Perceptions of cultural competence in the New Zealand speech-language therapy profession

ABSTRACT

This study reports the findings of a New Zealand-wide qualitative survey of speech-language therapists which aimed to identify how they currently perceive cultural competence; what they understand the term to encompass, factors that help and hinder culturally competent practice and any training needs. Anecdotal reports from speech-language therapists suggest a strong desire and need to work cross-culturally, but many struggle to achieve this in their clinical practice.

An anonymous online survey was conducted comprising demographic and open-ended questions. Interpretive description informed the data collection and analysis.

In total 241 people began the survey, with 124 completing it. The majority of respondents described cultural competence as knowing about cultures different to one’s own and applying this knowledge in practice. A smaller number gave more in-depth descriptions, including that cultural competence can never be attained. Individual clinician factors, colleagues and workplace systems were reported to both help and hinder culturally competent practice. Requests for further training were forthcoming but appeared to be directly related to respondents’ understanding of cultural competence (with a preference for either knowledge-based or values-based input).

The findings reveal where the NZ SLT profession currently is in relation to cultural competence, and the ways it could develop in the future. Prior to implementing any specific way forward, more work is needed to determine the best approach to take. Part of this would need to include asking clients what they expect from SLT services.

KEYWORDS:

• Cross-cultural
• practice
• professional issues

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Waimirirangi (Jean) Andrews for feedback on the original questions, the non-SLT health and education colleagues who piloted the questionnaire for us, He Kete Whanaungatanga, the NZSTA and the Ministry of Education who supported participation in the survey. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments in restructuring the final manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand: [Grant Number 14/081].