MODULE 2: PREVALENCE

Welcome

Thank you for choosing to deeply engage with the complex issue of culturally appropriate service delivery for CALD victims/survivors of child sexual abuse.

1. What this module covers

  • The difficulty of making sense of cross-cultural prevalence data on child sexual abuse

  • Barriers to disclosure in western and non-western cultures

  • Collectivism

  • Racism and white privilege

  • Philosophical factors affecting the interpretation of research data

  • Ethical uses of objective data

2. Resources

3. Learning video

 

  • This video is a pre-requisite for those looking to obtain CPD Certification for engaging with the course.

  • Click on the link above to view the video on YouTube. The recommended setting is HD for the highest quality.

4. Private reflection

Now that you have viewed the Module 2 video, feel free to privately reflect further on these questions:

M2_1: How do you conceptualise truth? Does it align with objective empiricism, social constructionism, or critical realism, and why?

  • Under objective empiricism, the psychosocial experience of child sexual abuse is seen to be essentially universal, but just experienced more intensely among CALD groups.

  • Under social constructionism, the psychosocial experience of child sexual abuse is not seen as universal, but still equally traumatic for survivors in all cultural groups.

  • Under critical realism, the psychosocial experience of child sexual abuse for CALD groups is seen to be both different and worse.

 

M2_2: What do you think/feel is new, expands, or consolidates your knowledge and understanding of racism and/or white privilege?

 

M2_3: What do you think/feel is new, expands, or consolidates your knowledge and understanding of the prevalence of CSA across different cultural groups?

 

M2_4: Do you have any other thoughts or comments you would like to make that this video triggered for you?

  • Due to the cognitive bias of a ‘belief in a just world’, we also believe in meritocracy - that the world is a fair merit-based system: if you just work hard, you will get your just rewards, and have the same access to opportunity as anyone else. The false implication of this belief is that women and non-white people are under-represented in positions of power because they don’t work hard. Your thoughts? Whose labour, intellect, and bodies does society value?

  • Can you think of any examples where objective numeric data has not been used ethically? (Responses are to be DEIDENTIFIED/ANONYMISED).

  • Anything else?