Implications on Psychology of the Article Essay

Implications on Psychology of the Article Cultural Sensitivity and Cultural Competence It was argued by Trimble (2003) that mental constructs and studies should not be analyzed and taken in apart from a view on finis and ethnic background. The proposition had its strengths however its absolute disqualification of psychological findings, make seemingly without regard to cultural differences, left over(p) much to be said.Among others, one of the binds weaknesses was that although it spoke of cross-cultural studies and placed emphasis on the correct assessment of cultures effects on psychological constructs, there was a attach focus mainly on North American culture (Trimble, 2003). Caucasians and cultural minorities in the United States were the main population regarded as evidence of the negativity of unfounded generalizations regarding the universality of principles.Seeing as the field of psychology was being attacked as being ethnocentric with its lack of attention to other et hnicities, Trimble also reflected the same ethnocentrism with its disappointment to take note of local studies conducted in other countries which were the actual home of the other cultures that were being championed. The name attacked the unquestioned generalization of established psychological constructs with the presumption that the same atomic number 18 applicable to all persons since adult male are basically the same.The role of cultural practices and the effect of cultural differences is not taken into consideration in the application of psychological concepts. Manners of methodology were targeted as a means of unifying indigenous concepts to spurt a universal store of psychology. However, there was no mention of the current practice or methods employ by psychologists conducting query. It is important to note how look for methodologies are done as the same are the foundation garment for clinical practices and even academic discussions in psychology.One specific practic e in research is to sop up the subject population being studied. This description serves to affirm the interactive culture that participants are exposed to everyday, although it is admitted that the descriptions seldom reflect the ethnic culture background of participants. However, using the definition of culture employed in the name as quoted from Brown in his 1991 book, the latter interactive backgrounds of the participants described in research reports was more wistful of culture as learned and not simply genetically transmitted (Trimble, 2003).It is also to be state that the article focused its criticisms generally on cognitive, physiological, and evolutionary psychology perspectives, failing to take into account the largely cultural approach of perspectives such as behavioral psychology. Also, the criticisms revolved around the clinical practice of psychologists and the therapist-patient relationship. However, in the remedies suggested the focus was largely on the methodol ogy in conducting researches. There was olibanum a gap in the parallelism of the problems and solutions presented.It should be admitted however that although the article failed to fully comprehend the nature of the discipline that is psychology, it also made some valid arguments against processes of research in the field. It cannot be refuted that foundational psychological concepts, and even novel concepts resulting from foundational psychological perspectives, are applied to different populations with little regard to whether the same are applicable to the cultural context.The universality of concepts has thus been more a top-down process rather than a conclusion formation considering local conclusions reached by individual communities. There should be a trend towards this same diagram of universalizing concepts. The fundamental question of research methods not simply methodology in report which was discussed earlier was also a valid question. presumptuousness the variations in communication and interaction in differing cultures, there arises a shift in the modality of force information from participants in order to achieve the most truthful self analyses, report, and presentation in researches conducted. When the article presumes however that the bottom-up process of universalizing concepts is largely non-existent in the field of psychology, it is mistaken. The United States is not the only clownish involved in psychological research and indigenous studies of psychology have already begun in countries orthogonal of America.This is of greater relevance than the lack of the same in cultural minorities within the United States. The limited backcloth of the articles focus with regard to cultural groups failed to consider this. However, the article was correct in analyzing the ascertain of language in the development of indigenous psychologies. Although it was correct in this, it failed to extend its analysis on the manner of interpretation of establish ed psychological constructs in local psychological studies.It is an established practice in research reporting to define and operationalize different variables studied and taken into consideration. Thus, in some studies it was evident that although the same linguistic process was used there was a marked difference in interpretation of the same. Most often the differences in interpretation resulted from the different observations made of cultural practices. The process of generalizing inherent behaviors in particular cultures was thus already present in the mere interpretation of already established nomenclature.