'culture-Work' As Social Work Practice: Paradigm Shifts in Cultural Competence and Tensions between Institutional Compliance and Ethical Mandates

Background and Purpose:

The recent dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public institutions have intensified tensions between institutional compliance and ethical mandates in social work practice. Such tensions have long been debated around cultural competence as a cornerstone of social work practice ethics. Critics argue that frameworks of cultural competence risk essentializing cultural differences, depoliticizing structural oppression and social justice, and prioritizing mastery over systemic critique. This study traces social work scholarship on cultural competence and examines how scholarship reconciles competing demands: adherence to codified standards (e.g., NASW, CSWE) versus justice-oriented practice.

Methods:

We employed concept analysis (Levering, 2002) to deconstruct the evolving definitions of ‘cultural competence’ within social work literature by examining peer-reviewed articles from leading social work journals (2010–2024). To isolate discipline-specific discourse, we searched social work journals directly rather than databases (Gonzalez Benson et al., 2018). After title screening (n = 13,864), 46 articles underwent full-text review, with 25 retained for analysis. Using theoretical synthesis, we categorized articles into emergent domains, and coded for epistemological positioning (e.g., positivist, constructivist, critical realist). We conducted peer debriefing and iterative thematic refinement towards rigor.

Findings:

Drawing on empirical findings, we posit that “culture work”—encompassing cultural competency, humility, safety, and related frameworks— can be characterized via three domains:

1. Culture-work as mastery: Prioritizes quantifiable competency metrics (e.g., scales, checklists), responds to calls for objectivity, and prioritizes scientific rigor.
2. Culture-work as reflection: Emphasizes cultural humility and self-awareness. This paradigm responds to critiques of cultural competency by rejecting essentialist assumptions and centering self-reflection, personal development, and personal growth.
3. Culture-work as structural change: Centers anti-oppressive practice (e.g., frameworks of decolonization and intersectionality). This paradigm rejects cultural labels, advocating instead for institutional reform and systemic critique.

These domains reflect an epistemological evolution of culture-work: from positivist measurement (‘mastery’) to constructivist reflexivity (‘reflection’) and finally to critical/structural paradigms (‘structural change’).

Conclusion and Implications:

The tension between institutional demands for standardized competence and ethical imperatives for structural justice underscores a critical disciplinary rift. To align practice with social work’s justice mission, we suggest revisiting competency checklists as used by NASW and CSWE against anti-oppressive metrics (e.g., community-led audits of institutional inequities). Consideration should be given for future research to prioritize systemic inequities over individual competence metrics, centering strategies that address structural barriers. By reorienting culture work toward equity-driven collaboration, social work can advance justice while challenging systems that sustain oppression. In a climate increasingly challenging DEI efforts, these shifts are not merely theoretical—they are urgent steps necessary to align practice with social work’s core mission of social justice.