White Defensiveness in a Community-Based Couple Relationship Education Evaluation

Abstract Information: The current study used a critical race theory lens (Delgado & Stefancic, 2023) to investigate couple relationship education (CRE) participants’ perceptions of facilitators’ cultural sensitivity. Although related education and clinical research has examined perceptions of teacher and therapist cultural attunement, this is the first known evaluation of CRE facilitators. Using culturally-responsive and equity-focused evaluation methods (Elam, 2022), this study included post-program quantitative and qualitative reflections about CRE facilitators’ cultural/racial attunement and inclusion among adult participants enrolled in a randomized CRE efficacy trial. In the current sample (n = 905; final anticipated sample n = 1200), 53% identified as woman, 46% man, 1% non-binary, genderqueer, transgender, or other; 51% were Black, 40% White, and 9% another race; annual household income was below $40,000 for 31% and above for 69%. On post-program surveys, participants responded to quantitative assessments (i.e., Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised [CCCIR]; Constantine, 2002) and qualitative reflections about CRE facilitators’ cultural sensitivity. Two-way analysis of covariance will be used to test for differences in CCCIR ratings by race of participant and race of facilitator. Participants’ qualitative responses will be broadly thematically coded using an inductive content analysis approach (quantitative and qualitative results will be refined for AEA conference presentation). In preliminary qualitative coding, about 5-10% of white participants expressed defensiveness, resistance to race talk, and even opposition to being asked about cultural sensitivity. Implications of these emerging themes of “color blindness” and white defensiveness as contributing to racism/microaggressions in the CRE classroom and informing evaluation best practices will be discussed.

Relevance Statement: The current 5-year efficacy study (2020-2025) is situated in a broader 20+ year history of using participatory, culturally responsive methods to evaluate community-based CRE in a southeastern state. Whereas the traditional approach of assessing CRE program outcomes for the “average” participant has significantly enhanced and refined the evidence base for CRE implementation, recent leaders in culturally-responsive and equity focused evaluations (Chouinard & Cram, 2019; Elam, 2022) remind us that participants’ unique stories and experiences may yet remain concealed. Further, with the USA’s current context of ongoing systemic racial injustices, political polarization, and conservative white defensiveness/resistance to critical race theory assumptions, it is a compelling occasion for evaluators to dive deeper into understanding participants’ stories of their race-related experiences in community-based CRE programming. By using both participants’ quantitative and qualitative assessments of facilitators’ cultural attunement and inclusion in CRE 6-session class series, this evaluation team has welcomed the possibility for unique stories and experiences to emerge. As an example of this attentive, responsive evaluation approach, the evaluation team initially focused on minoritized participants’ responses to quantitative and qualitative assessments but were inclusive of gathering responses on these questions from all participants. Along with centering our questions on responses from racial minority participants about perceived cultural humility/competence of facilitators, our results include responses from white respondents that validate themes of white defensiveness, “color blindness,” and resistance to race talk. As these quantitative and qualitative themes are further analyzed and reported (both in research and community settings), CRE program evaluators may be compelled to design focus groups, qualitative surveys, or other approaches to uncover how white defensiveness may undermine CRE class cohesion and contribute to damaging microaggressions for minoritized couples in these settings. Additionally, this emerging storyline of white defensiveness has implications for training CRE facilitators to prioritize inclusion/equity, better define cultural/humility and their value, and effectively intervene to disarm white participants’ racism and prevent microaggressions in the CRE class environment. In response to these findings, the evaluation and program staff collaborated, making programmatic and methodological changes to enhance inclusion and cultural attunement. Importantly, community-reports (titled “We Hear You!”) were created and are being distributed back to participants, summarizing their input and our current and ongoing response plan. This example of story-led evaluating underscores that inviting culturally-focused feedback from diverse community participants has important implications for addressing systemic racism, enhancing the education and knowledge of white participants, and supporting and promoting optimal experiences for minoritized participants in community-based programs. Chouinard, J. A., & Cram, F. (2019). Culturally responsive approaches to evaluation: Empirical implications for theory and practice. Evaluation in Practice Series. Sage Publishing. Constantine, M. (2002). Predictors of satisfaction with counseling: Racial and ethnic minority clients’ attitudes toward counseling and ratings of their counselors’ general and multicultural counseling competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(2), 255-263. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2023). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (Vol. 87). NYU Press. Elam, P. (2022, August 9-11) Is my evaluation practice culturally responsive? [Conference presentation]. Office of Family Assistance PROPEL 2022 Conference, virtual.