Commentary on Cultural Diversity Across the Pacific: The Dominance of Western Theories, Models, Research and Practice in Psychology

Berry's (2010) intercultural strategies acculturation model includes the acculturation styles of integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation at an ethno-cultural group level, and multiculturalism, melting pot, segregation and exclusion at a larger, societal level. In explaining the process of acculturation, Berry asserts that ‘although one group is usually dominant over the others, successful outcomes require mutual accommodation among all groups and individuals living together in a diverse society’ (p. 97), that is, mutual integration, guided by a societal norm of multiculturalism. When a multicultural norm is not the on-the-ground reality, then questions arise about the adaptability of the four ethno-cultural group strategies. For example, assimilation may work for, but integration may backfire on, a group when the wider norm is that of a ‘melting pot’; in contrast, separation and marginalisation may be comparatively adaptive when societal norms of segregation and exclusion are in place. Berry's model thus improves upon earlier unidirectional models of acculturation by taking into account possible interactions between styles on the one hand, and societal norms on the other.

At a more psycho-political and possibly economic level, the model raises fundamental questions about ‘why’ preferences for acculturation styles and societal norms exist in the first place, and why they can result in the ethno-cultural group strategy chosen by the minority group. For example, what benefits might motivate a dominant culture to accommodate indigenous, immigrant or refugee (minority) groups? After all, the dominant group has the advantage of power and control of institutions, and therefore has real choice in their decision to accommodate. What degree of real choice then do minority groups have in deciding which of the four strategies to adopt? What role does social identity play in the decision-making process of minority groups, and the acculturation strategy they adopt? Do minority groups that are different in appearance, language, religion or values (from the society of settlement) really experience the same kinds of interactions as minority groups that are similar in appearance, language, religion or values, when they each choose the same acculturation style? Finally, indigenous, immigrant and refugee groups might have very different motivations for living in a particular society where the dominant culture is different to their own, which may differentially determine which acculturation style they adopt.

Reviewing the acculturation literature reveals a debate among researchers about the range of issues related to the strengths and limitations of acculturation research. For example, Padilla and Perez (2003) have further advanced our understanding by including social cognition, cultural competence, social identity and social stigma in the model. In Padilla and Perez it is noted that ‘individual differences and personality characteristics [can] facilitate or retard acculturation’ (p. 40). Ngo (2008) examines acculturation through an anti-oppression and social justice lens. I particularly liked Ngo's focus on procedural justice, which emphasises fair governance in social structures, processes and practices, in addition to distributive and redistributive justice (which focus on income and other resources). A procedural justice lens starts to address the issue of ‘power and control’ that dominant groups have on institutions and resources, against which minority groups have to contend during an acculturation process. Researchers are not exempt from reflecting on such issues (Ngo, 2008; Rudmin, 2006). In that respect, therefore, the recent emergence of non-Western — including Pacifica — researchers in the field is particularly important.

Furnham's (2010) article explores one of the negative facets of acculturation — culture shock. Specifically, the focal article examined culture shock issues for foreign students studying within education institutions abroad. Furnham outlines the four main problems faced by foreign students as follows:

First there are problems that confront anybody living in a foreign culture, such as racial discrimination, language problems, accommodation difficulties, separation reactions, dietary restrictions, financial stress, misunderstandings and loneliness. Second, there are the difficulties that face all late adolescents and young adults, whether they are studying at home or abroad, in becoming emotionally independent, self-supporting, productive and a responsible member of society. Third, there are academic stresses when students are expected to work very hard, often under poor conditions, with complex material. Fourth, the national or ethnic role of overseas students is often prominent in their interactions with host members. (p. 89)

Of these four problems, ethnicity features in two of them, and one of the patterns noted by Furnham from the research literature is that foreign students generally seem to experience higher levels of physical and mental ill-health and academic problems than other students. Although the cause of these difficulties has not yet been established, strong social support networks are believed to be one component to helping foreign students survive culture shock.

I believe there are parallel issues for Māori students in tertiary education institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand, including those studying psychology. Torres (2009) refers to ‘race culture shock’, in which a student in an [education] institution in their own country is in the racial minority. Māori psychology students are certainly in the minority in our country, and my own experience of being both a psychology student as well as a Māori member of staff providing academic and learning support services to Māori supports the similarity of culture shock experiences faced by foreign students. Māori psychology student and staff experiences of institutional racism, or what the Human Rights Commission (2011) now refers to as structural discrimination, is the underlying theme discussed by Gavala and Taitimu (2007), Levy (2002), and Milne (2005). Sisley and Waiti (1997) found structural discrimination within the broader education sector, along with the Human Rights Commission (2011), which also found structural discrimination throughout the public sector in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Structural discrimination is the ‘practices, norms and behaviours within institutions and social structures which have the effect of denying rights or opportunities to members of minority groups while serving to advantage members of the majority group’ (Human Rights Commission, 2011, p. 4). An example within the education sector is ethnocentric curricula, policies and teaching methods, and for Māori and other minority ethnic groups (including foreign students), this can be experienced in the same way as culture shock. Although structural discrimination is largely unintentional, it nevertheless results in disadvantage to Māori, and other minority ethnic groups.

Certainly ethnocentric curricula, policies and teaching methods within clinical psychology are some of the issues highlighted by Gavala and Taitimu (2007), Levy (2002), and Milne (2005). In fact, the perspectives of some of Milne's (2005) research participants were not complimentary of psychology, and some participants felt it was a dangerous profession for Māori because of the complete absence of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and kaupapa Māori (Māori philosophy) psychology within tertiary education programs and clinical practice models and methods. Not only did Māori psychology students and professionals risk being ‘colonised’ again by Western psychology, Māori clients of clinical services and the wider Māori community were deeply suspicious of Māori psychologists because of the damaging outcomes to the wellbeing of those clients and their whānau (family) as a result of receiving psychological services.

Clinical psychology teaching and training has improved in recent years as Māori clinical psychologists started actively developing a body of Māori psychology knowledge and practice, and as more Māori clinical teaching staff came into tertiary institutions. However, in the discipline of industrial-organisational (I-O) psychology, ethnocentric curricula, policies and teaching methods are still the norm. As long as Māori I-O psychology students remain extremely under-represented in tertiary education, and there are no Māori I-O teaching staff in psychology departments, this situation is likely to remain and Māori I-O students will continue to experience structural discrimination and the effects of race culture shock.

The importance of Marsella and Yamada's (2010) discussion about ethnocentric blindness or bias in Western psychiatry and psychology cannot be underestimated in terms of the potential for harm to non-Western and especially indigenous clients. In particular, Marsella and Yamada's caution that ‘. . . Western psychiatric assumptions and practices may be relevant and accurate within a Western cultural context, but this does not mean they are relevant or accurate in other contexts. We must not mistake “power” and “dominance” for accuracy’ (p. 106). This caution reminds us that although the Pacific region is culturally diverse, the dominant culture and power base in many Pacific countries is still Western (individualistic). By including information about Native Hawaiian worldviews about mental health and wellbeing, Marsella and Yamada claim valuable space for an indigenous non-Western voice to be heard, as well as increasing the visibility of the ethnocentric bias of psychology.

The ethnocentric bias implicit in Western assessment tools in both clinical and I-O psychology in relation to Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand is examined next.

Structural discrimination is one of the reasons why Western-centric theories, models, research and practice are so dominant in psychology, and because the discrimination is structural and systemic, this bias largely remains invisible to Western academics, researchers and practitioners. Although unintentional, structural discrimination within our teaching (and other) institutions nevertheless results in disadvantage to nondominant groups, which in psychology has the unintended follow-on effect of psychological services not always being culturally responsive for our clients. While this is changing within some psychological disciplines, such as clinical psychology, there is still some way to go for disciplines such as I-O psychology, and emerging psychological disciplines such as coaching psychology.

Part of the answer lies in the work of Triandis and Brislin (1984) and other cross-cultural psychologists, as well as in the newer field of indigenous psychology. However, being separate fields of study, there is no guarantee that this research and knowledge will be integrated into teaching of applied disciplines such as I-O psychology and others. In addition, while some of the knowledge from these fields is included in our tertiary curricula, it is more often presented in a theoretical rather than an applied context.

As a broad field of social science, the theories, models, research and practice of psychology provides a valuable service to our diverse communities across the Pacific. It is incumbent upon us then, to reflect on how the dominance and bias of Western psychology impacts our clients from non-Western cultures. Applied psychologists from indigenous communities such as Māori, Native Hawaiian, Native American Indian and the Pacific Islands, are making a difference at the front lines. However, indigenous and other minority group knowledge is only slowly being included in our tertiary curricula and therefore into Western practice. We have a long way to go, but inroads have been made. Long may it continue.