CONVERSATION CORNER
 Once upon a time I was studying to become a primatologist in the discipline of physical anthropology. As I became aware of more and more barriers to my ability to achieve this goal of living in Borneo working with the conservation efforts to save orangutans, I slid over into cultural anthropology as it was more accessible to me at the time. That experience alone is another article about oppression, discrimination, and privilege in and of itself. As a cultural anthropologist, one of my favorite things to read were ethnographies. (I know, I know, geek much?) Many years (and literal transition) later I ended up in counseling psychology with a master's degree in clinical mental health. Somehow, I never lost my love for research articles.
Today I came across a LinkedIn post by another member, Cathryn Greville, in my feed regarding a recent NPR article: "Men are hunters, women are gatherers. That was the assumption. A new study upends it." (July 1, 2023) It supports my long-held belief that we had this information wrong all along. It also supports the idea that research is rife with biases of all kinds. But, again, that's another article. Here's where my mind felt like it was imploding though...the idea that ethnographical data should be incorporated into research related to multiculturalism. I love ethnographies, always have. I personally utilize ethnographies and similar information to inform my understanding of the various cultures with which I work. In counselor education it is often pressed upon students just how important it is to continually strive for multicultural competency (the academic term, not mine). Yet, no one in my experience or others that I am aware of has suggested utilizing a blend of psychology and anthropology to inform ourselves or to impact our training, techniques, or even concept of diagnostic criteria. There are many similarities between social psychology and anthropology, but I rarely see any direct interaction. This could, of course, be a simple limitation of my own experiences. The article demonstrates to me a great benefit of combining the historical and current ethnographic literature with our work in multiculturalism, therapeutic techniques, and our concept of diagnostic criteria. As we research the concept of gender roles in historical culture we are beginning to understand that bias shaped what we now consider widely to be true: men and women have evolutionarily different gender roles. It was preposterous before, and it is so now. Many hunter/gatherer cultures depended on their abilities to forage, cultivate, and hunt for basic survival. It was an all-hands-on-deck kind of necessity. We just imagined it to be similar to our own current gender-driven society because that was the lens with which we were looking. Many of us, especially those of us from marginalized backgrounds and experiences, have long had trouble with the White, Eurocentric basis upon which the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) was built, and the resulting practices of assessment and therapeutic treatment of individuals. I suggest here that we have tools at our disposal to challenge many widely held societal beliefs and patterns of behavior. Further, that we have an ethical obligation as therapists committed to doing no harm to utilize these tools to reimagine multiculturalism, therapeutic techniques, and most importantly diagnosis. Now, who wants to fund my research? ;) Objective: The implications ethnographic study could have on feminist theory, multiculturalism, and culturally relevant and inclusive therapeutic practices.
0 Comments
There is a long history of relationship between scholarship and class status. In academia almost everything revolves around obtaining a Ph.D. in your discipline. Anything less is often considered, well… less than. A doctorate often leads to teaching positions, tenure status, and funded research or other publishing opportunities. It also leads to obtaining employment for which one would be well-qualified, but for their lack of a Ph.D. A doctorate can and often does lend itself to higher social status as well. Many marginalized folks struggle to obtain higher education, often due to systemic barriers. They are consequently held out of obtaining faculty appointments, research funding, and other opportunities to share their expertise, experiences, and perspectives. We are robbed of their knowledge and contributions to our society as a result.
In my field of counseling psychology/clinical mental health obtaining a master’s degree is necessary for licensure. Many eventually go on to obtain a doctorate, often in counseling education and supervision. This is a standard necessity for becoming faculty as well as a preference (if not requirement in some areas) for supervision. Some people go only therapeutic practice, and some work as both faculty and practitioner. This is a model seemingly preferred by most counseling education programs. However, obtaining a master’s degree is a costly investment that is often unobtainable by marginalized individuals. In light of the death of affirmative action in higher education I was thinking about this concept. I was also lamenting my own struggles with obtaining even an adjunct position with “only” a master’s degree. I enjoy teaching and provide education through workshops and presentations, but I am not “qualified” to teach at a college or university without a doctorate. It took quite some time for me to get here due to financial and life barriers and it was also quite expensive! My ability, especially as a non-traditional student, to obtain a doctorate is dampened by the financial necessity of life. My wife and I cannot afford to have me pursue a doctorate in a non-traditional setting such as hybrid or online programs. We also cannot access a more traditional route of a funded program at an on-ground university due to our inability to leave our current location. Thus, I am limited by these and other barriers. Without it, I can’t teach as traditional faculty (or adjunct as most programs require a doctorate), my ability to conduct research is limited due to a lack of funding and a lack of affiliation with an institute of higher education allowing me access to the scholarly databases, and thus, my contribution to scholarly knowledge is limited as well. Affirmative action was one piece that helped to enable marginalized individuals to obtain their education at institutions otherwise off limits to them, not for their lack of merit, but often only for their skin color or ancestry. There are already so many barriers in place; many students of minoritized identities struggle with houselessness, financial burdens requiring them to put work above school, and community violence, not to mention many K-12 schools being unsupportive of minority students. As a result, we continue to lose valuable scholarly contributions from the most marginalized among us. This system of putting Ph.Ds. above all others and limiting contributions from the rest of us who have the ability but perhaps not the opportunity is another form of inequity that needs to be addressed. There are so many of us who can’t access these rungs. I don’t have a Ph.D., but I am still worthy of scholarship. |
AuthorGus is a counselor, presenter, and activist working for justice and equity. 
Archives
October 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
