Thing 22: Culturally Competent Research: A Methodological Imperative, Not a Moral Afterthought

Dr Edward Ademolu, Lecturer in Cultural Competency, King's College London

Let’s face it—“cultural competence” has a branding problem. It sounds like something you tick off on a training module between lunch and your next Zoom meeting. A worthy phrase, no doubt, but often filed under that nebulous category of ‘things we all agree are good but rarely interrogate.’ In the research world, this is especially true. We nod politely, cite a few authors, include a line or two in our ethics application, and then proceed as though our methods are culturally agnostic, our participants conveniently untroubled by race, class, disability, gender, or migration histories.

Spoiler alert: they’re not. And neither are we. 

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

The reality is that research is a deeply cultural act. What we choose to study, how we frame our questions, who we involve (and who we don’t), the tools we select, and the language we use—none of these are neutral. They are shaped by our assumptions, values, and yes, our blind spots. To pretend otherwise is to confuse methodological standardisation with ethical clarity.

Cultural competence, then, should not be a moral add-on or an administrative box-tick. It is a methodological stance. One that invites us—no, demands of us—to think differently about how knowledge is produced, for whom, and to what ends.

What Is Cultural Competence — and Why Does It Matter for Research?

To some, the term “cultural competence” may evoke well-meaning attempts to ‘learn about other cultures’—usually through food festivals, translated leaflets, or crash courses in politeness. But in research, culture is not a side dish, but the main ingredient. It saturates every step of the research process, often in ways we fail to recognise. Originating in the 1980’s, cultural competence emerged as a strategic response to persistent health inequalities affecting marginalised and underserved populations — including migrant communities, ethnic minorities, and people with limited English proficiency — particularly in the United States. It is classically defined as: a set of congruent behaviours, attitudes, and policies that enable effective work in cross-cultural situations (Cross et al., 1989). 

In the context of research, cultural competence requires a deeper commitment: not just to understanding ‘difference’, but to interrogating how knowledge is produced, by whom, and under what conditions. It is a critically reflexive and relational practice through which researchers interrogate how culture, power, positionality, and epistemic assumptions shape the production, interpretation, and dissemination of knowledge.

It is not about accruing cultural trivia, adopting inclusive terminology, or conducting participant interviews with polite curiosity. It is about reckoning with how research— particularly within Western epistemological traditions— has historically reproduced hierarchy, extractivism, and epistemic exclusion, often under the guise of objectivity or rigour (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

Despite traction in adjacent disciplines such as nursing, education, and social work, cultural competence has been curiously slow to embed itself within the methodological mainstream of academic research. It is often relegated to ethical review paperwork or compartmentalised within recruitment strategies. Rarely is it treated as a critical lens that shapes every stage of the research process — from the formulation of questions to the politics of dissemination.

Where Cultural Competence Intervenes: Across the Research Lifecycle

To take cultural competence seriously is to reframe the research process itself — to understand it not as a value-free technical exercise but as a culturally mediated and politically situated endeavour. Below, I offer a walkthrough of how this critical reorientation plays out across four key phases of the research lifecycle:

1. Framing the Inquiry: Cultural Assumptions in Question Formation

Research questions are not ideologically neutral. They emerge from specific epistemic standpoints, disciplinary norms, and often, unconscious cultural assumptions.

Culturally competent research demands epistemic reflexivity— that is, an active interrogation of how our knowledge claims are shaped by positionality, power, and disciplinary traditions. It involves recognising that research is never conducted from a view-from-nowhere, but from specific epistemic standpoints that must be made transparent and accountable.

• What assumptions underlie your framing of “problems”?

• Do your concepts reflect the lived realities and cultural logics of the communities you engage?

• Are you asking questions about people, or with them?

As Frantz Fanon powerfully argues, the gaze itself is political — a site where knowledge and domination are negotiated. Research that pathologises rather than contextualises — that sees racialised, disabled, or marginalised groups as problems to be solved rather than partners in knowledge — is, at best, incomplete. At worst, it’s harmful. 

2. Design and Methodology: From Procedural Ethics to Relational Accountability

Cultural competence reconfigures methodological design as a site of ethical and political responsibility. Considerations include:

• How might standardised instruments reproduce cultural bias or linguistic alienation?

• Does your method permit cultural nuance, or demand normative conformity?

• Have you consulted community advisors, interpreters, or cultural brokers— not just for translation, but for meaning? 

Standardised surveys, diagnostic tools, or even focus group formats often carry Western, ableist, or classed assumptions about time, communication style, or conceptual categories (Ademolu, 2024). Cultural competence here challenges us to design methods that do not just translate across contexts but transform in dialogue with them.

3. Data Collection and Analysis: Reflexivity, Power, and Epistemic Partiality

The moment of data collection is often romanticised as discovery— but it is also a moment of encounter, difference, and vulnerability. Culturally competent research here means:

• Recognising power dynamics between researcher and participant— and naming them

• Attending to the conditions of trust, disclosure, and cultural safety

• Interrogating how coding frames, analytic lenses, and interpretive narratives reflect our own situatedness

Coding frameworks are not neutral containers— they are cultural artefacts. When we impose interpretive frames without critical self-awareness, we risk disciplining participant narratives to fit our epistemic comfort zones, rather than allowing for multiplicity and disruption.

As Garneau and Pepin (2015) argue, all knowledge is relational. Researchers must move beyond token acknowledgements of “bias” to critical reflexivity about how their positionality mediates not only what is observed, but what is intelligible.

4. Dissemination and Impact: Whose Knowledge Counts, and for Whom?

Cultural competence demands a move away from extractivism— where communities are mined for data but left out of meaning-making, authorship, and benefit. Instead, it asks:

• Who is credited, cited, co-authored?

• Are findings returned in culturally relevant, accessible formats?

• How do outputs challenge, rather than replicate, dominant knowledge hierarchies?

As explored in my photoelicitation study with British African diasporic communities (Ademolu, 2023), images used in development research can evoke powerful emotional and psychological responses, particularly when audiences share cultural and racialised ties with those portrayed. Dissemination and impact, then, are not neutral end-points of research, but a site where the stakes of representation, reception, and accountability must be taken seriously.

Applied Example: Cultural Competence in Practice

The following research scenario offers a chance to explore how cultural competence — or the lack thereof — plays out in real-world research. Blackburn, a post-industrial town in the northwest of England, has one of the highest proportions of South Asian communities in the UK. Its complex socio-economic and demographic profile makes it a useful context for exploring intersections between cultural diversity, health, and research ethics. Read and reflect on the visual case study below (click the Google Drive link to view the full-sized PDF version for optimal readability).

Case study (scenario developed by the author; image generated with ChatGPT): Focus group research on mental health among immigrant communities.

Reflection Prompt: In what ways does this scenario illustrate both the presence and absence of cultural competence? How might these factors influence the research outcomes and ethical considerations? You can also share your thoughts anonymously using this Google Form.

In Closing: The Risk of Doing Nothing

The cost of neglecting cultural competence isn’t just ethical. It’s epistemological. It leads to bad research. Research that misrepresents. That homogenises. That reinforces the very injustices it claims to challenge.

To take cultural competence seriously is to insist that good research is not only rigorous, but also reflexive. Not only methodologically sound, but ethically grounded. Not only publishable, but just.

This doesn’t mean abandoning disciplinary excellence or methodological standards. It means expanding them — making space for plural ways of knowing, doing, and being. 

Further Reading & Exploration

• Ademolu, E. (2024). Appreciating Dyslexic Thinking in Qualitative Research: Reflections and Recommendations for Culturally Competent, Neuro-Inclusive Academia. Higher Education. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-024-01314-x

• Jamieson, M., Govaart, G., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735,

• Li, S., et al. (2023). BEME Guide No. 79: The implementation and impact of cultural competence education for health professionals. Medical Teacher, 45(3).

• Meleis, A. F. (1996). Culturally competent scholarship: Substance and rigor. Advances in Nursing Science, 19(2), 1-16. 

Reflective Tasks: Interrogate Your Research Practice

Whether you are a doctoral researcher, supervisor, or interdisciplinary collaborator, cultural competence begins with self-reflection. Here are three prompts for discussion or journaling:

1. Where Does Culture Show Up in My Method?

Identify one method you use. What cultural assumptions underpin its design? Who might be excluded or misrepresented?

2. How Have I Addressed Power in My Fieldwork?

Reflect on a past research encounter. How were dynamics of privilege, trust, and cultural safety navigated — or overlooked?

3. Who Benefits from My Research — and How?

Beyond citations and outputs, what are the material, symbolic, or community-facing benefits of your research? Who decides?