RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 1

Quantitative Research Article Appraisal

Social Work 659: Evidence and Clinical Practice

Collins Nwabunike

University of Calgary
RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 2

There is a growing debate regarding the appropriateness of placing youths into transracial

families and whether transcultural parents can effectively parent youths who do not share a similar

culture. The article by Coakley & Gruber (2015) assessed the ability of a set of practice-based

measures to identify indicators of positive transcultural parenting for the use in the selection and

training of foster parents.

This research is important as it has been shown through research that youth who have low

cultural socialization tend to have higher rates of externalizing negative behaviours including

aggression, disobedience, and truancy (Johnston, Swim, Saltsman, Deater-Deckard, & Petrill,

2007). Meaningfully supporting youth, means also arming parents with meaningful skill sets. This

research helps to support foster parents in developing skill sets to encourage cultural identity. It

also helps to prevent the risk of poor racial identity and internalized racism among minority youths

who are raised without any cultural appreciation or awareness. Additionally, it can help in creating

pre-screening methods, that can allow us to ensure youth are matched with foster parents who can

encourage their cultural identity.

Methodology

The researchers used a cross-sectional quantitative method for the study. The researchers

fail to justify the reasoning behind a quantitative approach. While a quantitative method was an

effective way to demonstrate commonalities, it may fail to explore the complexities of culture and

the meaning behind this term. For this reason, I believe that a mixed-methods approach may have

been helpful in providing a more comprehensive picture, of what “culture” meant to the

participants. There was a total amount of 78 foster parents involved in this study, 77.9% of who

identified as white. This is problematic because it does not capture a more diverse demographic.
RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 3

Additionally, these foster parents do not have a personal reality of life as a minority or racialized

individual, which may make their experience of a culture different in a Western context.

A further important point to raise here is the use of measurement tools in this study. Firstly,

they seek to measure complex concepts such as “dedication to being a foster parent” and

“understanding how one’s own cultural background influences the way one speaks, thinks and

acts” (Coakley & Gruber, 2015). Secondly, the researchers indicate their use of various scales

including PDFS, ATS, and TAPS, without any justification for why these measures are best suited.

This forces one to question where and how these measures were developed and if they truly are

appropriate for this context. While the researchers discuss the issue with measures for culture and

ethnicity in their conclusion, they still suggest these measurements are “useful in selecting and

training those interested in fostering a child of a different race, ethnicity, or culture” (Coakley &

Gruber, 2015, p. 14). These statements seem rather contradictory and thus makes one approach the

intentionality behind this study with caution. Finally, by applying strict measurements, the

researchers have also left out the opportunity for the foster parent’s input on the topic.

Theoretical Framework

The researchers do not indicate that they have approached this topic from any theoretical

framework, which is concerning considering they are addressing the sensitive topic of cultural

identity. Without a strong theoretical framework such as critical race theory, or structuralism, the

researchers risk generalizing understandings of cultural identity. Further, the theoretical

framework is intended to inform the questions that the participants are asked and the researcher

positionality. A theoretical framework can also help encourage further reflexivity, which does not

seem apparent in this research project. While the researchers define culture explicitly in their
RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 4

abstract, there is no indication of their own positionality or biases that may have implicated the

research. The lack of positionality can also be shown when the researchers discuss an explanation

for white Americans not being as culturally receptive as African Americans. This is explained as

white Americans having more concerns or fears about transitioning to intercultural lifestyles. This

is problematic as it dismisses white privilege and power or the embedded racism which can

interfere with the acknowledgment of multiple worldviews. This example shows how a lack of

awareness of our own positionality as researchers can transfer into harmful ideals portrayed in our

work.

Finally, without a theoretical framework, this literature review was lacking and

understanding for the larger structures which may elevate the amount of minority youth in foster

care or restrict their access to culturally relevant experiences and connections. For example, when

discussing the impact of a predominantly white society, the researchers still put this under a sub-

title of “helping to build children’s self-confidence” (Coackley & Gruber, 2015, p. 11). This

diminishes the impact of structural oppression and suggests responsibility within an individual. A

theoretical framework could have helped to highlight this and provided further relevancy and depth

to this research.

Literature Review

The researchers provided a literature review, however; it does not cover the multiple

realities of children in the system who have been raised within trans-cultural and trans-racial foster

families. The article discusses the ongoing debate regarding the issue of child placement in foster

homes, yet it does not provide research on the positive outcomes of youth who grow up in multi-

cultural households. The researchers demonstrate the ongoing investment into understanding the
RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 5

dynamics of transracial placement and are successful at highlighting the lack of research into pre-

screening tools for transcultural fostering measures. However, they could have had more literature

to back up this claim aside from the one they used by Coakley & Orme (2006).

Sampling & Data collection

The researchers explain that their participants were collected from North Carolina foster

parent associations and the department of social services. The researchers do not further explain

why they have selected these participants, which may lead one to think it was done out of

convenience. While many foster families may interact with both these organizations, the research

may miss multiple experiences since it did not seek families outside of these environments. There

is also no explanation as to why some participants did not complete their questionnaires, instead

only a statement that these were not used. The researchers also explain that they engage in reminder

phone calls once a week for three weeks for participants to encourage completion. This may also

raise the concern of coercion on behalf of the researchers to reach a higher response rate. We could

question what exactly these phone calls included, and if some participants felt pressured to

complete the survey.

Results

The researchers do a meaningful job at discussing some of the limitations in generalizing

their research including small sample size and explaining that the TAPS measurement has not been

shown as an effective tool for foster parents. Additionally, they highlight important learnings of

aspects that should be considered in assessing this issue including the length of time fostering,

ethnicities, culture, gender and sexual orientation.

RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 6

Conclusion

Overall, various issues and concerns were highlighted with this research study including

the way participants were collected, the absence of reflexivity and positionality, and the ability to

‘measure’ complex aspects such as culture. This study brings forth interesting findings, however,

the credibility of these findings should be questioned.

As researchers, we are one of the most important tools. This study suggests an us vs them

mentality, placing the researcher in the role of an expert in measuring the lives and realities of a

complex topic. This study is limiting as it does not leave room for foster parents or youths input

into an important issue. The researcher rather implies which areas will be measured and deemed

important. Further, it seems culture is a concept defined by the researchers and foster parents

without the input of those directly impacted; the youth.

RUNNING HEAD: Quantitative Research Article Appraisal 7

Reference

Coakley, T. M., & Orme, J. G. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of the cultural receptivity in

fostering scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(5), 520-533.

Coakley, T. M., & Gruber, K. (2015). Cultural receptivity among foster parents: Implications for

quality transcultural parenting. Social Work Research, 39(1), 11-22.

Johnston, K. E., Swim, J. K., Saltsman, B. M., Deater‐Deckard, K., & Petrill, S. A. (2007).

Mothers’ racial, ethnic, and cultural socialization of transracially adopted Asian

children. Family Relations, 56(4), 390-402.