 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
 |
 Learn More About This Book: Description & Table of Contents Read an Excerpt: What three qualities characterize Skilled Dialogue? Related Titles: Developing Cross-Cultural Competence: A Guide for Working with Children and Their Families, Third Edition One Child, Two Languages: A Guide for Early Childhood Educators of Children Learning English as a Second Language, Second Edition |
 |
|
|
What Three Qualities Characterize Skilled Dialogue? Excerpted from Chapter 4 of Skilled Dialogue: Strategies for Responding to Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood, by Isaura Barrera, Ph.D., with Robert M. Corso, Ph.D., and Dianne Macpherson, MSW, CISW Copyright © 2003 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. In interactions across diverse cultural parameters, three qualities are key to determining whether interactions can be described as skilled or unskilled: respect, reciprocity, and responsiveness. Betsy, an early childhood interventionist, poses the following question: “How can I be culturally responsive when I go into the homes of families from cultures that make sharp distinctions between parents and ‘experts’? Take Karen, for example. She’s a single mother from Puerto Rico whom I visit weekly. When I ask her to tell me what she’d like for her child Maya or when I ask her to work with Maya, she says that I am the expert and that I should tell her what needs to be done. Sometimes she’ll even leave me alone with Maya. I know that Karen cares about Maya and is just expressing her respect for me, but how can I get Karen more involved in Maya’s activities while I am visiting?” Respect Making oneself vulnerable is an act of trust and respect, as is receiving and honoring the vulnerability of another. Such an offering of oneself aligns with Martin Buber’s idea that a person who says “You” does not “have” something, but [rather] “stands in relation [to someone].” Dreams, when “offered,” do not become the possession of the other. They represent the trust and respect that forges a connection. (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1999, p. 93) Respect is a hallmark of Skilled Dialogue. Used in this context, respect refers to an acknowledgment and acceptance of the boundaries that exist between persons. Boundaries are markers that simultaneously connect and distinguish one from others. They identify the parameters of the spaces that one chooses to occupy. Physical boundaries, for example, delineate the physical space around a person. When these boundaries are crossed without permission, that person feels disturbed or even violated. When boundaries are acknowledged and crossed with permission, trust and connection are supported. Similarly, emotional boundaries identify when words and actions convey insult or praise; they define parameters of relatedness. Cognitive boundaries outline what one believes to be true; when these are crossed, misunderstanding, confusion, or anger may result. When these boundaries are validated, one tends to feel a greater sense of confidence and competence. Spiritual boundaries relate to one’s connection with the larger aspects of the universe (e.g., God, Spirit, Energy, Self). When these are crossed, one may feel lost or somehow less well defined. In all of these aspects, boundaries reflect basic assumptions about oneself, others, and the surrounding world. These assumptions are the core of the meanings that individuals attach to their actions and words (e.g., Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Both boundaries and their underlying assumptions are shaped and supported by the cultural contexts in which persons are raised and later choose to live. Acknowledgment and acceptance of boundaries different from one’s own becomes problematic when that diversity challenges basic assumptions about what should be (e.g., someone stands “too close” as they speak to us). At times, ENC seems to convey the idea that once distinctions or differences are identified, connections may be unsustainable (Althen, 1988; Stewart & Bennett, 1991). This idea reflects a lack of recognition that it is the meanings attached to distinctions, not the distinctions themselves, that divide or connect. The Rio Grande River may be thought of as dividing two countries, Mexico and the United States. Yet, the first author grew up alongside this river and learned to recognize how it also connects these two countries. For people on both sides of the border, the river is a common source of water and recreation; everyone talks of “our” river and “our” bridge. In fact, the Rio Grande, like all boundaries, both joins and distinguishes. Being aware of and acknowledging the boundary that it sets distinguishes one country from the other and simultaneously provides a common point of contact. Regarding the vignette about Betsy and Karen, how can respect for diverse boundaries be communicated in such situations? Respectful communication first requires accepting that parents like Karen, who perceive practitioners as the “experts,” have a right to their perception of reality, even when that perception differs from what practitioners might prefer. Practitioners need to recognize that parents’ truths, or boundaries, stand independent of their own. That is, parents’ boundaries neither define nor depend on practitioners’ boundaries. Karen’s perception of Betsy’s role as the expert in charge, for example, does not actually define Betsy’s role in an absolute sense. Similarly, Betsy’s perception of Karen as “passive recipient” does not actually define Karen; it only describes Betsy’s perception of her. Neither Betsy’s nor Karen’s truths define the whole of reality; there are many more aspects to who they each are and to the roles they play in relation to Maya. Respecting parents like Karen, who leave the practitioner alone with their child, requires 1) acknowledging the boundaries that they set, which may cast practitioners in the “expert” role, and 2) accepting that they have the same right to those boundaries as practitioners have to theirs. This acknowledgment and acceptance establishes the foundation for Skilled Dialogue. It does not, however, mean that practitioners or families have to accept the status quo and abandon seeking further change. It only means that there is a willingness to acknowledge differing perceptions and boundaries as well as to suspend the need to make them match. Chapters 5 and 6 give specific strategies for expressing respect in relation to each of Skilled Dialogue’s two component skills. Reciprocity Great artists are not first problem solvers; they are first creators, who solve problems secondarily as a necessary and inevitable result of their commitment to producing a remarkable artistic result. (Childs, 1998, p. 34) Reciprocity builds on respect. It seeks to balance power between persons in dialogue. At its core is the recognition that each person in an interaction is equally capable. To understand reciprocity in this sense is to distinguish the more common understanding of power as expertise or authority from the less common understanding of power as capacity or capability. The Spanish word poder reflects this latter understanding. It can be used both as a noun meaning “power” and as a verb meaning “to be able,” as in “Yo puedo” (i.e., “I can”). Reciprocity does not, however, require denying that one person has more expertise, knowledge, or authority than another in particular areas (e.g., a social worker who has the authority to remove children from their home). Reciprocity requires acknowledging and trusting that every person involved has experience and perceptions of equal value. Reciprocal interactions provide equal opportunity to contribute and to make choices. The recognition that one point of view should not dominate or exclude diverse points of view, as well as the resulting support of open or free choice over forced either-or choice, are important aspects of reciprocal interactions. A reciprocal perspective changes how one thinks when encountering differences. Without a reciprocal perspective, one may think, “Oh, here’s someone who doesn’t have what I have or what I believe they need (and is somehow deficient as a result).” The parenthetical phrase is unspoken yet clear. From a reciprocal perspective, however, one is more likely to think, “Oh, here’s someone who may benefit from what I have to offer and from whom I can benefit (because he or she has something new or different that can add to or extend my resources).” The parenthetical phrase in this statement is always clear regardless of whether it is verbalized. Dunst, Trivette, and Deal noted, “Help is more likely to be favorably received if it can be reciprocated and the possibility of ‘repaying’ the help giver is sanctioned and approved but not expected” (1988, p. 95). When interactions are reciprocal and differences are acknowledged as potential contributions, no sense of debt is incurred by the persons involved. When one enters interactions only to give — whether knowledge, support, direction, or something else — he or she cannot acknowledge what others have to contribute. This lack of reciprocity inhibits not only what might be received but also the full potential of what is given. In reciprocal relationships, everyone has something to offer. Reciprocity enriches not only the persons involved, but also the outcome of their interactions. Returning once more to Betsy, who wants more involvement on Karen’s part, how might reciprocity be established? Nonjudgmental acknowledgment that diverse perspectives are present is critical. A first step is suspending the need to impose one experience of reality on another (i.e., to push Karen to become engaged in the ways that Betsy values or, conversely, to acquiesce and offer no options for change). A second step is to acknowledge Karen’s capacity to contribute in this particular situation and to explore how she is currently participating (e.g., trusting Betsy’s expertise, allowing time and space for Betsy’s agenda, listening). This acknowledgment might lead to recognizing Karen’s participation in other similar interactions with her child and in other environments. Eventually, to establish reciprocity, Betsy must understand that Karen is already equally, if not more, involved with Maya in a variety of ways. This understanding then provides a context for responding to the two women’s differing perceptions as well as to the specific needs of Karen and Maya. Specific strategies for establishing reciprocity in relation to each of Skilled Dialogue’s two skills are presented in Chapters 5 and 6. These strategies are further addressed though vignettes in Section III. Responsiveness So I no longer have theories about people. I don’t diagnose them or decide what their problem is. I simply meet with them and listen. As we sit together, I don’t even have an agenda, but I know that something will emerge from our conversation over time that is a part of a larger coherent pattern that neither of us can fully see at the moment. So I sit with them and wait. (Remen, 2000, p. 90) If respect means recognizing different boundaries and reciprocity means acknowledging that every person has something of value to contribute, then responsiveness means taking the next step. Being responsive “requires a deep respect for [others’] uniqueness, an openness to allowing them to uncover who they are rather than shaping them into who we want or need them to be” (Remen, 2000, p. 281). First, responsiveness is about turning all assumptions into lightly held hypotheses (e.g., saying “I wonder if” and “Maybe” instead of “I know” and “I’m sure”). To be responsive is to allow oneself to entertain a mystery, to ask, “Who is this other person? I see this or that behavior, and I experience it in a certain way, but who is this person, really?” Forgetting mystery makes it all too easy to place children in the “boxes” of their diagnoses and families in the circles of one’s own categories and labels. They are reduced to a singular identity (e.g., the child with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, the resistant mother), and one becomes engaged only with his or her ideas about them. Responsiveness, conversely, requires releasing preconceptions and listening to children and families “with focused attention, patience and curiosity” (Freedman & Combs, 1996, p. 44). Only then can one become responsive to individual families — that is, become attuned to their reality rather than to just one’s own ideas about that reality. In this sense, responsiveness means being willing to give up certainty, to not know exactly what to do or what to say. Remen stated, “Knowing where we are going encourages us to stop seeing and hearing and allows us to fall asleep. . . . [Such knowing allows] a part of [us] to rush ahead to [our destination] the moment [we] see it” (2000, p. 289). Unfortunately, this is an apt description of what often happens when practitioners present families with their diagnostic findings and intervention recommendations. Once a child is assessed, or sometimes even before, it is all too easy to press on to conclusions about what needs to be done. Responding and responsiveness are not necessarily the same. Responsiveness requires leaving room for the unexpected and the unpredictable. Examples include thoughts such as
Being responsive is particularly important in culturally diverse situations because their very diversity challenges us to recognize that people are always more than (and perhaps even radically different from) others’ ideas about who they are. Although preconceived ideas and judgments can never be totally eliminated, through mindful attention one can refuse to reduce others’ reality to one’s limited dimensions. For example, Betsy can refuse to place Karen in a box labeled “inattentive or uninvolved mother.” She can listen to Karen “with focused attention, patience and curiosity” (Freedman & Combs, 1996, p. 44) while reminding herself that she knows little of Karen’s true capacities. Most important, Betsy can continue to act as if cooperation and collaboration are eminent.
These possibilities and other similar ones may not necessarily solve the problem. They will, however, gradually redefine it and change the tenor of interactions between Betsy and Karen, thereby increasing the possibility of arriving at more satisfactory and competent interactions between them. Table 3 compares behaviors that only communicate feeling responsible with behaviors that communicate responsiveness. |
|
 ORDERING INFO ISBN 1-55766-637-7 Paperback 280 pages / 7 x 10 2003 / $34.95 Stock# 6377 |
