Perspectives assistive to inclusive and balanced science

In examining the requirements of scholarship both for the study of pathology and the normal human condition, albeit inclusive of all, a particular perspective is provided; as a core aspect of interrogation, the analysis requires an examination of ecological contributions. The strategy reflects the view that much of U.S. history as ecological context for science production is hierarchically arranged by demographics. Specifically, Whites too frequently are represented as the “norm” (i.e., without an assumption of shared human vulnerability status) and, simultaneously, people of color generally conceptualized as “the other” and assumed different from what is viewed as “normal.” Ongoing under-interrogated history as a critical ecological contributor influential for and scaffolding of social science and broad social theory suggests an uneven distribution of strengths and problems; those lacking power and generally “othered” are frequently represented in samples for studies and analyses with a problem and pathology focus generally absent strengths. Others enjoying under-acknowledged hegemony status are positioned as the healthy norm (Spencer, 2022). The statuses are particularly significant and consequential for “othered communities;” adaptive coping responses to unequal conditions are left unexplored which matter in the design of policies and effective practices. The current publication date represents the virtual 70^th anniversary of the Brown v. Board 1954 Decision. Its interrogation is helpful in explaining the parallel challenges to much of social research and social theory. In fact, the recent synthesis publication and analysis, Radical Brown: What we owe America’s Children (Spencer & Dowd, Reference Spencer, Lerner and Matthews2024), speculate that the nation’s under-interrogated chronosystem and, thus, virtually 400 year-old history is burdened with a specific dilemma. The common humanity status of racially different – i.e., non-White individuals – has never been fully accepted. The enslavement of Black people and its aftermath provided the dilemma of structured inequality as experienced both socially and economically. The linked practices contribute inhumane treatment and assumptions about Blacks and reinforce the acceptance of hegemony for Whites. The embraced ideology scaffolds the creation and practice of science and has implications for policies. Its codification broadly implemented impact everyday practice traditions from education, justice, social welfare practices, science production and economic opportunities to health policy. In sum, both prior to and continuing from development and psychopathology’s formal launch as a field in 1984 up to its current 50-year anniversary, both triumphs and troublesome behavioral repertoires persist (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). It would appear that the conduct of science – which obviously encircles a much wider historical period than the field’s launching – encounters significant challenges. The major one emphasized here and consistent with the systematizers’ admonishment previously noted is the requirement to investigate all children’s development and thriving as well as demonstrations of psychopathology.

Noted is a particular failure. There continues to be a patterned and incentivized resistance to a seamless and reliable study of both development and psychopathology across culturally unique groups. The observation is poignant given that human development ecologies embrace – without dissonance – the Constitution’s broadly used “We the People” language. Suggested is an apparent stable difficulty and lack of fit between the intersubjective experience of the producers of scholarship and the cultural traditions reflecting meaning making – including coping patterns – for those serving as “othered” participants of presumed “scholarly efforts.” Thus, as a joint consideration – both the socially constructed and shared ecological conditions of those serving as subjects of scientific efforts as well as parallel reflections about those responsible as producers of scholarship – deserves more scrutiny. A conceptual and theoretically framed strategy, which includes consideration of ecological context, shared vulnerability status, processes of intersubjectivity, and cultural traditions as responsive repertoires require exploration. The strategy noted emanates from multiple sources that include 1) appreciating the role of the specific problem of under-interrogated historical factors in the conduct of social science (i.e., specifically the chronosystem); 2) failing to acknowledge the fact of shared human vulnerability; 3) under-estimating the unavoidability and power of intersubjectivity for all humans; and 4) ignoring the salience of responsive cultural repertoires (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). Further, an awareness of whiteness intersecting with race trauma further assists as an explanatory vehicle for appreciating shared vulnerability status (Moffitt & Rogers (2022).

Interrogated are some of the assumptions underlying programs of development and psychopathology research as impactful contributors to – in particular – youth serving practices (i.e., particularly those salient for youth development and learning). Relative to power, scholarly efforts remain hierarchically organized as questions, research practices, data interpretations and conclusions which then frame awkward and ineffectual policies and practices (e.g., Brown v. Board Decision 1954) (Spencer & Dowd, Reference Spencer, Lerner and Matthews2024). The dilemma serves as a source of challenge to 21^st century authentic responsive strategies actually needed and particularly salient for individuals of nonWhite status. Stated differently for explaining chronosystem level ecological influence for scholarly efforts, the following is fairly obvious when spoken out loud: The impact of Blacks’ arrival and enslavement for a new nation’s economic benefits and global status begun at their forced arrival on the shores of Virginia in 1619 included the nation’s collective failure to appreciate their shared humanity (Spencer & Dowd, Reference Spencer, Lerner and Matthews2024). Instead, generally understood, was the group’s commodity status engineered for the benefit and service to White humanity. Its broad and ongoing contemporary manifestation is described and referenced as fBIP (i.e., functional Black inhumanity perspective) (Spencer & Dowd, Reference Spencer, Lerner and Matthews2024), and is intrusive and deeply integrated into all levels of the ecology. The pervasive tradition suggests an uninterrogated carryover of precolonial ideologies concerning color, difference, inhumanity belief status (Nichols Lodato et al., 2021) and, thus, accepted oppression. It includes the production of scholarship intending to represent everyone’s development and psychopathology, however and as suggested, too frequently fails the expectation. Needing recognition is the ongoing contemporary and unacknowledged resistance to inclusive human development and psychopathology knowledge production traditions. As a research status, it represents a history of, ultimately, shielding promised equitable practices behind “We the People” constitutional language. Its suggested source is the use of broad social theory and research assumptions as scaffolding and implementing devices with specific shortcomings. Too often hierarchically framed, the tendency is the reinforcement of hegemonic ideologies and uneven scholarship; that is, for example, research strategies disproportionately focus scholarship on normal development processes for those privileged; at the same time, ear-marked and focused are patterns of psychopathology for those representing high vulnerability status (i.e., significant developmental challenges with few identified strengths and insights about assets and productive reactive coping strategies particularly useful to policymakers and practitioners).

In addition, “cultural repertoires” (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) as social traditions describing the knowledge production patterns noted remain under-acknowledged and uninterrogated; their presence and persistence are too frequently hidden behind “masked identities” which claim commitment to perspectives concerning diversity, equity and inclusion although outcomes are questionable. Such language is inconsistent with actual situations of highly vulnerable conditions when a shared disastrous situation is actually experienced. COVID-19’s aftermath serves as illustration of the extraordinary burdens encountered for some. It indicates the actual a priori situation of uneven distribution of protective factors and assets; further showcased were obvious inadequacies of “intended supports” for offsetting a catastrophic situation shared by all – but experienced differentially as mortality, morbidity and “learning loss” education statistics by race. It is not possible to build upon and design supports if normal human development adaptive coping processes for high vulnerability groups are unavailable from extant research and practice efforts.

Psychopathology is not unexpected for those “othered” given the situation of uneven levels of challenges confronted (and the availability of accessible assets). When considered by race, as described, the situation represents the under-acknowledged tradition and problem of fBIP and linked behavioral repertoires; unfortunately, more often than not, the disproportionate emphasis on psychopathology for some youth and communities fails to acknowledge behavioral traditions that guarantee inequality due to fBIP. Disappointing, as well, the preponderance of unevenness of human development and process-oriented scholarship ultimately reinforce behavioral coping stereotypes; precipitated are assumptions of inferiority without acknowledging the long-term problem of unequal conditions functional at the multiple levels of the ecology. Without question, the trauma of the public execution of George Floyd and three years of COVID-19 represent two vivid examples.

Suggested is that generous attention has been provided scholarship focused on processes of human development for Whites who are generally perceived as “the standard” for normal human development; of course, one exception to this was Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (Reference Bronfenbrenner1970) comparison of U.S. and U.S.S. R. childrearing. However, generally under-analyzed and considered to be problems and psychopathology – particularly given their very early observations – are the attitudes and socio-emotional relevant beliefs, stable color and race preferences, and behavioral traditions linked to whiteness. Evident are myriad weaknesses for coping with cultural and race difference. The socialization relevant history alluded to suggests an appearance of organized resistance for an inclusive humanity perspective. The significance to acknowledge organized resistance in the scholarship production process is due to the appearance and problem of a “scholarly awkwardness” or uncomfortableness when it comes to research design and production; as suggested, the latter is especially salient given its role for practice and policy.

The position taken in the current analysis provides a particular perspective about the fact of shared human vulnerability. As described, our definition suggests the status as a balance or imbalance between risk factors versus the presence of assets or protective factors (Spencer, 2006, 2008). As tracked (i.e., as recognized by the World Health Organization), the cognitive, physical health and socio-emotional untoward effects of the global pandemic trauma on youth, families and communities of color are informative and decidedly uneven (World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2022). In addition, the academic recovery variation broadly reported as “learning loss” differences suggest a skewed pattern “in favor” of less vulnerable, broadly privileged White families; unfortunately, as presented, the reporting style provides additional stereotyping without an analysis of context variation including longstanding social, economic, and historical contributions. The uneven patterns by race suggest an imbalanced accumulation of knowledge about strengths and assets available to youth and communities needed for policies and practices to be leveraged for survival and “everyday thriving efforts.”

Overall, there appears to have been too little accrued knowledge about authentic challenges and their myriad representations in individuals’ everyday lives in need of recompence as policies and supported practices given the virtual and shared 3-year and formidable clout of COVID-19. At the same time, neither was there adequate accrued knowledge about the nature of risks for those disproportionally economically privileged or the role of resilience-associated-assets including coping traditions available for those burdened by a history of compounded-challenges already in place (e.g., the supportive character and challenges linked with extended family networks). Given the differential impact of the pandemic by race and class, there have been few other events representing a test of vulnerability status as broad and impactful as the trauma of COVID-19. Specifically requiring attention given the nation’s changes in diversity are the persistent race difference patterns; supportive programs for the design and implementation of successful positive coping models and programs of training and professional development should represent, as well, insights concerning health and resilience promotion. Unfortunately and as suggested, there continues to be a broader focus on the human processes of the majority White population and, at the same time, programs of research for people of color are narrowly focused on psychopathology as opposed to an understanding of development. Providing a foundation, the latter emphasis would aid the identification and unpacking of authentic contributors to wellness and thriving. As well, with the unprecedented rates of global immigration and broad reach of social media – contextual considerations as under-conceptualized influencers – such as the role of the multiple levels of ecologies of development remain discounted. A pattern continues to be that theoretical and empirical contributions have ignored the necessity to generate new knowledge that includes life course unfolding experiences had in ecologies of development as experienced by culturally different communities of children. Ecologies include, as well, the necessity to consider chronosystem or historical circumstances that determine the nature of “cause and effect” experiences that necessarily impact the character of development and experience of pathology. As noted, particularly developmental psychology has produced systematizers who agree as a principle that we learn more about normal functioning by studying pathology and, as well, more about pathology is appreciated by studying an individual’s normal situation. As well, determining causal origins is a critical part of the process (Cicchetti, 1984, p. 1-2). A focus on ecology and its contributions to scholarship needs to be a focus as well as challenges to broader approaches such as uninterrogated privilege that aid an understanding of vulnerability and resilience. These several themes are salient given their embeddedness in myriad contexts and are interpersonally expressed habits as “cultural repertoires” of everyday practice (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003).

Ecology: Contexts of opportunity and challenge

The ecology of human development concerns “the scientific study of the progressive and mutual relationships between an active, growing human being, and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person resides” (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979, p. 21). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s contributions to the field of child development particularly relative to the various contexts of human development continue to be highly cited. However, even his perspectives about youth of color suggest a tradition of a priori pathologizing, once more – representing a fBIP; Urie Bronfenbrenner’s views concerning Black people and Black life as unfolding in context are strangely absent the complexity of analysis concerning ecology as represented by Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner Reference Bronfenbrenner1979). Or, at best, his treatment and later theorizing about the ecology is absent obvious inhumanity assumptions and interrogation; race is generally absent from his theorizing overall. On the one hand, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (Reference Bronfenbrenner1967) Child Development article provides his synthesis of the psychological impact of integration and is titled, “The Psychological Costs of Quality and Equality in Education.” In it, he details all of the challenges precipitated by integrating “Negro children” into White Schools. The synthesis is especially interesting given that Bronfenbrenner, himself, was culturally different as a Russian immigrant. Thus, his 1967 article – referencing the 1954 Supreme Court decision – suggested the limited, inferiority and pathology assuming viewpoints about “Negro” children and particularly psychological factors and education (1967, p. 910). Ignoring the role of Black schools, families and churches as assets and sources of support in the lives of Black children (Franklin, 1985; Walker, 2000), his perspective was both narrow and stereotypic and overall hegemonic; in fact, it communicates the viewpoint of the “normal standard” in referencing White children and, thus, the implications of integration for White children (i.e., who are forced to interact with poor and inferior Blacks). More to the point and interrogated elsewhere, his use of “available data” at the time – among other sources – was notably Thomas Pettigrew’s, 1964 Profile of the Negro American. Bronfenbrenner cites a swath of studies that focused only on the historical fact of slavery and linked assumptions of inferiority; however, little note is given to the social institution created due to the dehumanization of a people. His analysis provides no insights about the pathological and dehumanizing institution of slavery itself and which emerged solely due to a profit motive. In fact, as reported by Bronfenbrenner (Reference Bronfenbrenner1967), the conditions promoting dehumanizing practices and organized inequality traditions for Blacks were virtually left from any interrogation as context character. His 1967 analysis notes that slavery, poverty and discrimination were responsible for the “Negro’s” child’s psychological and educational (untoward) status given assumed social and biological forces; however, unlike other writers referenced in his background and review texts that ordinarily clear Whites of any responsibility, thus, literally “bleaching untoward behavior from existence,” Urie Bronfenbrenner’s perspective is somewhat different. In fact, in his invective specifically, he notes: “From this perspective, it is the white man who is in the first instance primarily responsible for the inadequacies of the Negro and his way of life” (line 13 from the top). He continues with a vilification of Black children given the problematic literature referenced and notes, as well, the implications for White children which have generally remained absent from the development and psychopathology literature in regards White child development and the intergenerational perpetuation of dehumanizing beliefs concerning people of color. Bronfenbrenner (Reference Bronfenbrenner1967, page 918):

Bronfenbrenner’s (Reference Bronfenbrenner1967) solution to the challenge of equal education is informative given the implications for Blacks and Whites. He suggests the following in his summary remarks:

In making reference to his research and ultimate volume which was a comparison between the United States to the U.S. S. R. (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1970), Urie Bronfenbrenner provides the following conclusion by noting:

Given the group’s survival of the heinous condition of slavery, nevertheless and like others, there is little question except that Urie Bronfenbrenner’s perspectives concerning Black children viewed them only as to their risks and challenges without any acknowledgement of the strengths, protective factors and developed assets at the individual, family and community levels. His ecological systems theory provides significant opportunities at the various levels of the ecology for exploring options. It is noteworthy that he acknowledged the role of White families’ challenges – and relevant to all levels of the ecology – particularly given the institution of slavery and the consequences to all of inequality. Of course, and not surprising given the character of referenced “scholarship” available at the time, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s later analysis of contexts and ecological systems theory remains a viable perspective. Without question, “racial difference stereotyping” and inferences of Black inferiority were left intact as well as accepted beliefs of hegemony. However, in comparison – and very interesting – Bronfenbrenner’s democratic vs communist analysis of context and child development highlighted in Two Worlds of Childhood U.S. and U.S.S.R. (1970) are exceedingly rich, nuanced and informative re: the challenges and shortcomings of America’s childrearing traditions. In fact, they represent helpful insights as to why the continuing under-interrogated hegemony and long-term resistance to racial equality both as scholarly traditions and in everyday life.

Problematic of privilege

Often referenced in practice communities, McIntosh (1989) characterizes white privilege as the “invisible package of unearned assets” that function as “special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.” In the United States, research has consistently shown that Black Americans are more likely to live in poverty (Creamer, 2020) and more likely to earn less than their White colleagues (McKinsey & Co. 2022). Additionally – with significant implications for trauma – they are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police relative to other groups (NYU 2020), more likely to be incarcerated (Pewewardy & Severson, 2003), and are more likely to attend schools that are under resourced (Dhaliwal et al., 2020). The literature on privilege is often closely linked to the concept of “whiteness” or the critical study of whiteness as an identity category (Bhopal, Reference Bhopal2023; Roediger, 1991), as a form of oppression, as property (Harris,1993), or as assets (McIntosh, 1989).

Gallagher (2003) argues that colorblindness maintains white privilege by allowing whites to remain oblivious to their role in the socioeconomic hierarchy and “allows many whites to define themselves as politically progressive & racially tolerant as they proclaim their adherence to a belief system that does not see or judge individuals by the ‘color of their skin.” Hartmann et al. (2009) found that white Americans were less aware of privilege than individuals from racial minority groups and consistently adopt colorblind, individualist ideologies but also demonstrated awareness of the advantages of their race.

There is some scholarship on the subject of framing concepts such as privilege and whiteness and how different audiences respond. This work has often focused on white responses to these ideas. Powell et al. (2005) found that “representing inequality in terms of outgroup disadvantage allows privileged group members to avoid the negative psychological implications of inequality and supports prejudicial attitudes” (abstract). Without question, the tradition leaves invisible a focus on White psychopathology and maintenance of a “whiteness” as normal viewpoint.

Pinterits et al. (2009) developed the White Privilege Attitudes Scale (WPAS). The WPAS assesses the multidimensional nature of White privilege attitudes, reflecting affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Stewart et al. (2012) conducted two experiments examining the effects of heightened awareness of white privilege and “found that heightened WPA and higher efficacy (measured and manipulated) independently improved participants’ attitudes toward African Americans, but had no effect on their attitudes toward White Americans.”

The literature on privilege has often historically focused on gender and race. Black & Stone (Reference Black and Stone2005) offer an expanded view of the concept that includes other categories including: sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, differing degrees of ableness, and religion. These issues are also examined by Liu et al. (2007) as themes in the field of counseling and its role as a multicultural competency. Bronfenbrenner’s (Reference Bronfenbrenner1970) perspective on White socialization given his comparison between the U.S. and the U.S.S. R. has important implications for understanding the limited character of the white racial socialization literature, resistance to a shared human vulnerability perspective, and reasons for the shortcomings of research efforts, which too frequently focus on White developmental processes and minority status outcomes focused assumptions of psychopathology.

Trauma

The study of trauma reveals several obstacles to incorporating it into an acknowledged clinical category. Jernigan & Daniel (2014) point out that definitions of trauma are limited to physical incidents as defined by the DSM-IV. Additional challenges include a lack of conceptualization of racial trauma, fears of diluting the meaning of “legitimate” (i.e. physical trauma). They note that additional work is needed to better highlight racial incidents as trauma as opposed to mere stressors (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005). Some have sought to broaden the definition of trauma as a “deeper psychological harm arising from a wide array of events and experiences that interact with development over time and exist in a cultural context” (Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010, p. 352).

Intergenerational transmission of trauma consists of the effect of parental trauma adversely affecting their descendants (immediate and future generations). This had led to increased traumatic symptoms and the increased vulnerability to later psychopathology (Brave Heart, Reference Brave Heart2011; Sirikantraporn & Green, 2016). This model draws from our understanding of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Sotero, 2006). This model draws on three frameworks 1) psychosocial theory where traumatic stressors can increase susceptibility to disease and have other negative influences on human physiology. 2) Political-economic theory looks at the impact of political, economic, and structural inequalities on the individual. and 3) Social-ecological systems theory which examines dynamics and interdependences between the past and present life course development factors that influence susceptibility to disease (Danzer et al., 2016).

Much of the work on intergenerational trauma has focused on Native Americans though more recent work has incorporated the experiences of African Americans and other historically marginalized populations (Fast & Collin-Vézina, 2010; Brave Heart, Maria Yellow Horse, 2017). African Americans are more likely to experience violent trauma than any other minority group and are also disproportionally likely to manifest symptoms of trauma including a great likelihood of suicide (Graves et al, 2010). Researchers have demonstrated the association between Racial Socialization (i.e. communication about racialized experiences) and the various well-being indicators. They have discussed how communication between family members about their daily experiences with racism functions as a protective factor in the psychosocial resilience of Black and Brown youth (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, McKenny, Mitchell, Koku and Stevenson2018; Anderson & Stevenson, Reference Anderson and Stevenson2019). As suggested by the previous review of White race socialization research and media reports, White youth’s response to the apparent trauma of diversity and implications for unacknowledged hegemonic self-identity remains a source of under-interrogation.

Discrimination from law enforcement is known to have contributed to trauma in its immediate effects of PTSD and as some have speculated that subsequent delinquent behavior that might stem from the initial interaction (Kang & Burton, Reference Jernigan and Daniel2014). “In lower income, urban African American neighborhoods, police tend to over patrol and counterproductively treat African American males with suspicion (Kang & Burton, Reference Jernigan and Daniel2014).” Additionally, “racist events exacerbate preexisting racial tensions and lead to widespread reluctance to seek protection from the police and other institutions that have historically safeguarded Whites (Graves et al., 2010).”

African American women are at a greater risk for being traumatized multiple times and are less likely to seek mental health services than white women (Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010; Osobor, 2009). It is been shown that this out of fear for what might happen to the perpetrator particularly if that person is also African American. Some have pointed out that this reflects the notion that an attack on one is an attack on all (Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010; Parham et al., 1999). It is also noted ironically that despite being raised to be fiercely independent and willing to help others (often at their own expense) black women will often exacerbate symptoms of trauma (Stevens-Watkins et al., 2014).

One area where symptoms of trauma can impact long-term outcomes is in higher education (Boyraz et al., Reference Boyraz, Horne, Owens and Armstrong2013). For trauma-exposed females PTSD symptomatology in the 1st semester of college were associated with increased likelihood of not completing college. This was not significantly associated with academic achievement or persistence for males. For trauma-exposed females, in addition to PTSD symptomatology, being a student at a predominantly White institution and entering college with low high school GPA were identified as risk factors for low academic achievement and college dropout, on the other hand. They also found that involvement in on-campus activities and higher levels of perceived academic integration by the 1st semester were associated with higher 1st-year GPA as well as increased likelihood of remaining in college (Boraz et al., Reference Boyraz, Horne, Owens and Armstrong2013).

There has been some work on the implications for psychologists and therapists in dealing with racial and generational trauma. One interesting item of note is the value of ethnic matching. African American patients generally prefer to be matched with a mental health care professional who is of the same race/ethnicity. This has been seen in the study of African American college students in particular. They have observed that up to 50% of African Americans who see a White practitioner will drop out after a single session. It is noted that it is usually because of their own reported feelings of not being understood or connected (Duncan & Johnson, 2007; Parham et al., 1999; African American Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010; Psychologists, 2008). As initially noted, a clear shortcoming of the trauma literature is its focus on minorities. Little attention is paid to the presence and impact of protective factors and supports in the case of youth of color; at the same time, undiagnosed trauma having to do with the perceived lack of resources as privileges assumed and associated with hegemonic beliefs remain under-investigated as sources of psychopathology for Whites. The situation makes DEI success more potentially traumatizing for too many unprepared White youths given inadequate racial socialization strategies suggested by research findings. The issue is a critical societal issue given that unconscious but powerful cultural repertoires and traditions which make authentic solutions less probable as recognized needs.

Cultural repertoires and learning styles

Cultural repertoire is a concept used in various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies. Scholars explore how individuals use cultural knowledge, practices, and tools, to express their identities. These studies often focus on understanding the diversity of cultural repertoires across different societies with researchers and scholars examining how these cultural practices are transmitted across generations and how they contribute to the continuity and change within a culture.

Investigations into cultural learning styles emerged in the United States during the 1960s, as part of a larger trend of research initiatives that aimed to ameliorate the disparate conditions in schools (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003). Cultural learning styles refer to the ways in which individuals from different cultural backgrounds prefer to acquire and process information. These preferences are shaped by cultural influences, including beliefs, values, communication styles, and social norms. The concept suggests that people may have distinct approaches to learning based on their cultural context, and understanding these variations can be essential in educational settings and beyond.

Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) explore the relationship between cultural ways of learning and the development of individual traits or repertoires of practice. The authors argue against framing learning solely as an individual trait and emphasize the importance of considering cultural repertoires of practice in understanding how individuals learn. They propose that cultural practices shape learning experiences, influencing the development of cognitive and social skills. Their perspective acknowledges the dynamic interplay between individual traits and cultural contexts in the process of learning.

Language constitutes a fundamental element of the cultural repertoire. Scholars explore the ways in which language both mirrors and molds cultural identities, investigating aspects such as linguistic diversity, language maintenance, and language shift within diverse communities. Cultural repertoire finds expression through various performances, encompassing rituals, ceremonies, and artistic manifestations. Research in this domain delves into how these performances play a role in sustaining and transforming cultural practices over time. Fosse (2010) examines the motives and patterns of infidelity in a sample of low SES status males. Fosse notes three central themes: doubt, duty, and destiny. The study investigates how these elements influence and mold the behavior of low-income men when it comes to engaging in extramarital relationships.

Swidler (1986) explores the dynamic interplay between culture, symbols, and human behavior. Swidler argues that culture is not only a set of static symbols but is actively used by individuals to guide their actions and strategies. The article emphasizes the practical and strategic dimensions of culture, suggesting that individuals draw upon cultural symbols and meanings to navigate their social worlds and make sense of their experiences. Swidler’s work encourages a view of culture as a toolkit that people deploy in various situations, influencing their decision-making and shaping their interactions within society. “Strategies of action are cultural products; the symbolic experiences, mythic lore, and ritual practices of a group or society create moods and motivations, ways of organizing experience and evaluating reality, modes of regulating conduct, and ways of forming social bonds, which provide resources for constructing strategies of action…these relationships vary across time and historical situation. Within established modes of life, culture provides a repertoire of capacities from which varying strategies of action may be constructed. Thus culture appears to shape action only in that the cultural repertoire limits the available range of strategies of action,” (Swidler, 1986, p. 284).

Scholars note that cultural repertoire is not neutral but is often influenced by power dynamics. Representing a variety of interests, researchers are exploring how specific cultural elements may be either privileged or marginalized, thereby contributing to social inequalities and hierarchical structures. Lamont & Small (2008) investigate how cultural factors actively contribute to shaping and influencing the experiences of individuals in poverty. Harding (2010) examines the neighborhood context and the intricate ways in which it molds the daily experiences of inner-city boys. Central are the links between violence and the sense of belonging to a particular area with discrete areas being marked as safe, neutral, or dangerous. Garrett (2016) explores the process of cultural repertoire formation in expectant mothers. The primary focus is on how education and social networks influence this development. The effort examines the role of social networks in shaping cultural repertoires, highlighting the interconnected nature of education and social influences in shaping cultural knowledge and behaviors during pregnancy. Garrett found that educational attainment and social network diversity independently predict repertoire diversity, and that these effects are each moderated by the respondent’s status as a new or experienced mother suggesting that institutional effects and social network resources may reduce such disparities. The scholarship underscores the context salience and intersubjective nature of cultural repertoires. Unacknowledged cultural traditions concerning race differences including intergenerationally transmitted fBIP, may have significant consequences. There are important implications for knowledge production and uninterrogated practices in the training of those in the fields of development and psychopathology. As well, and significant to policy, training and practice, the noted racial conceptual shortcomings matter. Manifested intangibly – the cultural practices and traditions although treated invisibly – have consequences particularly for professional service industries (e.g., healthcare, policing, all levels of teaching). In sum, they impact the intent of equity, significantly increase everyone’s level of vulnerability, and function as an intrusion to collective thriving.