Alston Yan

Social work theory · Volume G: Knowledge, Ethics & Professional Practice

Anti-oppressive and culturally responsive professional practice

Anti-oppressive and culturally responsive professional practice refers to the professional frameworks through which social workers put a commitment to social justice and cultural respect into everyday work.

1. What it is

Anti-oppressive and culturally responsive professional practice refers to the professional frameworks through which social workers put a commitment to social justice and cultural respect into everyday work. It draws on anti-oppressive theory (see Anti-oppressive, anti-racist and decolonial theories) and translates it into expectations about how practitioners examine themselves, relate to people from other cultures and answer for the effects of their practice. Key elements include reflexivity, cultural humility, cultural safety and accountability (Dominelli, 2002; Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). These are professional frameworks for conduct and do not explain human behaviour. In Australia, they are tied closely to the profession’s obligations to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Bennett et al., 2013).

Anti-oppressive practice as professional conduct. Anti-oppressive practice recognises that social work operates within unequal power relations shaped by race, class, gender, sexuality, disability and age, and that practice can either reproduce or challenge them (Dominelli, 2002). As professional conduct, it requires workers to minimise the power imbalance between themselves and service users, work in partnership, and address oppression at personal, cultural and structural levels (Mullaly, 2010).

Reflexivity. Reflexivity is the practitioner’s ongoing awareness of how their own social position, values and assumptions influence their perceptions and actions (D’Cruz et al., 2007). In anti-oppressive practice, reflexivity includes recognising privilege. Mullaly (2010) argues that workers from dominant groups must examine the unearned advantages they hold. Critical reflection (G5) provides methods for this work.

Cultural competence. Cultural competence emerged in the late 1980s as a framework for services to respond effectively to cultural diversity. Cross et al. (1989) described it as a set of congruent behaviours, attitudes and policies that enable a system or professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. In practice, it often emphasised acquiring knowledge about particular cultural groups and developing cross-cultural skills.

Cultural humility (Tervalon and Murray-García). Tervalon and Murray-García (1998), writing about physician training, argued that competence implies a finite body of knowledge that can be mastered. They proposed cultural humility as an alternative. Cultural humility involves a lifelong commitment to self-evaluation and self-critique, redressing power imbalances in the professional relationship, and developing partnerships with communities. Fisher-Borne et al. (2015) applied this to social work, describing a shift “from mastery to accountability” in which institutional as well as individual change is required.

Cultural safety (Ramsden; Aotearoa New Zealand). Cultural safety was developed by Māori nurse educator Irihapeti Ramsden in Aotearoa New Zealand in the late 1980s and 1990s, in response to Māori experiences of health services (Papps & Ramsden, 1996; Ramsden, 2002). Its central principle is that safety is defined by the recipient of a service. Practice is culturally unsafe when it diminishes, demeans or disempowers a person’s cultural identity. Cultural safety asks practitioners to examine their own culture and the power relations embedded in their profession. Curtis et al. (2019) argue that it offers a stronger basis for health equity than cultural competence.

Australian adoption. Cultural safety has been adopted widely in Australian health and human services, particularly in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Australian social work scholars have argued that the profession must recognise its historical role in colonial policies, including child removal, and that the profession remains shaped by whiteness (Walter et al., 2011). The AASW Code of Ethics (Australian Association of Social Workers [AASW], 2020) commits social workers to culturally safe and culturally responsive practice and acknowledges First Nations sovereignty and self-determination. The Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) require qualifying programs to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content and cross-cultural practice across the curriculum.

Accountability. Accountability means answering for the effects of practice on service users and communities. It involves openness to feedback and complaint, transparent decision-making, and responsibility to communities as well as employers (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). For work with First Nations peoples, accountability includes respecting community-controlled organisations and Indigenous leadership.

2. Historical development

Period Development
1970s–1980s Radical and anti-racist social work critique professional power
1989 Cross et al. publish a framework for cultural competence
Late 1980s–1990s Ramsden develops cultural safety in nursing education in Aotearoa New Zealand
1998 Tervalon and Murray-García propose cultural humility
1990s–2002 Anti-oppressive practice consolidated in British social work (Dominelli, 2002)
2000s–2010s Australian critiques of whiteness in social work and First Nations social work scholarship (Walter et al., 2011; Bennett et al., 2013)
2015 Fisher-Borne et al. argue for cultural humility in social work education
2020 AASW Code of Ethics commits members to culturally safe practice

These frameworks emerged from different sources. Anti-oppressive practice grew from radical, feminist and anti-racist social work in Britain. Cultural competence developed in North American health and child services. Cultural safety came from Māori critiques of colonial health care, and cultural humility from medical education. Each became a distinct framework because it identified a different weakness in earlier approaches, such as the assumption that culture could be learned as a body of facts.

Australian social work has drawn on all four. The Bringing Them Home report (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [HREOC], 1997) documented the involvement of welfare authorities in the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. This history has shaped a growing emphasis on cultural safety, self-determination and Indigenous-led practice in the profession’s code and education standards (Bennett et al., 2013).

3. Practical guidance

These frameworks translate into concrete professional habits.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. These frameworks connect social work’s values with concrete professional conduct. Cultural safety and cultural humility shift attention from the “otherness” of service users to the practitioner’s own culture and power. They have strong support from First Nations scholars and communities, and they align with the AASW Code and international commitments to self-determination (Curtis et al., 2019).

Limitations. Terminology is used inconsistently, and cultural competence, humility and safety are often blurred in policy documents. Cultural competence has been criticised for treating cultures as fixed and for encouraging stereotypes (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). Individual reflexivity may have little effect without organisational and structural change. Evidence linking these frameworks to improved outcomes is still developing, and implementation can become a matter of compliance training.

Overall importance. Anti-oppressive and culturally responsive practice expresses social work’s commitment to social justice at the level of professional behaviour. In Australia, cultural safety and accountability to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are central professional obligations. These frameworks bring together the reflexive, ethical and critical elements of this family (G5, G6) and link them to the critical theories in Family D.

5. References

See the animated explainerWork with Alston