Culturally-Responsive Relational Practice at the Chalk-Face: A journey to Authenticity

Porter-Samuels, Tute; Holley-Boen, Wendy

doi:10.54322/kairaranga.v20i1.311

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, for Pasifika women, universities in New Zealand have a long way to go in order to achieve this goal. The education systems in Aotearoa New Zealand have consistently and historically under-served Pasifika peoples and as such change is needed (Boon et al 2017;Chu et al, 2013;Finau, 2008;Hunter et al 2016;Kepa, 2011;Kidman & Chu, 2019;Leaupepe & Sauni, 2014;Mayeda et al, 2014;McDonald & Lipine, 2012;Naepi, 2019a;Porter-Samuels, 2013;Reynolds, 2016;Samu, 2006;Suaalii-Sauni, 2008;Teevale & Teu, 2018;Theodore et al 2018). As someone who has experienced these spaces and places it became ever more urgent for me to talk to other Pasifika women about their experiences in universities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Didn't Come to Play”

Naepi

2020

Advances in Religious and Cultural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pasifika women in the academy face many of the same challenges as other racialised women working in universities. At the intersection of race and gender, we experience the white and masculine imprints of higher education. These imprints lead to Pasifika women experiencing excess labour, infantilization, hyper-surveillance, stranger making, expectations of intelligibility, and desirable diversity. In spite of this daily onslaught Pasifika, women continue to work and engage in higher education and the question needs to be asked: Why? This chapter explores these experiences and more importantly the motivations of Pasifika women to continue to engage with higher education in spite of the systemic exclusion they face.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Didn't Come to Play”

Naepi

2020

Advances in Religious and Cultural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review

Lamph,

Nowland,

Boland

et al. 2023

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational, or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers, do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice. Method This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating to relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. Searches were conducted on 8 bibliographic databases on 27 October 2021. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. Results A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion-based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative, and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in the use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors. Conclusion Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities, a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021295958

show abstract

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice and social care: A Scoping Review

Lamph

Nowland²,

Boland³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice. Method This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. Results A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors. Conclusion Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices. Systematic review registration: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021295958) and is available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021295958.

show abstract

Culturally-Responsive Relational Practice at the Chalk-Face: A journey to Authenticity

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

“I Didn't Come to Play”

“I Didn't Come to Play”

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice and social care: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About