Using a Two-Eyed Seeing Approach to Explore the Meaning of Culturally Appropriate Child and Family Practice in a Kanien'keh:Ka First Nation

Background and Purpose: The overrepresentation of Indigenous children in child welfare systems across the United States and Canada is well documented. There is also a growing body of research on the factors driving this overrepresentation. However, research is lacking on understanding what child welfare practice models are most appropriate, or potentially harmful, for Indigenous children and families needing services. 

This study was initiated in response to recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) and an order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (2016) calling for all child and family services agencies to offer culturally appropriate child welfare services to First Nations, Métis and Inuit children and families. The lead researcher partnered with a First Nations community services agency to design a study in response to these recommendations guided by three research questions: What is culturally appropriate practice? What are the barriers to practice in a culturally appropriate way? What are the facilitators to practice in a culturally appropriate way?

Methods: This study used a two-eyed seeing research design combining Western and Indigenous research methodologies. Principles of participatory action research and Ownership, Control, Access and Possession guided our exploration of the meaning of culturally appropriate child and family practice. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with workers who provide an array of child and family services (including child protection services). Of the 16 participants, the majority were First Nations (65%) and female (69%). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded and categorized using Dedoose software and thematic and relational analytic strategies. A research circle was formed including three elders and the lead researcher to analyze the data and ensure the research process respected Kanien’kehá:ka ways of knowing.

Results: Data analysis revealed that integrating culture into child and family practice is less about skills to learn or a service to provide and more a way of being, feeling and relating for workers. A defining feature of integrating culture into practice is the concept of connectiveness—bringing in extended family and the whole community into child welfare decision making. However, results also showed that it is challenging to identify a culturally appropriate way of practicing because of the variation in perspectives of what that means, even among the sixteen participants working in one community. Many participants identified intergenerational trauma and ongoing colonial policies as major barriers for them to practice in a culturally appropriate way. All the participants identified the openness and supportiveness of agency leadership as a key facilitator to be able to integrate culture into practice.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings show that defining culture is not a straightforward endeavor even in one First Nations community. The results illuminate the challenge of integrating culture into child and family practice given the ongoing negative impact of colonization. Thus, national policy calling for culturally appropriate services for Indigenous children and families should emphasize strategies to de-colonize current child welfare policies.