was socialized to believe during my training program) that counseling psych has devoted more resources to these topics than clinical psych. Thoughts? Are these types of questions and phenomena more likely to be addressed by counseling psychologists and are we (counseling psychs) more likely to be reinforced and rewarded by institutions/peers than are clinical psychologists for investigating the same issues?

That would be a good example of something that is not part of the AA culture. There are other concepts such as powerlessness, surrender, and spirituality that are used as wedges between professionals and AA. My research was mainly focused on the attitudes of AA members towards professionals and barriers to working together more effectively. One thing that I have seen is that AA tends to fit very well with a motivational interviewing approach as both recognize the importance of the addict coming to their own place of readiness to change.

 

[deleted343839]

I have suggested (and was socialized to believe during my training program) that counseling psych has devoted more resources to these topics than clinical psych. Thoughts? Are these types of questions and phenomena more likely to be addressed by counseling psychologists and are we (counseling psychs) more likely to be reinforced and rewarded by institutions/peers than are clinical psychologists for investigating the same issues?

Even if there were some truth in broad strokes to what you're saying, what matters is whether training models make a difference in what graduates actually do when they become independent professionals. If there are any data to suggest that cross-cultural competencies or practices differ between clinical and counseling psychologists, I'd be very interested to know about those studies.

Since there are both clinical and counseling psychologists who devote their careers to understanding cross-cultural psychological phenomena and to making psychological services more accessible/valid/acceptable/effective for underserved populations, I don't think it is just a matter of different incentives. If there are any differences in cultural competencies or practices (I doubt it but I could be wrong), I think you might have to reach back even farther to look at who matriculates into counseling and clinical programs and their reasons for entering the field. Some people will undergo radical transformations in their outlook on social issues during grad school, but most won't.

 

[473912]

I hate the term "people of color". For some reason it makes my right eye twitch.

I think the best thing we can do is comprehensive research on the issue so we can accurately find the problem, attribute a cause and find a proper solution if one even exists. Articles I've read on these issues always seem to skip several steps and just leap to a conclusion, which in turn makes my left eye I twitch.

1) We have to prove a problem. We shouldn't say "_____ people were historically persecuted this way, therefore they're obviously persecuted the same way." The problem I have with research on disparity is that they only look at outcomes as percent of ___ in a field. They want parity and not equality. That's lazy, counterproductive, and ignores all kinds of confounds. 51% of firefighters will never be women just like 49% of midwives will never be men. The same is true for other professions and fields. There has also been countless laws making discrimination black and white illegal. They're by no means perfectly effective, but they do exist. We are not all tabula rasa... equally able (or equally enthusiastic) for all roles until environment comes in.

2) We have to prove a cause. This is also where I (and others on this thread) run into the problem with poor definitions of proposed problems.

3) Think about solutions to the cause. If a proven problem is SES based, then there isn't much clinical psych will be able to do about it in our day to day. If it's interpersonal and we see a trend, maybe we can help stamp that out while in therapy. Of course we can always protest, but I don't think protests do nearly as much good as they did back in the day. That's for another post. We could lobby for some SES program, but when it comes to money, we might as well jump off the battleship, into the water, and try to adjust its course that way.

If we skimp on any of these steps, we'll come to poor conclusion and create poor solutions. It ain't the 50's and 60's where the persecution spoke for itself and was obvious and the goals and outcomes were self-evident. We have to approach situations much more carefully, and with an eye for nuance.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I hate the term "people of color". For some reason it makes my right eye twitch.

I think the best thing we can do is comprehensive research on the issue so we can accurately find the problem, attribute a cause and find a proper solution if one even exists. Articles I've read on these issues always seem to skip several steps and just leap to a conclusion, which in turn makes my left eye I twitch.

1) We have to prove a problem. We shouldn't say "_____ people were historically persecuted this way, therefore they're obviously persecuted the same way." The problem I have with research on disparity is that they only look at outcomes as percent of ___ in a field. They want parity and not equality. That's lazy, counterproductive, and ignores all kinds of confounds. 51% of firefighters will never be women just like 49% of midwives will never be men. The same is true for other professions and fields. There has also been countless laws making discrimination black and white illegal. They're by no means perfectly effective, but they do exist. We are not all tabula rasa... equally able (or equally enthusiastic) for all roles until environment comes in.

2) We have to prove a cause. This is also where I (and others on this thread) run into the problem with poor definitions of proposed problems.

3) Think about solutions to the cause. If a proven problem is SES based, then there isn't much clinical psych will be able to do about it in our day to day. If it's interpersonal and we see a trend, maybe we can help stamp that out while in therapy. Of course we can always protest, but I don't think protests do nearly as much good as they did back in the day. That's for another post. We could lobby for some SES program, but when it comes to money, we might as well jump off the battleship, into the water, and try to adjust its course that way.

If we skimp on any of these steps, we'll come to poor conclusion and create poor solutions. It ain't the 50's and 60's where the persecution spoke for itself and was obvious and the goals and outcomes were self-evident. We have to approach situations much more carefully, and with an eye for nuance.

Makes my eyes twitch too. I wonder if it really is clinical psychology's role to address societal issues. What I mean by that is we tend to focus on helping individuals. On the other hand, I do believe that by doing that effectively we help society as well. Doesn't fear drive much of the racism in our society and thus wouldn't empowerment and self-efficacy diminish that? Social psychology shows that the quickest way to break down the barriers between prejudiced groups is to put them on the same "team" and give them a common goal. When I was a child living overseas I didn't see much interracial prejudice between Americans because of that dynamic. Of course, we were more prejudiced against the non-Americans especially since they did things "wrong" i.e., not the way we did them.

 

[Ollie123]

I have suggested (and was socialized to believe during my training program) that counseling psych has devoted more resources to these topics than clinical psych. Thoughts? Are these types of questions and phenomena more likely to be addressed by counseling psychologists and are we (counseling psychs) more likely to be reinforced and rewarded by institutions/peers than are clinical psychologists for investigating the same issues?

As with most things, I think the answer is "It depends". The overlap between counseling and clinical is far more extensive nowadays than it was in the past. I do think counseling has retained some of its historical focuses on more "normative" experiences (for lack of a better word) whereas clinical remains a bit closer to the medical model...but all of that is a matter of degree and is highly divergent across programs. You are probably less likely to find someone in a clinical program whose focus is explicitly on examining the association between poverty and race relative to a counseling program. Same goes for educational disparities (though this is confounded by the fact that many counseling psych depts are located in schools of education). Yet topics like health disparities, mental health system engagement, cultural differences in presentation, etc. would all fit very much within the clinical psych and I'm certain be welcomed with open arms in many departments.

 

[QAsPsych]

I hate the term "people of color". For some reason it makes my right eye twitch.

I think the best thing we can do is comprehensive research on the issue so we can accurately find the problem, attribute a cause and find a proper solution if one even exists. Articles I've read on these issues always seem to skip several steps and just leap to a conclusion, which in turn makes my left eye I twitch.

1) We have to prove a problem. We shouldn't say "_____ people were historically persecuted this way, therefore they're obviously persecuted the same way." The problem I have with research on disparity is that they only look at outcomes as percent of ___ in a field. They want parity and not equality. That's lazy, counterproductive, and ignores all kinds of confounds. 51% of firefighters will never be women just like 49% of midwives will never be men. The same is true for other professions and fields. There has also been countless laws making discrimination black and white illegal. They're by no means perfectly effective, but they do exist. We are not all tabula rasa... equally able (or equally enthusiastic) for all roles until environment comes in.

2) We have to prove a cause. This is also where I (and others on this thread) run into the problem with poor definitions of proposed problems.

3) Think about solutions to the cause. If a proven problem is SES based, then there isn't much clinical psych will be able to do about it in our day to day. If it's interpersonal and we see a trend, maybe we can help stamp that out while in therapy. Of course we can always protest, but I don't think protests do nearly as much good as they did back in the day. That's for another post. We could lobby for some SES program, but when it comes to money, we might as well jump off the battleship, into the water, and try to adjust its course that way.

If we skimp on any of these steps, we'll come to poor conclusion and create poor solutions. It ain't the 50's and 60's where the persecution spoke for itself and was obvious and the goals and outcomes were self-evident. We have to approach situations much more carefully, and with an eye for nuance.

There are very large mental health disparities which it falls to the mental health communities to at least consider, if not solve. Specific populations having three + times the rate of suicide in comparison to other groups does seem like a thing clinical psychology should be concerned with. I don't believe this is comparable to the % of male midwives.

Causes are often well understood. Early life stressors are well proven, and some for certain populations relate to issues which are solvable through therapy or through contact with services in the community (e.g. the individual's responses to bullying, school & counseling psychologists addressing / intervening on bullying, bolstering identity and comfort with identity).

I'm sorry that I am not more specific in this thread but talking in specifics about the populations I work with/on would eliminate my anonymity. Given the broad sweeping inaccurate generalizations everyone else is using I am pretty comfortable with it.

 

[473912]

There are very large mental health disparities which it falls to the mental health communities to at least consider, if not solve. Specific populations having three + times the rate of suicide in comparison to other groups does seem like a thing clinical psychology should be concerned with. I don't believe this is comparable to the % of male midwives.

Causes are often well understood. Early life stressors are well proven, and some for certain populations relate to issues which are solvable through therapy or through contact with services in the community (e.g. the individual's responses to bullying, school & counseling psychologists addressing / intervening on bullying, bolstering identity and comfort with identity).

I'm sorry that I am not more specific in this thread but talking in specifics about the populations I work with/on would eliminate my anonymity. Given the broad sweeping inaccurate generalizations everyone else is using I am pretty comfortable with it.

I'm talking about multi-cultural and social justice issues. You're talking mental illnesses. Apples and oranges. And you seem to have missed my midwife point entirely if that's your rebuttal.

 

[QAsPsych]

This is a forum about psychology, primarily clinical/counseling psychology. We are/were talking about social justice and multicultural issues in the context of mental health treatment and research.

 

[473912]

This is a forum about psychology, primarily clinical/counseling psychology. We are/were talking about social justice and multicultural issues in the context of mental health treatment and research.

lol, nevermind.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Regarding methodology in multicultural work, I do think it's an issue. Ancedotally, I presented at a competitive conference this year with a multicultural focus, and I counted only maybe 2 or 3 presentations in the program that actually reported the results of a study (full disclosure: mine wasn't one of them). I was kind of shocked.

Much of my work could be broadly termed as multicultural (I study primarily a specific minority population), and I've had to say at times, "yeah, the theory and conceptualization is super important, but shouldn't we be collecting data (quantitative, qualitative, both)?" Like everything else in psychology, multicultural work should be grounded in science, not a feels-based exception to the general rule. That science should definitely take cultural aspects into account, but data should be the driving force, IMO. I also think that there can be pressure not to report "bad" or "good" results about certain groups and phenomena, and I think that's dangerous. If poor methods yield harmful results, they should be discredited and countered with better data obtained through better methodology, not simply dismissed because the conclusion is unsettling. We need to attack bad science and any harmful results it yields with better, more thorough, etc., science, not just feels.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Someone asked earlier what I meant by 'rigging the game' in terms of treating some data/results 'more equally than others'...futureapppsy2's post above is an astute articulation of what I meant.

When data/findings are judged in terms of their 'goodness' or 'badness' or 'offensiveness' or 'justice/unfairness' or 'political correctness' rather than on substantive grounds such as: (1) do the methods that were used to measure and quantify the dependent variable truly represent the construct that is the object of study? (2) are there alternative ways of measuring this construct? How well does this measure correlate with those measures? (3) Does this measure predict anything meaningful (i.e., does it predict who will or will not respond to a particular treatment?); and, most importantly, do our findings/results truly support (or fail to support, even refute) the study hypotheses under investigation?

...then we are in very dangerous territory indeed.

I am reminded of the incident several years ago where some social scientists were studying the long term effects of sexual abuse in childhood and they found, as an objective fact, that these kids actually were pretty resilient later on in life (more so than one would think). Somehow, this got twisted into the authors 'condoning sexual victimization of children' or some such nonsense to the point where the United States Congress passed legislation condemning the study results (for being what they were). As I recall the APA also caved under the political pressure (can't remember exactly what they did, but I think it involved having the journal print a retraction or something).

When the results that corroborate your worldview are deemed 'good' (because they corroborate your worldview and political agenda) but results that fail to corroborate your worldview are deemed 'bad' or 'unjust' (because they do not corroborate your worldview and political agenda), you're practicing politics, rhetoric, and sophistry...not science.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Someone asked earlier what I meant by 'rigging the game' in terms of treating some data/results 'more equally than others'...futureapppsy2's post above is an astute articulation of what I meant.

When data/findings are judged in terms of their 'goodness' or 'badness' or 'offensiveness' or 'justice/unfairness' or 'political correctness' rather than on substantive grounds such as: (1) do the methods that were used to measure and quantify the dependent variable truly represent the construct that is the object of study? (2) are there alternative ways of measuring this construct? How well does this measure correlate with those measures? (3) Does this measure predict anything meaningful (i.e., does it predict who will or will not respond to a particular treatment?); and, most importantly, do our findings/results truly support (or fail to support, even refute) the study hypotheses under investigation?

...then we are in very dangerous territory indeed.

I am reminded of the incident several years ago where some social scientists were studying the long term effects of sexual abuse in childhood and they found, as an objective fact, that these kids actually were pretty resilient later on in life (more so than one would think). Somehow, this got twisted into the authors 'condoning sexual victimization of children' or some such nonsense to the point where the United States Congress passed legislation condemning the study results (for being what they were). As I recall the APA also caved under the political pressure (can't remember exactly what they did, but I think it involved having the journal print a retraction or something).

When the results that corroborate your worldview are deemed 'good' (because they corroborate your worldview and political agenda) but results that fail to corroborate your worldview are deemed 'bad' or 'unjust' (because they do not corroborate your worldview and political agenda), you're practicing politics, rhetoric, and sophistry...not science.

You're thinking of the Rind et al. controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy). We also discuss it here a bit, in this old thread dedicated to a widely criticized systematic review of same-sex parenting: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/auditor-on-gay-parenting-research-its-bs.936773/

 

[deleted343839]

When data/findings are judged in terms of their 'goodness' or 'badness' or 'offensiveness' or 'justice/unfairness' or 'political correctness' rather than on substantive grounds such as: (1) do the methods that were used to measure and quantify the dependent variable truly represent the construct that is the object of study? (2) are there alternative ways of measuring this construct? How well does this measure correlate with those measures? (3) Does this measure predict anything meaningful (i.e., does it predict who will or will not respond to a particular treatment?); and, most importantly, do our findings/results truly support (or fail to support, even refute) the study hypotheses under investigation?

...then we are in very dangerous territory indeed.

I agree, but that's not the whole picture. Methodological rigor is, of course, a necessity. However, as people presumably in this field for something other than selfish reasons, we're obliged to think about the broader audience for our work and what it would mean for our findings to catch the eye of someone in a position of authority or influence. You might call that "political correctness," but I call it potential for impact.

You have a worldview too. It might not be your next door neighbor's worldview, but it influences the questions you ask and how you ask them. You are no more an ideologically pure, positivist truth-hound than I am an orthopedic surgeon. As a reminder that we rely on our feeble human minds to generate research questions, I give you Exhibit A: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015257004839#page-1

I agree with what you've said, but if we are aiming to serve some interests outside our profession it's not unreasonable to consider our own motives, why we are studying ABC rather than XYZ, and the potential the unintended consequences of our work. Nor, on the other hand, should we be afraid of acting on our own bull**** detectors. We can do all of those things while also demanding rigor and quality in how data are collected, reported, and interpreted.

 

[calimich]

Thanks for those links futureapppsy2! They seem to evidence what someone mentioned earlier – essentially that ‘rigging the deck’ can, and does happen throughout scientific inquiry. I was going to say more, however MamaPhD captured what I was trying to formulate. It seems addressing/acknowledging/becoming aware of our own biases is crucial, which, I believe is one hallmark of contemporary multicultural training.

One thing that caught my eye in the gay parenting thread was a comment suggesting social scientists ought to engage the media. I think that is what I was feeling when I wrote the ‘out of touch, elitist’ comment. Perhaps our work (social scientists), because we deal with complex human behavior, requires a level of public engagement not as necessary in other fields which deal with issues farther from human behavior/thoughts (e.g., mechanical engineering) <-- no offense intended to mechanical engineers!

 

[smalltownpsych]

There are very large mental health disparities which it falls to the mental health communities to at least consider, if not solve. Specific populations having three + times the rate of suicide in comparison to other groups does seem like a thing clinical psychology should be concerned with. I don't believe this is comparable to the % of male midwives.

Causes are often well understood. Early life stressors are well proven, and some for certain populations relate to issues which are solvable through therapy or through contact with services in the community (e.g. the individual's responses to bullying, school & counseling psychologists addressing / intervening on bullying, bolstering identity and comfort with identity).

I'm sorry that I am not more specific in this thread but talking in specifics about the populations I work with/on would eliminate my anonymity. Given the broad sweeping inaccurate generalizations everyone else is using I am pretty comfortable with it.

I do a lot of clinical work with a population that has an incredibly high rate of psychological difficulties as a result of centuries of systematic abuse, genocide, cultural suppression, and continued segregationist policies by our nation of "free white men". What has been perpetrated is abhorrent and the children continue to suffer tremendously as a result of how these problems persist through generations. Trust me, I get it because these kids are in my office and in my community and they fill up the ER and the jails and it is a nightmare to try and remedy this situation. We, clinical psychologists, know what works for kids and clinical psychologists need to be more involved in the educational process because that is one of the most likely avenues of intervention. Unfortunately, the schools are run by politicians in league with academics who have no real understanding of child development and learning. They continue to perpetrate the myth that some new didactic educational strategy that just increases the teachers' stress level is going to make the difference for these kids. We know what kids need: a safe and stable environment and relationships. Everything else comes from that. Or maybe we can just increase their access to psychotropic medications. Cause that will solve their justifiable rage against a world that has given them a raw deal.

 

[calimich]

We know what kids need: a safe and stable environment and relationships.

This. I hold a lifetime secondary science teaching credential and was a high school science teacher for 6 years in a high needs, low SES, racially heterogeneous district before going to doc school. In my teacher training very little time was devoted to helping/training/educating prospective teachers on how to build relationships, especially with kids who came from extremely different background than the vast majority of the teaching candidates. The multicultural classes were focused on what we've described in this thread -- "X demographic of students need to be taught 'this' way." Recently, for ~10 years, teacher educators have realized this potential weakness and have asked for help training teachers, specifically around interpersonal skills/relationship building. Kind of our 'common factor' stuff. IMO, and supported by Vygotsky among others, relationship is a vehicle for education/wellness.

"We, clinical psychologists, know what works for kids and clinical psychologists need to be more involved in the educational process because that is one of the most likely avenues of intervention" <-- Counseling psychologists are well trained and need to be more involved too! In fact, this is a debate within our subfield -- "returning to our roots" within public education.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This. I hold a lifetime secondary science teaching credential and was a high school science teacher for 6 years in a high needs, low SES, racially heterogeneous district before going to doc school. In my teacher training very little time was devoted to helping/training/educating prospective teachers on how to build relationships, especially with kids who came from extremely different background than the vast majority of the teaching candidates. The multicultural classes were focused on what we've described in this thread -- "X demographic of students need to be taught 'this' way." Recently, for ~10 years, teacher educators have realized this potential weakness and have asked for help training teachers, specifically around interpersonal skills/relationship building. Kind of our 'common factor' stuff. IMO, and supported by Vygotsky among others, relationship is a vehicle for education/wellness.

"We, clinical psychologists, know what works for kids and clinical psychologists need to be more involved in the educational process because that is one of the most likely avenues of intervention" <-- Counseling psychologists are well trained and need to be more involved too! In fact, this is a debate within our subfield -- "returning to our roots" within public education.

I was including really all doctoral level psychologists. I was mainly differentiating between "school psychologists" who are MA level and other types of counselors who have a variety of credentials or lack of credentials. My own experience woprking in schools tells me that is not a sufficient level of training to work with our kids. Many of which have serious clinical issues.

 

[473912]

Regarding methodology in multicultural work, I do think it's an issue. Ancedotally, I presented at a competitive conference this year with a multicultural focus, and I counted only maybe 2 or 3 presentations in the program that actually reported the results of a study (full disclosure: mine wasn't one of them). I was kind of shocked.

Much of my work could be broadly termed as multicultural (I study primarily a specific minority population), and I've had to say at times, "yeah, the theory and conceptualization is super important, but shouldn't we be collecting data (quantitative, qualitative, both)?" Like everything else in psychology, multicultural work should be grounded in science, not a feels-based exception to the general rule. That science should definitely take cultural aspects into account, but data should be the driving force, IMO. I also think that there can be pressure not to report "bad" or "good" results about certain groups and phenomena, and I think that's dangerous. If poor methods yield harmful results, they should be discredited and countered with better data obtained through better methodology, not simply dismissed because the conclusion is unsettling. We need to attack bad science and any harmful results it yields with better, more thorough, etc., science, not just feels.

*raises glass*

 

[Goobernut]

Time out is a punishment if and only if it reduces the likely that the behavior will occur again--the intervention itself may, in fact, be a reinforcer, as in the case of escape-maintained behavior . Any consequence can be a reinforcer or punisher--though the likelihood may differ--so looking at function is key.

(Also, hi, @cara susanna! I'm another third wave behaviorist, albeit in a program with very strong strict behavioral leanings. )

I was reading through this thread hoping someone would bring this up. As I understand it, you can't truly classify something as punishment or reinforcement until you can measure or quantify it's results on the target behavior for the individual. In some contexts spanking is reinforcement because it does not decrease the target behavior, but instead increases it.

 

[473912]

I am reminded of the incident several years ago where some social scientists were studying the long term effects of sexual abuse in childhood and they found, as an objective fact, that these kids actually were pretty resilient later on in life (more so than one would think). Somehow, this got twisted into the authors 'condoning sexual victimization of children' or some such nonsense to the point where the United States Congress passed legislation condemning the study results (for being what they were). As I recall the APA also caved under the political pressure (can't remember exactly what they did, but I think it involved having the journal print a retraction or something).

This reminds me of an program I listened to about the lack of funding of pedophilia research because it's such a icky topic, no company or government organization or anyone wants their name next to "pedophilia research" into causes and treatments. Therefore, that field isn't anywhere near where it should be at this time. It's really sad when science and knowledge takes a backseat to "feels" and advertising in this case.

 

[calimich]

Based on # of page views in a week seems like folks on this board are interested in this discussion.

What do folks think about the idea of including more introspective (e.g., Who am I as a cultural being?) pedagogy as part of psychologists' multicultural training? Thus supplementing the "learning about the other" approach (e.g., With X population, use this intervention).

 

[smalltownpsych]

Based on # of page views in a week seems like folks on this board are interested in this discussion.

What do folks think about the idea of including more introspective (e.g., Who am I as a cultural being?) pedagogy as part of psychologists' multicultural training? Thus supplementing the "learning about the other" approach (e.g., With X population, use this intervention).

I like that concept. I also hate being lumped in as some generic Euro-American white male as though that is who I am. It is almost akin to lumping all Hispanics or Asians together. I am not a WASP and my relatives from southern Europe arrived in the US a couple of generations ago. In some ways my perspective has more in common with other ethnic minorities than I do with families who have been in the US for centuries, but then again I am treated as a white male with whatever privileges that entails. Although I don't really feel "privileged" and struggle with that concept because I believe I have had to work pretty damn hard for my accomplishments and have also overcome a lot of obstacles.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Based on # of page views in a week seems like folks on this board are interested in this discussion.

What do folks think about the idea of including more introspective (e.g., Who am I as a cultural being?) pedagogy as part of psychologists' multicultural training? Thus supplementing the "learning about the other" approach (e.g., With X population, use this intervention).

This is good in theory, but I think it has the potential to turn into the oppression olympics easily if not well-managed. Also, it may lead to uncomfortable levels of self-disclosure, depending on the situation (e.g., I'm not straight, but many of our faculty are.... not LGBT-supportive and yeah, I'm not going to disclose that).

 

[calimich]

This is good in theory, but I think it has the potential to turn into the oppression olympics easily if not well-managed. Also, it may lead to uncomfortable levels of self-disclosure, depending on the situation (e.g., I'm not straight, but many of our faculty are.... not LGBT-supportive and yeah, I'm not going to disclose that).

Agreed. Definitely need skilled, self-aware facilitators. I wonder what grad school might have been like if more faculty were aware of their biases and how they might have impacted the learning environment.

 

[Chalupacabra]

like that concept. I also hate being lumped in as some generic Euro-American white male as though that is who I am. It is almost akin to lumping all Hispanics or Asians together. I am not a WASP and my relatives from southern Europe arrived in the US a couple of generations ago. In some ways my perspective has more in common with other ethnic minorities than I do with families who have been in the US for centuries, but then again I am treated as a white male with whatever privileges that entails. Although I don't really feel "privileged" and struggle with that concept because I believe I have had to work pretty damn hard for my accomplishments and have also overcome a lot of obstacles.

I think it's really important to also look at diversity from a viewpoint of experience - things like living in a family with medical and/or mental health issues, coming from a background of poverty, etc. My current supervisor grew up in a trailer park and has taught me a great deal about the idea of the "culture of poverty" you see in those environments and I have a very different view/life experience from many people as a result of growing up with a sibling with a rare neurodevelopmental disorder (Williams Syndrome).

 

[MarkDe]

Hello
tell me the current scientific work on the topic of multiculturalism, I am just now looking for my job

I will be very grateful 🙏

 

[WisNeuro]

What exactly are you asking for? This is a very broad topic area.

 

[psych.meout]

 

[MarkDe]

This. I hold a lifetime secondary science teaching credential and was a high school science teacher for 6 years in a high needs, low SES, racially heterogeneous district before going to doc school. In my teacher training very little time was devoted to helping/training/educating prospective teachers on how to build relationships, especially with kids who came from extremely different background than the vast majority of the teaching candidates. The multicultural classes were focused on what we've described in this thread -- "X demographic of students need to be taught 'this' way." Recently, for ~10 years, teacher educators have realized this potential weakness and have asked for help training teachers, specifically around interpersonal skills/relationship building. Kind of our 'common factor' stuff. IMO, and supported by Vygotsky among others, relationship is a vehicle for education/wellness. you can read about multiculturalism in third world countries in the essay here Multiculturalism: Your Free Essay Examples and Topics at EduZaurus for common development.

"We, clinical psychologists, know what works for kids and clinical psychologists need to be more involved in the educational process because that is one of the most likely avenues of intervention" <-- Counseling psychologists are well trained and need to be more involved too! In fact, this is a debate within our subfield -- "returning to our roots" within public education.

I am currently lecturing in a multicultural class, and I am looking for a book or research material on psychology, something like that. What can help me in my work, maybe you can advise something?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It's a very, very board topic. Are you the person actually teaching the class, or are you a currently in a class and looking for supplemental material? If the latter, the best starting place would probably be a textbook tailored to your level of training (e.g., undergrad, grad student in a non-psychology field/program, masters or doctoral student in psychology). Folks here may have some good ideas, or perhaps some recommendations on broad summary articles once they know your situation.

If you're teaching the class, how long do you have to prepare? It may be too much to take on if it's not something in which you already have a fair amount of knowledge and expertise.

 

[calimich]

I am currently lecturing in a multicultural class, and I am looking for a book or research material on psychology, something like that. What can help me in my work, maybe you can advise something?

Thanks for reviving this discussion, which seems to always be relevant, imo. I started this thread toward the end of my postdoc year. Now 6 years later I've had the opportunity to design and teach our department's main "race in psychology" course. In conceptualizing the course I faced some of the same issues voiced in this thread, including "what book do I use?"

I've been unable to find a book suitable for what I wanted to teach so I instead have pulled together articles and book chapters from ~20 sources. The course is roughly broken into three parts:
A) Social construction of race -- including comparison of English & Spanish conquests and early uses of psychological science to justify dehumanization;
B) Systemic disparities in health and education -- including physical and mental health, misdiagnosis, teacher bias, insurance, school funding
C) Racial identity formation, Latinx focus -- including examination of diversity w/i Latinx populations, legacy of immigration, bilingualism, help seeking, spirituality

The course also asks students over and over to consider the question "Who am I as a cultural being?" I bring in several guest speakers who share their journey in understanding their own cultural worldview and how that cultural lens informs the work they do. Students write a series of short reflection papers throughout the semester relating & integrating class material to their lived experiences and then a longer mini-lit review/term paper of one particular concept which has personal significance.

I've taught several sections of the course over two years now and am pleased with its direction. I've also been promoted and am up for tenure this summer, so I think the admin approves also. I'd love to hear how others approach teaching a course like this. I wonder how @MCParent 's course has evolved over the years? For context, this course is in an undergrad psych department, at an ethnically diverse school in the SF Bay area.

 

[calimich]

Relevant to this thread, and all clinical training I think, and to the idea of moving away from instruction focused on "how do I work with X population" and toward examining "what are my biases and assumptions about X population"

With George Floyd, a Raging Debate Over Bias in the Science of Death - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions - Dror - - Journal of Forensic Sciences - Wiley Online Library 2/20/21

"Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision‐making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10‐year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non‐medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base‐rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non‐medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision‐making."

 

[ccool]

Relevant to this thread, and all clinical training I think, and to the idea of moving away from instruction focused on "how do I work with X population" and toward examining "what are my biases and assumptions about X population"

With George Floyd, a Raging Debate Over Bias in the Science of Death - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions - Dror - - Journal of Forensic Sciences - Wiley Online Library 2/20/21

"Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision‐making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10‐year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non‐medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base‐rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non‐medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision‐making."

Thanks for sharing.

These results are unsurprising and yes always relevant. Glad people continue to do this research revealing the often nefarious and unintentional ways systems of dominance and inequity influence an array of outcomes and propagate further inequity. The production and sharing of these data, produced from dominant, Western epistemological frameworks, may also help to bolster the scores of voices who have long been and still are articulating these same truths as a function of their own observations and experiences. Thanks!

 

[calimich]

The NY Times published an interesting overview of the other APA's struggle with its racist past and attempts to acknowledge and recover.
In addition to the poor science attempting to justify racism, main concerns were "...diagnostic biases, the enduring lack of Black psychiatrists and a payment structure that tends to exclude people who can’t afford to pay out of pocket for services."

From the Times: Psychiatry Confronts Its Racist Past, and Tries to Make Amends - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
two of their linked sources: Antidepressant Use among Blacks and Whites in the United States (nih.gov)
A Naturalistic Study of Racial Disparities in Diagnoses at an Outpatient Behavioral Health Clinic | Psychiatric Services (psychiatryonline.org)

I think psychology's problems with racism past and present are pretty close, if not near replicas, of psychiatry's.

Did you know G. Stanley Hall published "The White Man's Burden vs. Indigenous Development of the Lower Races"? The White Maw's Burden versus Indigenous Development of the Lower Races - G. Stanley Hall, 1903 (sagepub.com)
And lots of other sexist and racist conclusions here: Aspects of child life and education, by G. Stanley Hall and some of his pupils. (umich.edu)

this dissertation out of Columbia is another typical example: #13 - The psychology of the Negro; an experimental study, by George ... - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library | HathiTrust Digital Library

with some of the conclusions being:

"In measuring the minds of the lower races, a good test is how far their children are able to take a civilized education. The account generally given by European teachers who have had the children of lower races in their schools is that, though they often learn as well as the white children up to 12 years old, they often fall off, and are left behind by children of the ruling race.”

and

“Without great ability in the processes of abstract thought, the negro is yet very capable in the sensory and motor powers which are involved in manual work. An economy would indicate that training should be concentrated upon these capacities which promise the best return for the educative effort expanded.”

Thoughts? I'm curious if current psychology students are learning of our discipline's racist past? and how many of us even believe this is important to teach and address. I'm also curious how those of us involved in teaching/training discuss this, if at all? Do you? how? do you choose to ignore it? why?