Content uploaded by Robert Schinke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Schinke
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]
On: 28 February 2012, At: 11:43
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Quest
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural
Sensitivity: Strategies for Self-Reflexive
Sport Psychology Practice
Robert J. Schinke a , Kerry R. McGannon a , William D. Parham b &
Andrew M. Lane c
a School of Human Kinetics, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario
b Department of Counselling, University of California, Irvine,
California, USA
c School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure, University of
Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Available online: 28 Feb 2012
To cite this article: Robert J. Schinke, Kerry R. McGannon, William D. Parham & Andrew M. Lane
(2012): Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity: Strategies for Self-Reflexive Sport Psychology
Practice, Quest, 64:1, 34-46
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2012.653264
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Quest, 64:34–46, 2012
Copyright © National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE)
ISSN: 0033-6297 print / 1543-2750 online
DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2012.653264
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity:
Strategies for Self-Reflexive Sport
Psychology Practice
ROBERT J. SCHINKE and KERRY R. MCGANNON
School of Human Kinetics, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario
WILLIAM D. PARHAM
Department of Counselling, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California
ANDREW M. LANE
School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure, University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Sport psychology researchers have recently focused their attention onto the topic of culture. Their
recent findings have begun to be utilized by sport psychology practitioners to increase cross-cul-
tural understandings and deliver culturally sensitized sport services. However, such practices are
on the fringes of applied sport psychology. Our intent is to show how reflective practices and
self-reflexivity (i.e., forms of introspection) of sport psychology consultants can contribute toward
understanding cultural diversity issues in sport. An example in the form of a confessional tale from
one of the author’s consulting experiences with an Indigenous athlete will then be presented to illus-
trate non-reflective vs. reflective practices, and how each constrains vs. augments cultural sensitivity.
We conclude with future considerations for sport psychology consultants.
Keywords cultural sport psychology, reflective practice
In recent years cultural sport psychology (CSP) has been charted, with two special jour-
nal issues in sport psychology devoted to the topic. Athletic Insight showcased articles on
culturally relevant practice (see Schinke, Michel, Danielson, & Gauthier, 2005) and the
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology highlighted articles using “decolo-
nizing methodologies” to address issues of power and socio-cultural difference in research
(see Ryba & Schinke, 2009). Recently, two edited volumes within the CSP genre brought
together scholarship to critically examine how sport psychology is (re)presented via a socio-
cultural lens to challenge the domain’s assumptions and practices (see Ryba, Schinke, &
Tenenbaum, 2010; Schinke & Hanrahan, 2009).
While the use and meaning of the term CSP within the foregoing literature is broad, it
has been noted that at its heart is cultural praxis (Ryba & Wright, 2005; Ryba & Schinke,
Address correspondence to Kerry R. McGannon, PhD, School of Human Kinetics, Ben
Avery Building, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON, P3E 2C6.
E-mail: KMcGannon@laurentian.ca
34
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity 35
2009). The goal of cultural praxis is to blend theory, lived culture, and social action with
a “self-reflexive sensibility” to raise awareness as to how one’s own values, biases, social
position, and self-identity categories impact participants within the research and/or consult-
ing realms (McGannon & Johnson, 2009; Ryba & Schinke, 2009; Ryba & Wright, 2005).
Through cultural praxis, CSP researchers and practitioners strive to be culturally sensitive
by highlighting issues of socio-cultural difference, within the context of power and ethical
issues, to facilitate a more contextualized understanding of marginalized voices and cultural
identities (Ryba & Schinke, 2009).
The above discussion concerning cultural praxis is in its infancy. At the forefront of
such discussions are questions concerning how sport psychology consultants/professionals
might go about creating and/or using culturally sensitive methods to highlight complex
interactions of power and socio-cultural difference encountered in a multi-cultural sport
context (McGannon & Johnson, 2009; Ryba & Schinke, 2009). One strategy that holds
promise in this regard is self-reflexivity. Self-reflexivity is an innovation in qualitative
methodology whereby investigators situate their own personal identities to explore sur-
prises and un-doings in the research process (i.e., unexpected turns in the research), with the
self of the researcher becoming the site of analysis and the subject of critique (McGannon
& Metz, 2010). Cultural studies scholar Paula Saukko (2002) wrote that “reflexivity is
a tool to enhance awareness of our situatedness and, subsequently, to be more receptive
to perspectives that approach the world from a different position” (p. 88). Confronting
one’s own background, biases, and interests in a self-reflexive manner provides oppor-
tunity to draw attention to dilemmas about how to express one’s social position and
identity without marginalizing another’s culture and identity (McGannon & Johnson, 2009;
Sparkes, 2002). Recognizing such dilemmas via self-reflexivity is useful to help realize
the goals of cultural praxis as we begin “to confront the issues of identity and represen-
tation and consider how we might develop texts that highlight the problematic worlds
we study, our relationships to such worlds, and how we translate them” (Tierney, 1997,
p. 34).
Despite self-reflexivity being a useful tool for accomplishing cultural sensitivity in
applied multi-cultural sport contexts, it has been primarily discussed as a research method-
ology within CSP (see McGannon & Johnson, 2009; McGannon & Metz, 2010; Ryba &
Schinke, 2009). While the absence of self-reflexivity in the applied CSP realm is partially
due to the novelty of CSP, the discussion and development of self-reflexive strategies in
CSP practice is important as it adds to a growing dialogue on reflective practice within the
general realm of sport psychology consulting and practice.
Similar to the tenets of reflexivity outlined above, the reflective practice litera-
ture emphasizes an approach to sport psychology practice that focuses on practitioner
self-awareness of limitations, self-interests, frustrations, and prejudices in the consulta-
tion process (Anderson, Knowles & Gilbourne, 2004; Cropley, Hanton, & Miles, 2010;
Poczwardowski, Sherman, & Henschen, 1998). While not explicitly engaged with power
issues per se, a reflective (i.e., introspective) approach is important because it contributes
toward that goal via the development of competent, knowledgeable, and ethical practi-
tioners who are better equipped to enhance athlete welfare and well being (Anderson
et al., 2004). Authors of this literature have explored self-reflective accounts of neophyte
practitioners (e.g., Holt & Strean, 2001), how self-reflective narratives help with pro-
fessional and personal development of practitioners (Anderson et al., 2004), and the
aspects of self-reflective practice that aide effective service delivery (Cropley et al.,
2010). However, as with the CSP literature, scholars within the reflective practice liter-
ature have only recently begun to problematize the distal and/or authoritative nature of
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
36 R. J. Schinke et al.
practitioners’ voices, encouraging sport psychology professionals and consultants to move
beyond technical and practical reflection and move toward critical reflection.
Knowles and Gilbourne (2010) recently invited debate in this regard advocating that
practitioners can accomplish critical reflection by exploring personal experiences through
forms of reflective writing (e.g., autoethnography/self stories) (see also Sparkes, 2002).
In line with the goals of cultural praxis and self-reflexivity, such forms of writing are “crit-
ically reflective” as they seek to simultaneously infuse personal reflections with morality,
ethical, political, and power issues amidst the complexities of culture and society (Knowles
& Gilbourne, 2010; McGannon & Metz, 2010). Knowles and Gilbourne (2010) noted
that more discussion, debate, and work in critical reflection are needed as such examples
“derived from critical interests are more difficult to find, at least within texts that are housed
within the sport-based reflective practice literature” (p. 512).
We see extending and melding discussions of self-reflexivity into the self-reflective
practice discourse as contributing toward such debates and discussions on critical reflection
in sport psychology consulting. Even more pertinent to the current paper and in-line with
the statement directly above, the use and exploration of self-reflexive strategies in relation
to cultural sensitivity in multi-cultural applied sport psychology contexts remains absent
from the sport psychology reflective practice literature. In light of the lack of connection
between the reflective practice literature and cultural praxis, and the fact that there is a need
for more self-reflexive explorations in applied CSP, in this paper we explore the “how’s”
of cultural sensitivity and cultural praxis in the context of applied CSP using a reflective
and reflexive sensibility. The intent is to outline these concepts and discuss how they might
contribute toward enhancing cross-cultural understanding of athletes from various cultures.
A further intent is to offer strategies based on reflective practice and self-reflexive notions
that can contribute toward accomplishing cross-cultural understanding and cultural sen-
sitivity in applied sport psychology. To accomplish these purposes, the tenets of reflective
practice and self-reflexivity will first be outlined. Next, an example from one of the authors’
consulting experiences with immigrant athletes will illustrate non-reflective vs. reflective
practices “in action,” and how each approach constrains vs. augments cultural sensitiv-
ity. Because the term reflexivity is broad and applicable to multiple genres of qualitative
writing (e.g., poetic representations, fictional representations, autoethnography) the con-
sulting experience example is grounded in one particular reflexive tradition: confessional
tales (Sparkes, 2002; Van Maanen, 1988). We conclude with practical suggestions for how
reflective practices and self-reflexivity might be used to raise awareness of cultural diversity
and enhance cultural sensitivity in applied sport psychology contexts.
Reflective Practice and Reflexivity: Giving Voice Through Self-Awareness
While connections between reflective practice and CSP have been relatively scant, within
Schinke and Hanrahan’s (2009) edited volume on CSP, an overview of what it might
mean to “do” reflective CSP practice (i.e., Terry, 2009) was proposed. Within this vol-
ume, reflexive CSP research (i.e., McGannon & Johnson, 2009) was also presented. What
do the terms reflective and reflexive mean? Within the field of education, Osterman (1990)
defined reflective practice as “...challenging, focused, and critical assessment of one’s
own behavior as a means toward developing one’s own craft” (p. 134). Hatton and Smith
(1994) expanded the definition in education to include critical reflection as “making judg-
ments about whether professional activity is equitable, just, and respectful of persons or not
...critical reflection locates any analysis of personal action within wider socio-historical
and politico-cultural contexts” (p. 35). Within applied sport psychology, Anderson et al.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity 37
(2010) defined reflective practice as “an approach to training and practice that can help
practitioners explore their decisions and experiences in order to increase their understand-
ing of (self) and manage themselves and their practice” (p. 189). Although not yet linked
with the CSP literature per se, these definitions of reflection are relevant for sport psychol-
ogy practitioners when it comes to enhancing cultural understanding and cultural sensitivity
(i.e., accomplishing the goals of cultural praxis).
As also mentioned in our introduction, reflexivity is a nuanced form of reflective prac-
tice based upon an emerging innovation in qualitative methodology whereby researchers
situate their own personal identities and biases to explore surprises and un-doings in the
research process (i.e., unexpected turns in the research process) (McGannon & Johnson,
2009). Reflexivity has a further goal of drawing attention to power issues in the research
process by raising questions such as “how do my identity and social position bring me
to ask particular questions and interpret phenomena in particular ways?” and “How do
my own identity, self-related views, values and social position privilege some choices in
the research process over others?”. Related to Hatton and Smith’s definition of critical
reflection in education, such questions shape the research process in political, social, and
cultural ways. As such, asking these questions may result in the researcher producing nar-
ratives and practices that challenge, produce, or perpetuate power structures, which in turn,
empower or disempower consultants and/or athletes. Such questions may have further
implications for how (or even if) marginalized cultures and identities are researched and
portrayed (McGannon & Johnson, 2009). By being self-reflexive, researchers, can become
more aware of how their own taken for granted biases and social identities affect research
participants in relation to the categories to which they belong, and can therefore begin to
attend to power issues (McGannon & Metz, 2010).
An example of the above in sport psychology comes from Schinke and colleagues
(2008) who reflected on their identities as outsiders (i.e., sport scientists, academics, white)
to explore how they could enlist Canadian Aboriginal communities as co-participants who
actively partake in the research process. Rather than “studying” the community and impos-
ing research goals on its people, these researchers work with and for the community to
identify what the community dwellers see as important issues within their reserve and
how such issues can be linked to the research. Schinke et al.’s work is a form of self-
reflexive practice because it shows that an important effect of researcher self-reflexivity
(i.e., acknowledging the various social categories, values and differences between one’s
self and research participants) is the acknowledgement of power differences. The acknowl-
edgment of power via self-reflexive practices can be used to reposition research participants
as co-participants rather than as people of a “different culture” to be “studied.” In turn,
a marginalized community gains a centralized voice in the designing of research ques-
tions and the (re)presentation of results. Doing so becomes a conscious effort to re-position
power equitably among researchers and researched.
While McGannon and Johnson suggested that a key strength of reflexivity lies in
its potential to explore power issues in the research process to empower disempow-
ered cultures and communities, the process and products of self-reflexivity need not
be confined to research. Such goals can be realized in applied sport psychology when
practitioners maintain openness to variation: variation of self, variation of values, varia-
tion of culture, and variation of experiences and behaviors of athletes. Through reflexive
acknowledgment of their own backgrounds (e.g., education, ethnicity, class), fears, and
vulnerabilities, practitioners can become aware of the different ways their own self-related
views, identities and backgrounds influence the consulting process and sport context.
In turn, the foregoing self-reflexive practices provide a pathway for power relationships
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
38 R. J. Schinke et al.
between athletes and practitioners to be acknowledged: an important step in beginning
to empower marginalized cultures to speak for themselves (McGannon & Johnson, 2009;
McGannon & Metz, 2010). With a space opened for athletes to be heard, a second space is
opened more deeply for sport psychologists to understand athletes as people with cultural
identities.
When discussing reflective multicultural sport practice in sport psychology, Terry out-
lined three principles that complement the foregoing notions of self-reflexivity. These
principles include (a) a recognition and awareness that a practitioner’s personal charac-
teristics (e.g., values, background) have a powerful influence on how effective one is and
the relationships developed, (b) the importance of seeking self-knowledge regarding how
one is perceived by others (e.g., athletes, sport service staff), and (c) that the nature of the
interactions with others varies depending on the orientation and perspective adopted (e.g.,
theoretical orientation, consulting or counseling philosophy). In regard to this latter princi-
ple, the more open and self-reflexive a sport psychologist is as far as theoretical tools and
philosophies employed, the better the chance she or he has of adapting to a diversity of cul-
tures found among potential athlete clients (e.g., athletes from a collective vs. individualist
cultural background) (Martindale & Collins, 2005).
To extend reflective practices and reflexivity into the applied sport psychology and cul-
tural sensitivity realm, an in-depth example from one of our authors’ consulting experiences
with culturally diverse athletes will be provided next. The author’s personal account can be
regarded as a “tale from the applied sport psychology field,” thus we further position this
self-reflexive account within the confessional tale genre (Gilbourne & Richardson, 2006;
Sparkes, 2002; Van Maanen, 1988). In contrast to realist tales where the author is absent
from the text and clearly separated from research and culture, consistent with the reflex-
ive genre, confessional tales highlight what is problematic about the notion of a neutral
researcher and research process (Van Maanen, 1988). In this case, our author’s tale high-
lights what is problematic about the notion of a neutral sport psychologist within an applied
multi-cultural sport context. The overarching goal of confessional tales is to reveal dilem-
mas and tensions in research (and in this case, consulting) by way of first-person researcher
stories which draw “on personal experience with the explicit intention of exploring method-
ological and ethical issues as encountered in the research process” (Sparkes, 2002, p. 59).
What follows is also an admission, exploration, and discussion of the tensions encountered
between the consultant and himself and the consultant and athlete, as he entered into, and
negotiated working within a multi-cultural applied sport context.
Contextualizing the Story: Relevant Research
With the uniqueness that exists from one athlete to the next, a sport psychologist’s task is
to first identify what the athlete’s background is and then to try to support each athlete in
relation to her/his background (Parham, 2005, 2008). While there are many challenges
associated with cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity, such challenges do not pre-
clude efforts made to address them. Whilst some practitioners might argue that differences
might emerge during the assessment process, it is also worth emphasizing the importance
of ensuring that they do. Butryn (2010) has considered whiteness in sport that when people
are treated the same, they are not treated equally. A culturally blind approach to applied
practice, where all people are treated the same regardless of their background (e.g., race,
sexual orientation), is sometimes found in sport psychology, and the consequences of such
an approach can silence or subvert athletes outside the dominant culture.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity 39
A further example of the above in relation to how reflective and reflexive practical
strategies can help raise awareness regarding the ethical issues of respect for people’s dig-
nity, rights and welfare in a sport context comes from Sparkes’ (1994). Focusing on a life
history of a white, lesbian physical educator (i.e., Jessica), Sparkes reflexively explored how
being a white, male, heterosexual (i.e., the various social categories to which he belonged)
shaped his understanding of Jessica’s experiences as different from his own. Such reflexive
acknowledgement allowed him to further raise awareness as to how his thinking changed
over time as he experienced ethical dilemmas in the applied realm (e.g., silencing, teaching
homophobia and heterosexism in his undergraduate physical education classes). Four years
later, Sparkes (1998) extended his reflexive story to raise critical questions about the nature
of reciprocity in his relationship with Jessica in relation to the research process (e.g., his
motives for self-advancement in constructing research accounts, his own need to renegoti-
ate tensions in the research process). Through these self-reflexive practices, Sparkes raised
concerns about issues of voice such as how researchers and practitioners might “go beyond
paternalistic notions of ‘giving’ voice, towards a view of life history as an expression of
solidarity with those who share their stories in the hope of creating individual and societal
change” (Sparkes, 1994, p. 17).
On the applied research and application side, Gilbourne and Richardson’s (2006)
confessional tale in sport psychology exemplified creative non-fiction to show different
forms/moments of applied sport psychology work in English professional soccer. The
applied discussion that emerged from these confessional and creative tales illustrated and
critically reviewed in a storied and engaging fashion, how practitioners responded to a
range of field-related challenges (e.g., enhancing sport performance through caring, ethical
dilemmas surrounding disclosure).
To illustrate and extend the foregoing into a cultural praxis context and explore the
implications for sport psychology practice and cultural sensitivity, we now turn to an exam-
ple from one of this paper’s authors about his early consulting experiences with a national
team known to be culturally diverse in its athlete composition (i.e., race, religion, ethnicity,
country of origin). As with confessional tales, where appropriate, the story will shift to the
first person to reflect the unique experiences and singular voice of this author.
Consulting with a National Team: A Confessional Tale of Working with Athletes from
Cultural Minorities
When I first came to work with the team one thing became apparent: its athletes were
English, French, Spanish, and Arabic in language, white through black in skin tone, and in
many cases, the team was also comprised of transported immigrants. What did this mean
to me? It meant that there were athletes with various cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
Though I was hired to provide sport psychology consulting, the concern I held was how I
might work effectively with athletes holding views and experiences that were not Canadian
mainstream. In my formal education, there was never any consideration of how culture,
the client’s, nor mine, would surface through our communication exchanges. I was flying
blind. Though I cannot remember the particular dialog that ensued, what follows is my
confessional tale encapsulating my experiences.
One of the athletes I worked with that first year was Aboriginal. In the context of his
cultural identity, there were indicators of the athlete’s cultural practices; he was highly
spiritual, used sacred medicine each day, prayed to his God, and he communicated in a
manner that differed from the other team athletes. This individual (pseudonym Simon)
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
40 R. J. Schinke et al.
was extremely quiet, and the coaching staff believed that because of this, he was disen-
gaged from his team. In addition, Simon averted eye contact when being spoken with.
The interpretation from one of the senior national team staff was that Simon was a “typi-
cal Aboriginal athlete” (e.g., shy, non-communicative, and disengaged). Clearly, the word
“typical” was value-laden, highly subjective, and undoubtedly, influenced Simon’s treat-
ment, perhaps through a process resembling a “pygmalion effect” where how one is treated
determines her/his response (see Myers & Spencer, 2003). None of the team’s members
connected with Simon, and in turn, with a lack of social connections, he was viewed as
distant. Simon always sat alone during meals and in his spare time, and he rarely spoke
to the coaching staff and his teammates throughout the training camp and subsequent
tournament.
By not being reflexive and reflective in their own practices, things practitioners take
for granted as important behaviors of individuals within sport teams are sometimes viewed
as “truths.” Herein, Simon was viewed as distancing himself and not as “a team player.”
Re-viewed through the concepts of reflection and reflexivity what is revealed is that Simon
has a different perspective and values because the discourse within which he frames him-
self is different from the dominant taken-for granted one that his staff and teammates use.
Thus his “distancing” when interpreted through the discourse(s) of his culture might not be
distancing at all, but instead reflection and introspection. Reflection and reflexivity lets us
draw attention to this fact. When further considering the above story through self-reflexivity
and self-reflection principles, several things can be learned in terms of cross cultural differ-
ences and the importance of being culturally sensitive. First, in light of my own beginning
journey in CSP at the time, in line with reflexivity, I did (and do) acknowledge that there
are values and viewpoints different from my own in multi-cultural sport contexts. Thus,
I acknowledged that my cultural identities as a white, male consultant, with a doctorate,
contributed to power differentials between the athlete and me. As a result, my story does
not end with Simon simply being regarded as being a socially reclusive non-team player,
upon whom my consulting services were “bestowed.”
Instead, my story takes a “self-reflective turn,” resembling Terry’s first principle of
reflection, where one is urged to consider the influence of her or his personal characteristics
(e.g., values, background) on others, and this self-reflection guided me to approach Simon.
Additionally, Terry’s third point, which is that it is important to be aware of how one’s
knowledge and perspective can impact the nature of interactions with others, was relevant
in how I approached the athlete. Luckily, the athlete agreed to meet with me. I began our
first meeting by openly asking him for his perspective, letting him know that as an outsider,
I was eager to learn about his experiences. The exchange was likely more insightful for
me, than it was for him, and so I also reflexively acknowledge that I did not erase power
differentials all that much. What Simon might have wished for in terms of services might
not have been fully provided by me. For example, Simon might have wished for someone
to help him make space so that he might share his Indigenous practices with his teammates.
Was my role not to support better team dynamics?
Through a series of meetings with the athlete I learned about how my mainstream
applied sport psychology practices and approach, as well as the approach of the sport
service staff, were impacting him (Terry’s second reflective principle). For Simon, those
practices that were interpreted through western sport values and particular team discourses
as anti-social and lacking in “team spirit” (e.g., averted eye contact, listening and then
reflecting for lengthy periods of time before speaking) took on different meanings when
interpreted from his perspective. I learned that Simon came from a cultural commu-
nity whose members were painfully aware of the socio-historic injustices suffered by
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity 41
Aboriginals at the hands of white residents. When he became a member of his national
team, Simon stepped into a white mainstream sport context in terms of norms and values
regardless of whether the team’s athlete composition reflected it.
Furthermore, by taking the time to listen more reflectively to Simon’s story through
his own cultural discourse, I learned that he was not anti-social or anti-team. He was
friendly, kind, and generous with both his time and his knowledge. One of the discussions
we engaged in was about an eagle feather, framed and brought by Simon to the training
camp (the feather was given to him by the Chief of his reserve). Its significance served
as a reminder to Simon of his bravery. At first glance, the reader might think that boxing
against world class opponents was the reason for the earned eagle feather. However, Simon
was given the eagle feather for his bravery, stepping out of his cultural community and for
his efforts to pursue sport within a potentially (and historically) marginalizing white con-
text. When Simon shared the relevance of the feather with me, it became clearer that white
mainstream practices were foreign and threatening to him. However, Simon had far more to
overcome as the person in the minority—I represented the mainstream cultural standpoint,
albeit more inclusively than the other support staff.
Though Simon chose not to continue with the national team after that year, he and
I continued to speak, and he was my first participant on a research project to identify a
culturally safe sport psychology for Indigenous athletes (see Schinke et al., 2007). What
I further gained by such interactions with Simon was the opportunity to acknowledge and
value a series of cultural practices different from my own. As with Terry’s third principle,
I not only gained new tools to operate with in a multi-cultural sport context, I also learned
the value of seeking further self-knowledge by finding out how one is perceived by others
(e.g., in this case an Aboriginal athlete’s perspective helped me better understand how my
western values and approach were experienced).
Post Reflexive Reflections: Raising Critical Awareness of Reflective Practice Strategies
The interpretations of the above exchange through the lenses of reflexivity and reflection
might be regarded as a success, given that the mainstream sport psychology consultant and
a minority athlete were able to establish the beginning of a working relationship. There
is some indication that trust was garnered with the athlete, confirmed when the athlete
chose to maintain a long term working relationship with the author. Contrasted with the
approaches taken by the other team members, perhaps the exchanges amongst athlete and
sport psychology consultant were a highlight. The athlete was aware that at least one mem-
ber of the team’s staff was making some effort to acknowledge his identity as an Aboriginal
athlete. In turn, the athlete allowed the sport psychology consultant to consider some of his
culturally informed practices, such as how to communicate without eye contact and how to
connect through a discussion of community and culture (as with Terry’s second and third
principles of reflective practice).
To balance this observation reflexively, the success purported in the aforementioned
story is seen through the eyes of the author who entered the relationship with the Aboriginal
athlete willing to submit to the process involved to arrive at the level of interaction that
was achieved. In concert, the question about the efforts that other coaches and team mem-
bers put forth to embrace successful cross-cultural communication needs to be raised.
Have all coaches and team members embraced beyond a conceptual understanding, the
realities that conversations across cultures require stretching emotionally (an openness to
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
42 R. J. Schinke et al.
being humbled and vulnerable) and behaviorally (openness to expressing behaviors found
commonly among Aboriginal populations)? What costs are incurred when all coaches and
team members are not on board beyond their verbal expressions to the contrary? If dif-
ferences within coaches and team members exist relative to their willingness to do the
hard work involved in making across cultures communication successful, then what factors
account for these likely differences? Is resolution toward doing the hard work involved to
maximize the impact of across cultures interactions desired by all members of the team or
consultants? We propose that such basic examples of cultural appreciation grounded in self
and team member reflective sensibility and balanced questioning are only the beginning
to a culturally informed (i.e., sensitive) effort. Without such a beginning, and with small
lessons grounded in reflexive and reflective principles (e.g., how to converse as well as lis-
ten to perspectives and values different than our own), the practitioner might never move
beyond mono-cultural sport practices (Ryba & Wright, 2005).
If we further consider the exchange that framed the “success” story more closely and
with a further reflexive sensibility to consider the role of power, there were also clear weak-
nesses and silencing practices suffered by the athlete through these early exchanges. For
example, within the above story, the sport psychology consultant often met with athletes
individually to support the athletes in the refinement of their competition plans. In one
sense, as mentioned, this was regarded as a way of trying to convey and accomplish
openness to and interest in the athlete’s own perspective. However, with athletes from
marginalized cultures, likely the experience of meeting with a white mainstream consul-
tant alone would have been at very least, uncomfortable (Schinke et al., in press). It has
been noted that generally, within some Indigenous communities (e.g., Hanrahan, 2004),
first meetings ought to allow for the athlete to have someone else accompanying them to
the meeting. Next, when a sport practitioner meets with an athlete, she/he approaches the
context with a series of educational skills, garnered through formal education. This was
reflexively acknowledged in the above story as creating power differentials between con-
sultant and athlete. Those with the formal education are regarded in the academy, and also
in some cultures, as people with the knowledge and expertise (i.e., power). However, in
some cultures, only “elders” can hold sufficient life experience to guide young people,
including athletes (Schinke et al., 2007).
One is also left to wonder how different the consultant-team-athlete interactions and
subsequent outcomes may have been if the consultants embraced one of two additional
assumptions. First, how different might the interactions and outcomes have been had the
consultant disavowed his ability to create “power” differentials through a staff—athlete
relationship and instead, set as his goals to understand the power differentials that were
already in place? Further, what if the consultant also acknowledged that the power differen-
tials that were already in place were in fact bidirectional? On the one hand, the educational
skills garnered through formal education and university degrees placed the consultant in
position of having something to offer the Aboriginal athlete and placed the Aboriginal ath-
lete in position of being open to receiving and hopefully benefitting from the “expertise”
of the consultant. On the other hand, the genius and wisdom of Aboriginal athlete garnered
from historic and contemporary successes in surviving and thriving in a world that has
been hostile and not always validating placed the Aboriginal athlete also in a position of
“authority” and “command” and could have placed the team’s membership in positions as
receivers of a body of generational knowledge and treasures from which they, too, could
benefit.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity 43
Future Considerations for Reflective and Self-Reflexive Practice
When we consider the story above, three reflections warrant consideration. First, such expe-
riences are not only confined to Aboriginal athletes. Many athletes are silenced in terms of
their cultural identity through sport through an omission of their cultural identity and cul-
tural practices (Ryba & Wright, 2005). For example, though team relations in some North
American mainstream sport contexts reflect a top-down hierarchy with the coaching staff
and sport psychologists above the athletes, such practices are not always shared across cul-
tures in the same continent. In relation to Simon’s home community, coaches and athletes
work as a collective and reach decisions by consensus (Schinke et al., 2007). Second, the
end consequence of such practices is that some athletes encounter tremendous stress, while
they seek to adapt to unfamiliar cultural practices (see Schinke et al., 2007). Though lit-
tle is known about the long term consequences of silencing athletes in the aforementioned
way, based on the research to date (e.g., Campbell & Sonn, 2009; Schinke et al., 2007),
and from the confessional story in, it seems that silenced athletes sometimes do not reach
their potential in sport. Further, Campbell and Sonn have proposed that culturally silenced
athletes may experience feelings of alienation through sport, and sometimes de-select from
sport contexts.
The third reflection invites consideration that “silencing” was something the coaches
and consultant did to the Aboriginal athlete: a premise which reflects a belief among some
coaches and consultants in “their power” to create situations, unilaterally. Outcomes result
from decisions on the part of both parties, in this case the coaches/consultants and the
Aboriginal athlete, to participate in (re)creating and maintaining the outcomes that seemed
to have occurred. Related, choosing to be silent does not have to raise concerns that some-
thing “bad” or “off course” has occurred. What if choosing to be silent represents in
Aboriginal communities ways of incorporating with courtesy and grace the well intentioned
approaches of coaches and consultants, thus allowing them to save face, while simultane-
ously moving forward in their quests as athletes? On the surface this reflective assertion
seems to contradict the first two reflections. The intent, however, is to model the ongoing
need for consultants working with athletes from other cultures to resist settling on obvi-
ous interpretations. Rather, consultants can use their conclusions about seemingly obvious
behaviors of athletes as a stimulus to ask at least one additional question: “Are there other
ways to look at this picture that has just unfolded?” In terms of Simon, at least from the
vantage point of the consultant, silence was employed to listen, reflect and belong in a
respectful manner within his team.
Conclusions
In the opening of our article, we briefly acknowledged a burgeoning trajectory in the sport
psychology: CSP (see Schinke, Hanrahan, & Catina, 2009). As noted, and indeed the impe-
tus for the current article, was the fact such ideas remain on the fringes of applied sport
psychology (Ryba & Schinke, 2009). Today’s reality is that sport psychology practitioners
will work with athletes from varying cultures, be those minority athletes born in the same
country as the service provider (e.g., Campbell & Sonn), or athletes relocated from another
country (e.g., Schinke, Yukelson, Bartolacci, Battochio, & Johnstone, 2011). Additionally,
other cultural issues are becoming more pervasive in the sport context such as race, cul-
ture and geographic location (Oglesby, 2010)—all of which contribute to socio-cultural
identities of participants and practitioners being extremely complex and diverse.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
44 R. J. Schinke et al.
Within an existing culturally diverse sport context, one can choose to exclude or ignore
culture as important, or to be open to a diversity of athletes and experiences, thus creating
an open space/dialogue for discussion among athletes and their support staff (Ryba &
Wright, 2005). If one chooses the option of cultural awareness and inclusiveness, evidence
suggests that the short term consequences will include better athlete adaptation, decreased
cultural stress for minority athletes and enhanced sport enjoyment and sport performance
for minority athletes (see Schinke et al., 2006). For practitioners who choose a “race blind
perspective” in terms of themselves and their clients (Butryn, 2010), the consequences
will be less positive. Though practitioners might believe culture has been removed, they
will come to realize that every sport context is loaded with culture just beneath the sur-
face. The question then becomes whose culture lies beneath the surface, and what are the
consequences of silencing and ignoring the athlete’s cultural identities?
The present manuscript is intended to enhance cultural awareness via the concepts of
reflective principles and reflexivity, while at the same time, acknowledging that an appre-
ciation of cultural sensitivity is complex and not an easy set of skills to master. That said,
the concepts of reflective practice and reflexivity hold great promise for enhancing cultural
sensitivity in the applied sport context. By reflexively asking where culture resides within
exchanges between athlete and practitioner and considering the role of power, a step is
taken toward learning from and supporting the athlete in relation to her/his cultural iden-
tity, while also seeking to be understood as the second party in the exchange. In turn, when
the practitioner identifies and implements ways of thinking, modes of behaviors and expres-
sions of feelings which are consistent with the resolutions at which the practitioner arrives
then, even greater steps are taken toward interacting in culturally sensitive ways with the
athletes they purport to serve.
References
Anderson, A., Knowles, Z., & Gilbourne, D. (2004). Reflective practice for sport psychologists:
Concepts, models, practical implications, and thoughts on dissemination. The Sport Psychologist,
18, 188–203.
Butryn, T. M. (2010). Integrating whiteness in sport psychology. In T. V. Ryba, R. J. Schinke, &
G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), The cultural turn in sport psychology (pp. 127–152). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
Campbell, E. E., & Sonn, C. C. (2009). Transitioning into the AFL: Indigenous Football Players’
Perspectives. Athletic Insight, 11, Retrieved February 10, 2012 from: http://www.athleticinsight.
com/Vol11Iss3/Feature.htm
Cropley, B., Hanton, S., & Miles, A. (2010). Exploring the relationship between effective and
reflective practice in applied sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist,24, 521–541.
Gilbourne, D., & Richardson, D. (2006). Tales from the field: Personal reflections on the provision of
psychological support in professional soccer. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,7, 325–337.
Hanrahan, S. J. (2004). Sport psychology and Indigenous performing arts. The Sport Psychologist,
18, 60–74.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1994). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementa-
tion. Teaching & Teacher Education,11, 33–49.
Holt, N. L., & Strean, W. B. (2001). Reflecting on initiating sport psychology consultation: A self-
narrative of neophyte practice. The Sport Psychologist,15, 188–204.
Knowles, Z., & Gilbourne, D. (2010). Aspiration, inspiration and illustration: Initiating debate on
reflective practice writing. The Sport Psychologist,24, 504–520.
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2005). Professional judgment and decision making: The role of
intention for impact. The Sport Psychologist,19, 303–317.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
Toward Cultural Praxis and Cultural Sensitivity 45
McGannon, K. R., & Johnson, C. R. (2009). Strategies for reflective cultural sport psychology
research.InR.J.Schinke&S.J.Hanrahan(Eds.),Cultural sport psychology (pp. 57–75).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Inc.
McGannon, K. R., & Metz, J. L. (2010). Through the funhouse mirror: Understanding access
and (un)expected selves through confessional tales. In R. J. Schinke (Ed.), Contemporary sport
psychology (pp. 153–170). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Myers, D. G., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). Social psychology: Canadian edition. Toronto, Canada:
McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Oglesby, C. (2010, October). Diversity lecture. Lecture presented at the Association of Applied Sport
Psychology Annual Congress. Providence, Rhode Island, US.
Osterman, K. F. (1990). A new agenda for education. Education and Urban Society,22, 133–152.
Parham, W. D. (2005) Raising the bar: Developing an understanding of culturally, ethnically and
racially diverse athletes. In M. Andersen (Ed.), Practicing sport psychology (pp. 211–219).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Parham, W. D. (2008) African-descendent student athletes: An invitation to respond to their invisibil-
ity. In E. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling college student athletes: Issues and
interventions (pp. 215–238). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Poczwardowski, A., Sherman, C. P., & Henschen, K. P. (1998). A sport psychology service delivery
heuristic: Building theory and practice. The Sport Psychologist,12, 191–207.
Ryba, T. V., & Schinke, R. J. (2009). Methodology as a ritualized eurocentricism: Introduction to the
special issue. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,7, 263–274.
Ryba, T. V., Schinke, R. J., & Tenenbaum, G. (Eds.) (2010). The cultural turn in sport psychology.
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Ryba, T. V., & Wright, H. K. (2005). From mental game to cultural praxis: A cultural studies model’s
implications for the future of sport psychology. Quest,57, 192–212.
Saukko, P. (2002). Qualitative research in cultural studies. Unpublished manuscript.
Schinke, R. J., & Hanrahan, S. J. (Eds.) (2009). Cultural sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Schinke, R. J., Hanrahan, S. J. & Catina, P. (2009). Introduction to cultural sport psychology. In R.
J. Schinke & S. J. Hanrahan (Eds.), Cultural sport psychology (pp. 3–11). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics Inc.
Schinke, R. J., Hanrahan, S. J., Eys, M. A., Blodgett, A., Peltier, D., Ritchie, S., et al. (2008).
The development of cross-cultural relations with a Canadian Aboriginal community through sport
research. Quest,60, 357–369.
Schinke, R. J., Michel, G., Danielson, R., & Gauthier, A. (2005). Introduction to cultural sport psy-
chology. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://www.athletinsight.com/Vol7Iss3/Introduction.
htm
Schinke, R. J., Michel, G., Gauthier, A. P., Pickard, P., Danielson, R., Peltier, D., et al. (2006).
The adaptation to the mainstream in elite sport: A Canadian Aboriginal perspective. The Sport
Psychologist,20, 435–448.
Schinke, R. J., Peltier, D., Yungblut, H., Pickard, P., Pheasant, A., Blodgett, A., et al. (in press).
Canadian Aboriginal elite athletes, their challenges, and the adaptation process. In J. Forsyth &
A. Giles (Eds.), Red and white: Aboriginal people and Canadian sport. Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto Press.
Schinke, R. J., Ryba, T. V., Danielson, R., Michel, G., Peltier, D., Enosse, C., et al. (2007). Canadian
aboriginal elite athletes: The experiences of being coached in mainstream culture. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,4, 125–143.
Schinke, R. J., Yukelson, D., Bartolacci, G., Battochio, R. C., & Johnstone, K. (2011). The Challenges
Encountered by Immigrated Elite Athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action,2, 1–11.
Sparkes, A. C. (1994). Life histories and the issue of voice. Qualitative Studies in Education,7,
165–183.
Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Reciprocity in critical research. In G. Smyth & J. Shacklock (Eds.), Being
reflexive in critical education and social research (pp. 67–82). London: Falmer.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
46 R. J. Schinke et al.
Sparkes, A. C. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activity: A qualitative journey. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Terry, P. (2009). Strategies for reflective sport psychology practice. In R. J. Schinke & S. J. Hanrahan
(Eds.), Cultural sport psychology (pp. 79–89). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Tierney, W. (1997). Lost in translation. In W. Tierney & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the
text (pp. 22–36). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 11:43 28 February 2012
