Cultural competence and cultural humility are issues that social work has wrestled with historically. As social work practitioners, we seek to meet clients where they are at and also be as supportive as possible. But how do we ensure that our supervisory practice is the most effective in working with supervisees who may have different cultural backgrounds than ourselves? How do we continually refine our theory for practice through the lens of cultural competence? This assignment will build on what we have been discussing from a theoretical perspective for the past two weeks and leverage those learnings here in our exploration of the article by Fisher-Borne, Cain, and Martin (2015) that you read this week.
In 5 pages, explain the authors' perspectives on cultural competence and cultural humility. How does this perspective match with your theoretical practice methods as it relates to social work supervision? If you were conducting group supervision with several members who are people of color, what concepts from Fisher-Borne, Cain, and Martin's article would you consider in your supervision style and strategy?
The three main bullet points below correspond to the grading criteria for this assignment:
- Compare the differences between cultural competence and cultural humility.
- Discuss the incorporation of cultural competence and cultural humility into a specific individual theoretical perspective for use in social work supervision.
- Share examples of how you would integrate specific concepts of cultural competence and cultural humility in your supervision style and strategy with diverse groups.
Fisher-Borne, M., Cain, J. M., & Martin, S. L. (2015). From mastery to accountability: Cultural humility as an alternative to cultural competence.Links to an external site. Social Work Education, 34(2), 165–181.