Whiteness in our understanding of culture: A critical discourse analysis of the cultural responsivity practice frameworks in child protection

Abstract

This article explores the conceptualization of cultural responsivity in Australian child protection through the critical Whiteness theory lens. Critical discourse analysis was deployed to examine the cultural responsivity concept in two statutory child protection documents from New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Interrogating the underlying assumptions present in the texts, the study demonstrated a narrow categorization of who is deemed ‘culturally diverse’ and a problematic conceptualization of cultural responsivity. We argue that these texts maintain Whiteness as the unexamined cultural norm and can reinforce the ‘Othering’ effect and racial disproportionality in the child protection system. We conclude with a call to practitioners to remain critical of the widely accepted concepts that inform their practice, such as cultural responsivity to avoid reinforcing racial inequality through their practice.

Keywords

social work practice discourse cultural competence child protection

Introduction

The child protection system in Australia, like other settler colonial countries (Adjei and Minka, 2018; Lash, 2017), is characterized by racialized overrepresentation, and even though it has been approximated that 29.8% of Australia’s population was born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020), there are limited data and research on culturally and linguistically diverse (‘CALD’) populations in the child protection system. When reviewing literature and research on racism within Australian child protection, it was identified that no state-wide information is available on the cultural or ethnic identity of immigrant children in the child protection system (Abdul Rahim et al., 2023). Any data relating to child protection is categorized simply as Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. This omission is significant, given that some studies show that up to 20% of children involved in the Australian child protection system did not speak English at home (Sawrikar and Katz, 2014b). Although there have been changes in the system since the removal of White Australia policies, child protection institutions have a detrimental impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations and families labelled as ‘CALD’ (Ramsay, 2016; Sawrikar, 2017). The term ‘CALD’ will be used throughout the paper for ease of reading, however, single scare quotes are used to ‘signal contingency’ (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016: 12) and indicates scepticism of this term.

The treatment and marginalization of ‘CALD’ populations in Australia are well-documented. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2022) has identified that refugees and asylum seekers face significant challenges in Australia to obtain assistance compared to populations generally categorized as ‘CALD’. For example, Australia’s refugee policy has thus been described as ‘crimmigration’, given the construction of asylum seekers as ‘illegal’ and the indefinite detention in offshore processing centres (Bleiker et al., 2013; Martin, 2019). There is also evidence that these policies ‘unfairly harm the mental health and survival of refugees and asylum seekers’ (Killedar and Harris, 2017: 337). Families subjected to child protection interventions have also been found to replicate White ideals of the ‘good’ citizen via child protection interventions (Ramsay, 2016).

Culture-oriented discourses such as cultural competency or cultural responsivity have become widely accepted among human service organizations like the child protection system to fix racialized overrepresentation (Collings et al., 2018). Believed essential in a globalized world, cultural competency is defined as practice and service provision that considers cultural differences and respects the cultural background of service users (Russell, 2021; Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a; Tascón and Gatwiri, 2020). Extending on this concept, cultural responsivity elaborates that social and health service providers can never become fully competent in the culture of another person but should constantly engage in critical reflection to work with individuals considered ‘culturally diverse’, non-White or coming from an ethnic/racial minority background (Green et al., 2016; Pham et al., 2021).

Although cultural responsivity training and ‘reflection’ targeting practitioners has been recommended as an effective strategy to reduce prejudice and individual bias, racialized overrepresentation remains a problem across every single social issue in Australia (Balaratnasingam et al., 2015; Collings et al., 2018; Howard-Wagner, 2009; Stanford and Taylor, 2013; Tilbury, 2009). Furthermore, the literature suggests that the cultural responsivity framework does not sufficiently address the cultural biases and stereotypes that may influence practice (Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a). Cultural responsivity has also been criticized for viewing racism as an individualized problem belonging to the culturally diverse service user that can be resolved with the (White) practitioner receiving further training and encouraging ‘personal reflection’ (Ahmed, 2004). As such, cultural responsivity and its similar ilk’s require interrogation.

Critical Whiteness theory allows for a shift of gaze from racialized communities to the dominant culture of Whiteness embedded in service provision (Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Tascón and Ife, 2020; Young, 2008; Young and Zubrzycki, 2011). Critical Whiteness theory seeks to identify unmarked racial privilege, where the dominant culture and practices are often invisible and yet are the standard that other cultures are judged against (Young, 2008). Whiteness theory takes the position that the invisibility of Whiteness allows for White ignorance that breeds notions of superiority, and it creates barriers for non-White individuals (Forrest et al., 2021; Howard-Wagner, 2009; Moran, 2020; Taylor and Habibis, 2020; Young, 2008). Young and Zubrzycki (2011) refer to the critical Whiteness theory as a tool to improve White practitioners’ racial cognizance and address the unearned power and privilege systematically attributed to White people. It is important to note that critical Whiteness theory does not subscribe to the ‘colour-blindness’ concept, a belief that a dismissal of acknowledging culture in its entirety would decrease racial discrimination, but rather it promotes the importance of analysing Whiteness to become more racially cognizant (Kandaswamy, 2007). In the Australian context, ‘White’ generally refers to English-speaking Australian citizens and residents with British/Western-European heritage (Forrest et al., 2021; Taylor and Habibis, 2020). Although cultural responsivity rhetoric is gaining traction, there is a deafening silence and absence of statistics that share the cultural background of practitioners in the child protection space, reproducing White as a-cultural. Reflected in practice models, cultural responsivity is (re) created for White practitioners to ostensibly practice respectfully with non-White clients to benefit White practitioners (Forrest et al., 2021; Taylor and Habibis, 2020). Furthermore, there is limited research and transparency exploring how child protection agencies define and categorize ‘CALD’ clients. For example, are intergenerational families considered ‘CALD’? Although there are studies that explore how White practitioners grapple with Whiteness and working with ‘CALD’ clients (Vincent, 2023) and an increase in research about Whiteness and social work more generally (see Tascón & Ife, 2020), Whiteness theory highlights that more nuanced research in the child protection sector is sorely missing.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA), the analytical method applied in the current study, allows for a thorough investigation of how language is used to implicitly or overtly sway the reader to align with the presented values and ideology (Park, 2005; Van Dijk, 1993). For example, Reid and Alford (2023: 1) have successfully used CDA to identify ‘ideological slippages’ in the child and youth mental health field and have shown the methodology’s validity in identifying how discourse can influence practice. On an institutional level, discourses promoted with official texts, such as policies and practice guidelines, can influence the beliefs of those operating within that system, using this authority to direct the individual's actions (Mayr, 2008). These official texts can thus have powerful implications for service recipients, such as reinforcing harmful assumptions and oppression across systems (Mayr, 2008).

Using critical discourse analysis (CDA) with a critical Whiteness theory lens, this study aims to interrogate the conceptualization and reconceptualization of cultural responsiveness in two key texts that guide child protection practice in NSW. Child protection practice standards documents are used to apply critical Whiteness theory in an institutional context that holds considerable statutory power and has historically privileged Whiteness. The present study thus aims to answer the following research question: How is cultural responsivity conceptualized in child protection practice standards documents?

Methods

The current study analyses the publicly accessible Care and Protection Practice Standards (OSP, 2019, referred to as Text 1), and the updated version of that document – Practice Framework Standards (OSP, 2020, referred to as Text 2) that inform culturally responsive practice in the NSW child protection system. Standard 7 from Text 1, ‘Culturally responsive practice with diverse communities’ (OSP, 2019: 8), was chosen for analysis. The equivalent Standard 3, ‘Culturally safe practice with diverse communities’ (OSP, 2020: 16) was selected from the more recent Text 2. The purpose of both excerpts from Text 1 and 2 is to promote culturally appropriate and safe child protection practice and to ‘strengthen role clarity, confidence and professionalism of the child protection workforce’ (OSP, 2019: 1).

Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was selected as an analytical approach given its focus on the role of discourse in reproducing dominance and its concern with social and political power (Park, 2005; Van Dijk, 1993). Text is a form of social practice as it serves to transfer skills, knowledge, values, beliefs to the reader (Mayr, 2008). CDA will thus allow an identification of the underlying values, norms, beliefs, assumptions, and practice ideals that guide the child protection system’s discourses on culture and diversity and if and how they are evolving (Park, 2005). (Willey-Sthapit et al., 2022: 138) describe the ‘how’ of CDA and how text may be approached, ‘…the examination of words, ideas, or phrases in the text. This might include identifying specific constructs of interest and exploring how they are produced, examining common clusters of ideas in the text, or examining how the same phrase, idea, or information is framed across texts’. The two texts were approached with similar questions guided by (Willey-Sthapit et al., 2022: 138) and applied specifically in relation to Whiteness: ‘What does the text do? How does it perform these functions? How does the text relate to wider structures of power in society?’ Since both texts are relatively short, a decision was made to examine explicit and inferred assumptions (Reid and Alford, 2023), as well as stylistic elements that were drawn from the text (Fairclough, 2003). The chosen headings in the analysis table were generated to draw out taken-for-granted, uncontested ideas.

To further uncover the values and assumptions behind a given text, CDA also allows for analysing the text structure such as, the way a text is organized, what is the focus, for whom it is written, and what is said in comparison to what could be said on the subject (Bacchi and Bonham, 2014; Park, 2005; Van Dijk, 1993). When combined with critical Whiteness theory, CDA provides the analytical tools to discern whether and how child protection documents reinforce cultural oppression by privileging Whiteness (Van Dijk, 1993; Vasquez et al., 2019).

Table 1 provides an example of how the line-by-line CDA method was used in this study.

Table 1.

Example of the application of critical discourse analysis from Text 1.

Excerpts from texts 1 & 2	Assumed audience/gaze	Key words and lexical choices	Discursive practices	Implicit values	Assumptions (implicit and explicit)
Have I explored the context of parenting practices in their country of origin?	White gaze, people with NO culture/un-cultured/un-raced	‘their’ used 3 times in text 1 & used 6 times in text 2	‘their’ signifies the other, that is not from ‘us’ or from ‘here’. Dividing practice.	The valuing of White ‘parenting practices’ (acceptable/unacceptable).	They (the other) bring their different/problematic/strange/unfamiliar parenting practices (to White Australia)
					- The ‘other’ parenting practices are different, something to be ‘explored’, object of ‘curiosity’:
					- That foreignness (or their difference) requires examination.
					-Parenting practices are influenced by culture. This assumption only applies to non-white people.
					- A practitioner is capable of recognizing difference in parenting practices
					- More information about the Other, or further exploration, can assist practitioners to be culturally competent
					- This question is intended for refugees and migrants because White people are assumed to be ‘from here’ despite Australia being a colonized country.
Work hard to understand the family’s culture and migration or refugee experiences	Assumed White gaze, somebody that needs to work hard to understand difference because they are themselves not different.	‘culture’ used 15 times in the document but not defined.	Culture and multicultural rhetoric, that fuses ‘diverse’ and ‘culture’ to non-white people.	Values the ‘hard work’ (burden, responsibility) of the worker to understand the other.	That ‘CALD’ families are complicated, complex to understand because they are different.
	Assumes that the professional is not a migrant/refugee, or somebody with settlement experiences	‘Migration’ and ‘refugee’ used 4 times in the text.		Values the white worker as the ‘knower’ and the Other is to be known.	Understanding a family’s culture will require hard work.

Researcher positionality

Collectively, the authors of this paper are White, people of colour, parents, academics, and practitioner insiders. These identities and social locations have assisted us in bringing multiple vantage points, raising important questions, and remaining attuned to the communities experiencing marginalisation. Including a researcher positionality statement can sometimes operate to reaffirm authority and reinforce colonial structures of research, that is, replacing one universal truth with another (Tachine and Nicolazzo, 2023). Instead, this inclusion is a small act of resistance that speaks specifically to decolonising research ambitions. In conversation, this knowledge production began relationally about the ‘polite timidity’ (Anzaldúa and Moraga, 1981: 29) that currently exists in the White dominated child protection field and the potential power of a collective response.

Results

After the line-by-line analysis was conducted the themes were identified based on the recurrence of a particular theme throughout different parts of Text 1 and 2. Examples from the text analysis will be used to illustrate and support each theme. The following section will outline several themes identified through the CDA that encapsulate what is considered culturally responsive practice in child protection work.

Whiteness as the invisible norm

The sections on cultural responsivity refer to migrants and refugee populations throughout both documents (OSP, 2019; OSP, 2020). The term ‘country of origin’ (OSP, 2019: 8) was also used throughout, inferring that those requiring culturally responsive practices are not from Australia. The term ‘diverse communities’ (OSP, 2019; OSP, 2020) used in the title of each text further contributes to the categorizing of Non-White and Non-English speakers, judging ‘CALD’ against White culture and English language, which is implicitly set up as the standard from the outset (OSP, 2019; OSP, 2020; Pham et al., 2021). The sole focus on the cultures of non-English speaking communities highlights the invisibility of the culture of White populations (Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Pham et al., 2021; Young, 2008). This indicates that the cultural responsivity concept has a racializing effect; it indirectly and implicitly racializes Non-White cultures.

A-cultural white practitioners

The references to non-English speaking populations as ‘diverse’ reveals that Text 1 and 2 operate under the assumption that the practitioners reading this document identify with the dominant White culture and are English speakers. For example, Text 1 emphasizes (1) using interpreters for communication, (2) the ‘expertise of multicultural caseworkers’, and (3) the need to understand the culture of refugees and migrants, while concealing the culture of Whiteness. In Text 2, there is even a greater emphasis on the importance of the multicultural practitioner, which implies that White is not considered cultured as it is not included in cultural consultation; thus, is considered the norm and remains un-cultured (Moreton-Robinson, 2000).

Definitions of cultural responsivity

The outline of culturally responsive practice offered in Text 2 explains how appropriate practice can be identified and quantified. Specifically, Text 2 explains: ‘the child’s culture, ancestry, language, religion and connections have been recorded accurately, or persistent attempts recorded’ (OSP, 2020: 17). Even though Text 2 contains added information and extends what is involved in being culturally responsive, there is an ongoing omission of race, racism and Whiteness as factors that should be considered in cross-cultural encounters and the impact that Australian policies and practices have on families. The complexity of cross-cultural practice thus continues to be attributed only to the ‘migrant, refugee and settlement experiences’ (OSP, 2020: 16).

Whiteness as violence

Practitioners are encouraged to only reflect on the statutory policies made in the family’s ‘country of origin’ (OSP, 2020: 16). Similarly, when ‘trauma’ is mentioned in the text, it is only mentioned in the context of the refugee or migration experience, and the violence that may have occurred in Other (non-Western) host nations, by Other (non-White) violent people (Martin, 2019). This is lodged in the assumption that a family’s potential mistrust of child protection services stems from their past experiences of harm from their host country, rather than Australian authorities and their treatment of the family. The only allusion made to those Australian policies that could inflict harm or cause distrust in statutory services is in reference to ‘settlement experiences’ (OSP, 2020: 16), which is a vague and loose acknowledgement of Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers (Killedar and Harris, 2017). Therefore, not acknowledging the punitive measures imposed on asylum seekers in Australia seems to be another form of omission guided by Whiteness and institutional racism (Killedar and Harris, 2017; Martin, 2019) and operates to maintain White innocence. This demonstrates how cultural discourse fixes the gaze on the cultural Other.

Expectation ‘CALD’ children and families are open to building relationships with white practitioners

Text 1 highlighted that ‘effective relationships … are the foundation for quality child protection practice’ (OSP, 2019: 1). Text 2 similarly identifies ‘relationships’ as one of three fundamental principles that underpin ‘culturally safe’ practices. Relationships refer to the practitioner’s relationship with the child and their families, communities, and culture in the professional context. ‘Effective’ is defined as success in producing a desired outcome, that is, the protection and promotion of the safety and wellbeing of all children. Therefore, these practice guidelines assume that the practitioner’s ability to develop a good relationship with families will enable them to reach the desired outcome of keeping children safe. However, the involuntary nature of these relationships is omitted, placing a great deal of pressure on practitioners to enact quality relationships when this might not be possible. The expectation of the imagined (White) practitioner to build effective relationships with the child and family operates under the presupposition that children will be safer if practitioners successfully build ‘effective relationships’ (OSP, 2019: 1) with the child and family. Nevertheless, the statutory power of practitioners and child protection services is overlooked, and it is assumed that ‘CALD’ groups will be open to trusting a practitioner while their experiences with child protection agencies may prove otherwise (Ramsay, 2016; Sawrikar, 2019). There is also an assumption that association with White practitioners is automatically and inherently good, a racist imposition of a White colonial worldview (Malamed, 2021).

Translators of culture

Key Expectation 3 in Text 1, to ‘include meaningful strategies in case plans to maintain the child and young person’s connection to their identity, culture, religion and language’ (OSP, 2019: 8), places responsibility on the practitioner to maintain the child’s relationship with their cultural community and identity. Within this definition, the emphasis of ‘culture, religion and language’ (OSP, 2019: 8) implies otherness and foreignness, as this language is not usually applied to White service users. This ‘Key Expectation’ also relies on the practitioner’s competence to understand and incorporate the nuances of a child’s cultural background in case plans. Thus, these practice standards are contingent on a practitioner’s ability to identify differences and develop an understanding of a child's cultural and religious needs to maintain their identity if they are removed from their family or caregiver.

In Text 2, the expectation encourages cultural consultations from multicultural practitioners. The assumedly White practitioners are then expected to reflect and report on how the consultations and expertise passed on were incorporated into practice. This promotes the idea that these complex aspects that make up a person’s identity are assessable by the White worker, as if able to be measured, observed, and critiqued, activities valued within Western culture. A racist colonial assumption makes this practice standard thinkable and is a form of cultural imperialism (Said, 2019).

White practitioners as culturally competent

It is necessary to acknowledge that ‘competence’ is not used in either document. However, throughout the texts, the use of competence is implied as there is an emphasis on practitioner’s ‘exploring’ cultural practices, ‘understanding’ (OSP, 2020: 16) of cultural experiences and ‘develop(ing) a good working knowledge of local cultural communities’ (OSP, 2019: 8). The discursive effects of the cultural competence framework are implied throughout these documents.

Competence is assumed to involve understanding culture by seeking expertise from non-White, multicultural practitioners to provide consultation or support. This approach maintains and replicates ideas of homogeneity and risks essentializing culture, as cultural expertise is perceived as accessible through one individual. The distinction is implicitly made that multicultural practitioners are non-White, and English is their second language. This implicit assumption can potentially maintain an attitude of separation between the invisible White culture and racialized cultural groups. This also shuts down any nuances between recent immigrants and people of colour who may have been born and living in Australia for generations.

White parenting as ideal parenting

Text 1 and Text 2 state that culturally responsive practice involves a commitment to ‘explor[ing] parenting practices’ (OSP, 2019: 8) of the families in the child protection system to identify strengths and develop knowledge of local services of the ‘culturally diverse’ communities. From a Whiteness perspective, there is an assumption that the White practitioner will have the capacity to learn about the parenting practices of a different cultural group and is capable of assessing what is (and is not) acceptable, which supposedly contributes to creating a ‘safe’ family. Both texts also reflect that White parenting practices are presented as the norm by omission from the text, as other parenting practices are to be ‘explored … to identify strengths’ (OSP, 2019: 8). This additionally positions the practitioner as the expert who evaluates the family according to White cultural norms which privilege individual strengths. Furthermore, the exploration of parenting practices and cultural knowledge operates under the assumption that someone can become competent in the Other diverse culture. It indicates that having a certain level of understanding or knowledge equates to good practice. This assumption can be problematic as it does not consider the nuances of an individual’s relationship to a specific culture. Instead, it minimizes the expression of culture to something that can be clearly outlined, mastered, and practiced competently. It also assumes that families would comfortably and voluntarily share their parenting practices with a practitioner, concealing that the nature of these relationships is involuntary, wielding statutory power. There is limited space to question how much families are willing to share this information (or feel obligated) to educate and assist a practitioner and prevent unfair judgements from being passed by the practitioner.

An important distinction between the two texts is in the opening sentences for the respective standards. Text 1 emphasizes that it is necessary that practitioners ‘seek to learn from and be responsive to’ (OSP, 2019: 8) the cultural families. Text 2, however, states practitioners ‘need to learn from and respect’ (OSP, 2020: 16, my emphasis) the child and family. This update is crucial as the omission of ‘seek’ (OSP, 2020: 16) in Text 2 makes this opening more directive. There is no longer just the expectation that practitioners need only try to understand and be responsive to culture. However, respect for culture must be upheld, further responsibilizing child protection practitioners.

‘CALD’ viewed as creating communication barriers

The opening statement for the practice standards, written from a ‘CALD’ child’s perspective, emphasizes the need for practitioners ‘to learn from and be responsive to (the) culture and the language spoken’ (OSP, 2019: 8; Pham et al., 2021) by the child and their family. Culturally responsive communication seems to refer mainly to using ‘translating and interpreting services’ (OSP, 2019: 8) and ‘to communicate clearly and ensure understanding’ (OSP, 2020: 16). This indirectly communicates that practitioners are not expected to speak in different languages, but that interpreting services are essential for communicating with ‘CALD’ families effectively. There also is a possible assumption in Text 1 that a service user who does not speak English will not understand the practitioner ‘in times of high stress’ (OSP, 2019: 8). Given the institutional context, it can be assumed that ‘high stress’ refers to events like child removals. This implies a singular and a deficit view of ‘CALD’ families as 1. Effective communication means accessibility to language (English), and 2. That expressions of distress ‘in times of high stress’ are a matter of misunderstanding and unclear communication rather than a response to the stressful event itself. This raises the question about whether child removal or any other stressful events would be, or should be, better received and less stressful if the family simply understood. Text 2 has amended the previous excerpt to instead say, ‘use a qualified interpreter to communicate clearly and ensure understanding’ (OSP, 2020: 16). This change in Text 2 has removed the deficit-focused perception of people who would require the use of an interpreter, but instead emphasizes the importance of clarity. This indicates a positive move to ensure that ‘CALD’ families have access to basic rights to access information. However, it is crucial to remain vigilant about the overemphasis of interpreters as the primary way to practice cultural competency and not to distract from the ‘stressful events’ that cause distress and trauma to families. Furthermore, this conceptualization of culturally responsive communication does not include other aspects of culturally appropriate communication, including non-verbal communication, body language, communication with non-human entities, gender roles, and cultural perceptions about discussing personal information with strangers and forced engagement with legal authorities. Text 2 encourages the involvement of cultural services and available family and community members to protect the child, shifting the gaze and perhaps responsibility to communities rather than institutions to reduce racialized overrepresentation.

Practitioner reflection as the key to culturally responsive practice

A variation of the word ‘reflect’ is used four times in both Text 1 and Text 2. This demonstrates the heavy reliance on the practitioner’s supposed ability and dedication to reflection as a culturally responsive practice strategy. Both texts recommend: ‘Reflect on your own cultural values’ (OSP, 2019: 8; OSP, 2020: 16). The directive to ‘reflect’ seems to attend to a cultural responsivity definition even though the specific language and terminology related to cultural responsivity is omitted. Several assumptions underlie this and other mentions of ‘reflection’:

1. The statement assumes that practitioners will have had sufficient understanding and training on what reflection entails. Thus, the expectation is placed on an individual practitioner to engage in the reflection process effectively.

2. The ‘CALD’ families are expected to accommodate conversations that aim to assist, educate, and correct practitioners in the spirit of collaboration and partnership. In the context of involuntary services and likely fear and mistrust, this seems like an unrealistic expectation towards families involved in the child protection system. It could also refer to seeking an understanding of culture from those who subscribe to that culture and thus examining its accuracy compared to a practitioner’s knowledge or assumption about a particular cultural group.

3. This conceptualization of reflection creates the perception that reflection alone is enough to promote good practice with ‘culturally diverse’ communities.

These documents conceal the fact that unless concepts of cultural competency shift from an interpersonal/individual focus to genuine institutional and systemic changes, individual reflection alone is insufficient. Furthermore, the identification of the practitioner’s ‘own cultural values’ or ‘assumptions’ (OSP, 2019: 8) is disembodied, as it allows a practitioner to feel that cultural responsivity is something that they can achieve through thinking and centring on themselves, rather than connected to practice. In this way, Text 1 and Text 2 reinforce the emphasis on changes and responsibility on individual practitioners and their practice, as opposed to challenging the way the child protection system operates and the historical context of overrepresentation and racism.

Discussion

A critical discourse analysis of cultural responsivity within the child protection practice standards revealed how Whiteness is embedded in the assumptions and values guiding these texts. These texts entirely omit the impacts of racialization and Whiteness despite the historical context and other evidence of institutional racism embedded in human service organizations and the ongoing overrepresentation of racialized children in the child protection system (Abbatangelo, 2022; Ramsay, 2016; Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a, 2014b; Young and Zubrzycki, 2011). At first glance, the cultural responsivity frameworks ostensibly promote equity. However, without astute attention to the unequal power relations and Whiteness, it can reinforce institutional racism. It is also disturbing, considering the demand for frameworks like cultural responsivity stems from a context of racial inequality and a need for practitioners to improve their practice with ‘CALD’ communities (Ramsay, 2016; Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a; Young and Zubrzycki, 2011).

Focussing on the use of language like ‘their’, ‘diverse’, and ‘country of origin’, a critical discourse analysis demonstrated how the concept of cultural responsivity maintains processes of ‘Othering’ people who are not White. Results have demonstrated that the way cultural responsivity is conceptualized can function as a segregation process, as those considered culturally diverse are only diverse in relation to Whiteness (Pham et al., 2021). Since White is not considered cultured or diverse, Whiteness is the invisible norm, absent from the text, yet continues to be the standard against which the ‘Other’ is measured, assessed, and understood, and for which the ‘Other’ should aspire (Tascón and Ife, 2020).

The impacts of this are significant and made evident in several studies. For example, Ramsay’s study (2016: 332) concluded:

When the parental care practices of migrant women are evaluated as failing to meet standards of white neoliberal motherhood as determined through the child protection agency, their right to oversee the development of this future generation is…supplanted by the authority of the state.

Sawrikar’s (2019: 10) research uncovered fears of racism and stereotyping and concluded ‘More significantly, ethnic minority communities may not engage with authorities or the service sector because of fears of racism…’. Critical Whiteness theory draws attention to the fact that these forms of segregation, White mothering, and ‘CALD’ mothering, are embedded in practice documents, however, remain mostly invisible to White institutions and to practitioners. Subscribing to the cultural responsivity framework without the critical Whiteness analysis can reinforce racial inequality rather than valuing diversity (Ahmed, 2004).

Although cultural responsivity purports to value diversity, it falls short of demanding the dismantling of institutional racism and thus does not disrupt or decentre White privilege from service organizations (Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a; Zon et al., 2004). Cultural responsivity, when conceptualized in this way, draws the attention away from the institution, systems and policies that are unjust and places responsibility on the imagined, reflective, and benevolent White practitioner to practice in a way that is not racist within historically racist institutions (Ahmed, 2004; Zon et al., 2004). Understanding the assumptions and ideologies that influence and inform the current definitions and applications of the cultural responsivity framework may enable institutions to genuinely address racism and unaddressed biases that permeate practice and influence service users’ experiences.

This research aimed to prompt social workers and policymakers in all service areas to remain critical of the widely accepted culture-oriented concepts such as cultural responsivity. As this study demonstrates, it can reinforce White privilege and, thus, racial inequality if accepted in its current form (Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a). If the child protection system is to demonstrate a genuine interest in addressing systemic racism, practice frameworks such as cultural responsivity need to be redefined and expanded beyond the expectation of individual action by the practitioner. The expansion of cultural responsivity also requires a serious consideration of how the very foundation of many child protection systems are embedded in Whiteness and name and challenge this context directly and explicitly (Sawrikar and Katz, 2014a). The findings promote the decentring of Whiteness as the invisible norm and authentically embracing the diversity of practices, languages, and ideals (Kandaswamy, 2007).

This study has some practical implications for child protective systems and social workers in all fields of practice. This study calls for child protection practice standards to centre the historical context of racism and promote theories and frameworks that pursue racially cognizant practice (Young and Zubrzycki, 2011; Zufferey, 2013). Morley et al. (2023) identified that critical reflection can be used effectively to improve practice with children and families. To improve the racial cognizance of practitioners, this research supports the application of critical Whiteness theory to practice frameworks and employee training to encourage critical reflection beyond an intellectual and individual endeavour (Gair, 2016; Mehrotra et al., 2019; Morley et al., 2023; Young and Zubrzycki, 2011; Zufferey, 2013). Anti-racism requires that systems go beyond mere acknowledgement of prejudice, bias, and racism and engage in actions to actively address those (Gair, 2016; Zufferey, 2013).

The analysed texts included no reference to the system’s role in racial injustice or unequal power relations, even though safety and awareness of the experiences of the refugee or migrant are mentioned (OSP, 2019). This omission places the responsibility of racist policies on individual practitioners who must work within the processes created and outlined by their departments. Thus, including context and information in practice standards not only about the impacts of racism on families but also about how Whiteness operates, will encourage the critical reflection and advocacy needed for dismantling racism embedded in institutions (Gair, 2016; Zufferey, 2013). Furthermore, it will also take the responsibility off racialized families to educate practitioners about racism (Kow, 2010). This could be achieved by making it a technocratic skill that practitioners need to be trained in. Focussing on the institutional, and socio-political context that can reinforce racism must be placed front-and-centre when cultural competence concepts and practices are deployed.

Conclusion

This paper has argued that cultural responsivity needs to move beyond merely understanding culture, to acknowledge and address dimensions of inferiority and oppression. Although cultural responsivity is widely accepted in the social work profession, this small-scale study, and other related literature, has demonstrated how this well intended concept can reinforce racism as an individual problem rather than an institutional one. This study highlighted how critical Whiteness theory can be used to reshape current definitions of cultural responsivity rhetoric. To further our understanding of the impact of cultural discourse and Whiteness in the child protection system, future research into this understanding of cultural responsivity in child protection work is encouraged.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lobna Yassine

Katarzyna Olcoń

References

Abbatangelo

(2022) Reconciliation action plans let settlers take up more space, not relinquish it. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/12/reconciliation-action-plans-let-settlers-take-up-more-space-not-relinquish-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other.

Abdul Rahim

Pilkington

Procter

, et al. (2023) Child protection contact among children of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a South Australian linked data study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 59(4): 644–652. DOI: 10.1111/jpc.16364.

Adjei

Minka

(2018) Black parents ask for a second look: parenting under “white” child protection rules in Canada. Children and Youth Services Review 94: 511–524. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.030.

Ahmed

(2004) Declarations of whiteness: the non-performativity of anti-racism. Borderlands e-Journal 3(2). Available at: https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20050616083826/http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm.

Anzaldúa

Moraga

(1981) This Bridge Called My Back: Writings of Radical Women of Color. Bath: Persephone Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020) Migration, Australia. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/migration-australia/latest-release.

Bacchi

Bonham

(2014) Reclaiming discursive practices as an analytic focus: political implications. Foucault Studies 17: 179–192. DOI: 10.22439/fs.v0i17.4298.

Bacchi

Goodwin

(2016) Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. Berlin: Springer.

Balaratnasingam

Anderson

Janca

, et al. (2015) Towards culturally appropriate assessment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social and emotional well-being. Australasian Psychiatry: Bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 23(6): 626–629. DOI: 10.1177/1039856215608283.

10.

Bleiker

Campbell

Hutchison

, et al. (2013) The visual dehumanisation of refugees. Australian Journal of Political Science 48(4): 398–416.

11.

Collings

Dew

Gordon

, et al. (2018) Intersectional disadvantage: exploring differences between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal parents with intellectual disability in the New South Wales child protection system. Journal of Public Child Welfare 12(2): 170–189. DOI: 10.1080/15548732.2017.1379456.

12.

Fairclough

(2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

13.

Forrest

Blair

Dunn

(2021) Racist attitudes, out‐groups and the Australian experience. Australian Journal of Social Issues 56(1): 78–93. DOI: 10.1002/ajs4.112.

14.

Gair

(2016) Critical reflections on teaching challenging content: do some students shoot the (white) messenger? Reflective Practice 17(5): 592–604.

15.

Green

Bennett

Young

(2016) Cultural responsiveness and social work - a discussion. Social Alternatives 35(4): 66–72.

16.

Howard-Wagner

(2009) Whiteness, power relations, resistance and the ‘practical’ recognition of Indigenous rights in Newcastle. Theory in Action 2(1): 40–65. DOI: 10.3798/tia.1937-0237.08028.

17.

Kandaswamy

(2007) Beyond colorblindness and multiculturalism: rethinking anti-racist pedagogy in the university classroom. Radical Teacher 80(80): 6–11.

18.

Killedar

Harris

(2017) Australia’s refugee policies and their health impact: a review of the evidence and recommendations for the Australian government. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health 41(4): 335–337.

19.

Kow

(2010) The (un)compelling interest for underrepresented minority students: enhancing the education of white students underexposed to racial diversity. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 20(5): 157–190.

20.

Lash

(2017) When the Welfare People Come: Race and Class in the US Child Protection System. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

21.

Malamed

(2021) A white person problem: conducting white/white treatment with a social justice lens. Psychoanalytic Social Work 28(2): 149–172.

22.

Martin

(2019) Turn the detention centre inside out: challenging state secrecy in Australia’s offshore processing of asylum seekers. Crimmigration in Australia. Singapore: Springer, 327–352.

23.

Mayr

(2008) Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London: A&C Black.

24.

Mehrotra

Hudson

Self

(2019) A critical examination of key assumptions underlying diversity and social justice courses in social work. Journal of Progressive Human Services 30(2): 127–147. DOI: 10.1080/10428232.2018.1507590.

25.

Moran

(2020) ‘I see people white but I’m too black’: whiteness and the interpretation of multicultural belonging in Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies 41(4): 474–489. DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2020.1779198.

26.

Moreton-Robinson

(2000) Talkin’ up to the White Women: Aboriginal Women and Feminism. Brisbane, QL: University of Queensland Press.

27.

Morley

Marshall

Leggatt-Cook

(2023) How can critical reflection improve social work practice with children and families? British Journal of Social Work bcad088. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcad088.

28.

Office of the Senior Practitioner (2019) Care and protection practice standards. Available at: https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/download?file=332244.

29.

Office of the Senior Practitioner (2020) Practice framework standards for child protection and out of home care practitioners. Available at: https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/download?file=796581.

30.

Park

(2005) Culture as deficit: a critical discourse analysis of the concept of culture in contemporary social work discourse. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 32(3): 11–33. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jrlsasw32&i=367.

31.

Pham

TTL

Berecki-Gisolf

Clapperton

, et al. (2021) Definitions of culturally and linguistically diverse (‘CALD’): a literature review of epidemiological research in Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(2): 737. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18020737.

32.

Ramsay

(2016) Black mothers, bad mothers: African refugee women and the governing of “good” citizens through the Australian child welfare system. Australian Feminist Studies 31(89): 319–335. DOI: 10.1080/08164649.2016.1254021.

33.

Reid

Alford

(2023) Empowerment or holding the child responsible? An Australian recovery-oriented mental health policy analysis. British Journal of Social Work 53: 2860–2877. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcad009.

34.

Russell

(2021) Cultural competence as a technology of whiteness: race and responsibilisation in Scottish health and social care. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare 14(1): 74–86. DOI: 10.1108/IJHRH-06-2020-0048.

35.

Said

(2019) Orientalism. London: Penguin Books.

36.

Sawrikar

(2017) Working with Ethnic Minorities and Across Cultures in Western Child Protection Systems. London, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315393148.

37.

Sawrikar

(2019) Child protection, domestic violence, and ethnic minorities: narrative results from a mixed methods study in Australia. PLoS One 14(12): e0226031.

38.

Sawrikar

Katz

(2014a) Recommendations for improving cultural competency when working with ethnic minority families in child protection systems in Australia. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 31(5): 393–417. DOI: 10.1007/s10560-014-0334-8.

39.

Sawrikar

Katz

(2014b) ‘Normalizing the novel’: how is culture addressed in child protection work with ethnic-minority families in Australia? Journal of Social Service Research 40(1): 39–61. DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2013.845126.

40.

Stanford

Taylor

(2013) Welfare dependence or enforced deprivation? A critical examination of white neoliberal welfare and risk. Australian Social Work 66(4): 476–494. DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2013.832789.

41.

Tachine

Nicolazzo

(eds) (2023) Weaving an Otherwise: In-Relations Methodological Practice. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.

42.

Tascón

Gatwiri

(2020) Towards cultural humility: theorizing cultural competence as institutionalized whiteness. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory 3(1): 1–16.

43.

Tascón

Ife

(2020) Disrupting Whiteness in Social Work. London: Routledge.

44.

Taylor

Habibis

(2020) Widening the gap: white ignorance, race relations and the consequences for Aboriginal people in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues 55(3): 354–371. DOI: 10.1002/ajs4.106.

45.

Tilbury

(2009) The over-representation of Indigenous children in the Australian child welfare system. International Journal of Social Welfare 18(1): 57–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00577.x.

46.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] (2022) Monitoring asylum in Australia. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/asylum-in-australia.html.

47.

van Dijk

(1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249–283. DOI: 10.1177/0957926593004002006.

48.

Vasquez

Janks

Comber

(2019) Critical literacy as a way of being and doing. Language Arts 96(5): 300–311.

49.

Vincent

(2023) The problem of professionalism: how white social workers enact whiteness in their work with people of refugee background. Qualitative Social Work 22(2): 217–232.

50.

Willey-Sthapit

Jen

Storer

, et al. (2022) Discursive decisions: Signposts to guide the use of critical discourse analysis in social work. Qualitative Social Work 21(1): 129–146. DOI: 10.1177/1473325020979050.

51.

Young

(2008) Indigenous child protection policy in Australia: using whiteness theory for social work. Sites: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies 5(1): 102–123. DOI: 10.11157/sites-vol5iss1id82.

52.

Young

Zubrzycki

(2011) Educating Australian social workers in the post-apology era: the potential offered by a ‘whiteness’ lens. Journal of Social Work 11(2): 159–173. DOI: 10.1177/1468017310386849.

53.

Zon

Lindeman

Williams

, et al. (2004) Cultural safety in child protection: application to the workplace environment and casework practice. Australian Social Work 57(3): 288–298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0748.2004.00147.x.

54.

Zufferey

(2013) ‘Not knowing that I do not know and not wanting to know’: reflections of a white Australian social worker. International Social Work 56(5): 659–673. DOI: 10.1177/0020872812436624.