Socio-Cultural Awareness.

Cultural Self-Awareness.

This article presents a discussion of the need for early interventionists to develop awareness of certain cultural assumptions underlying their practice. A wide range of literature on cultural differences is used to identify five areas of potential dissonance between professionals and families from culturally diverse backgrounds: interpretations of the meaning of disability; concepts of family structure and identity; goals of education; parent-child interaction, and communication style. It is argued that awareness of one's own cultural beliefs in these areas is an essential first step in developing effective collaboration with culturally different families.

This article is concerned with the challenge of providing family-centered services in an increasingly culturally diverse society. The requirement of P.L. 99-457 for the identification of families priorities, resources and concerns" (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1991) continues to present professionals with the formidable task of working with families in a nonjudgmental mode that at once respects families' varying functioning styles and also offers services consonant with the beliefs of professionals and the system they represent. This requirement has generated a plethora of attempts to delineate the parameters of appropriate professional judgment and intervention (Bailey &: Simeonsson, 1988; Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988; and many others). Dunst et al. ( 1988) described the job of early interventionists in terms of promoting families ability to identify and utilize their own family resources" (p. 27). This discussion will focus on the challenge of meeting this charge when working with families whose resources may include cultural beliefs very different from those of professionals.

The rapidly changing demographics of the United States (Hodgkinson, 1985), and the increasing numbers of children from cultural minority groups served under P.L. 99-457 and P.L. 94-142, mean that professionals will be working with increasing numbers of families whose beliefs and practices may differ in important ways from those of mainstream American families. This article is concerned with the need for professionals to become aware of the sources of potential disagreements among such families and themselves, and to develop skills in identifying their own cultural biases to create a climate for more collaborative relationships with families.

Bowers ( 1984) argued that a great deal of cultural knowledge is tacit, that is, taken-for-granted knowledge that is often not made explicit. As a result, he contended, we experience many of our judgments as "part of the natural order of things" (p. 6), rather than as reflections of values that may be specific to our own culture. Thus? professionals' impressions of families' functioning styles may be expected to be influenced by their own, often unexamined, cultural assumptions. Unless we can step outside of our own framework, it can be difficult to see strength in behaviors that reflect different assumptions; it can be difficult to understand that a feature that appears at first glance to be a deficit may actually be a resource. For example, with regard to family structures and roles, Wright, Saleeby, Watts, and Lecca (1983) argued that pervasive stereotypes such as matriarchy among African Americans and machismo among Hispanics fail to acknowledge the strengths of these patterns--the requirements for both responsibility and authority inherent in these roles. Correa (1991) underscored this point in relation to the challenge of establishing collaborative relationships with families Prom diverse cultural backgrounds: "The belief system held by the family may actually be a strength for coping with and caring for the child with a handicap" (p. 258).

The purpose of this article is to take such arguments one step further, by emphasizing that the challenge is not simply becoming aware of the framework from which a culturally different family operates, but, more difficult, becoming aware of the cultural assumptions from which professionals derive their judgments, indeed, the assumptions on which the law itself is based. By becoming aware of the cultural basis of the services offered, professionals can begin to appreciate the relativity of their judgments. Bowers ( 1984) referred to this as the "relativistic of culture," a process by which individuals explicitly question their "taken for granted beliefs" (p. 6).

The discussion is offered with two caveats, one related to the literature base used, and the other related to the notion of culture itself. First, the discussion draws on three types of literature: (a) descriptions of traditional values and practices related to families and disability among cultural minority groups in the United States; (b) studies (most frequently ethnographic) of the views and participation of parents from cultural minority backgrounds vis-à-vis the special education system; and (c) theoretical considerations related to families, child development, and pedagogy. As is usual in literature related to considerations of culture, the research methodology is essentially descriptive and qualitative in nature, rather than experimental. The use of small samples in such literature indicates that generalizations should be made cautiously, an only to similar populations under similar circumstances; however, it is believed that the close-up delineation of processes observed is likely to allow for greater validity than may be found in surveys of large samples.

The second caveat is that it is essential to recognize that culture is neither a static nor a monolithic phenomenon; that is, there may be considerable variation within cultural groups, this variation being affected by variables such as social class, geographic location, or generational status. Further, the designations developed in the United States to refer to cultural minority groups are arbitrary, for example, the use of the term Asian to refer to such disparate national and racial groups as Koreans, Indians, Pacific Islanders, and so on.

The same is true for the umbrella terms Hispanic, Native American, and African-American (for a fuller discussion of cultural and racial variability in the U.S., see Harry, 1992). Nevertheless, a number of researchers have described commonalities found among these groups, especially when viewed in contradistinction to well-recognized patterns in U. S. culture. Finally, a considerable range of acculturation is expected to be found among groups who represent either indigenous or immigrant minorities within a larger culture. The process of acculturation has been described by several scholars, for example, Ramirez and Castaneda (1974), who offered a basic framework of three levels-traditional, dualistic, and a-traditional--whereas both Leung (1988) and Red Horse (1988) expanded these conceptualizations. In this article, the term traditional will be used frequently, as a reminder that the cultural values and practices referred to are expected to exist among less acculturated families; it is acknowledged that any such phenomena are likely to be affected by the process of acculturation.

The discussion highlights five areas in which cultural assumptions underlying special education practice may bring professionals into conflict with families who hold significantly different assumptions. The five areas to be addressed are: the meanings attached to a diagnosis of disability; concepts of family structure and family identity; goals of early childhood education; concepts of appropriate parent-child interaction; and communication styles between professionals and family members.