An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Abstract

Objective: State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles. Hypotheses: The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency. Method: To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology. Results: Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings. Conclusions: The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. Public Significance StatementThe field of forensic psychology must reconcile the potential incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles to better support forensic professionals in their practice. We encourage practitioners to utilize existing methods and tools to integrate cultural factors, and we call on professional organizations involved in forensic psychology to assist in clarifying how to operationalize social responsiveness within the field.

Racial justice in psycholegal research and forensic psychology practice: Current advances and a framework for future progress.

“…The final theme of the special issue involves improving forensic psychology practice with respect to race, ethnicity, and culture. Bergkamp et al (2023) highlight perceived conflicts between the objectives of cultural competency-equity, awareness of biases, power differentials, and social positioning-and forensic psychology, which, as discussed above, values objectivity and neutrality. After underscoring this incompatibility, the authors offer practitioners a process of evaluator self-awareness to address the tension.…”

“…Reflexive practices, particularly at the beginning of projects, can lead researchers to challenge their assumptions, expand representation on their team, and/or invite community collaborators, all of which can lead to work that is both scientifically stronger and more responsive to the needs of the community. Likewise, Bergkamp et al (2023) discuss the importance of forensic practitioners' awareness of their own social locations and privilege.…”

Special issue on cultural responsiveness in threat assessment.

“…However, this special section is the first known effort of this journal to consider and address cultural responsiveness in the proliferation of relevant research in this area. Although similar topics are being discussed in parallel disciplines, such as forensic psychology, there continues to be a significant lack of scholarship and discussion on how to integrate cultural responsiveness into practice (Bergkamp, McIntyre, & Hauser, 2023). Psychologists providing forensic services are prone to minimize the impact of their own self-assessed biases on their work relative to their peers.…”