Are cultural safety definitions culturally safe? A review of 42 cultural safety definitions in an Australian cultural concept soup

• Main Authors: Lock, Mark, Williams, Megan, Lloyd-Haynes, Atalanta, Burmeister, Oliver, Came, Heather, Deravin, Linda, Browne, Jennifer, Lopez Alvarez, Maria Jose, Walker, Troy, Biles, Jessica, Manton, Danielle, Randell-Moon, Holly, Zaccone, Sophie, Otmar, Renee, Kendall, Elizabeth, Flemington, Tara, Hastings, Aqua, Lawrence, Jayne, McMillan, Faye, Bennett, Bindi
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: English
• Published: Research Square 2021
• Subjects: Demean; First Nations
• Online Access: https://research.bond.edu.au/en/publications/c304cffc-b51e-4153-b502-aafb6dbb3d70; https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1179330/v1; https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/files/122394871/Cultural_soup.pdf; https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/files/128931954/Cultural_soup.pdf

Cultural safety is a keystone reform concept intended to improve First Nations Peoples’ health and wellbeing. Are definitions of cultural safety, in themselves, culturally safe? A purposive search of diverse sources in Australian identified 42 definitions of cultural safety. Structuration theory informed the analytical framework and was applied through an Indigenist methodology. Ten themes emerged from this analysis, indicating that cultural risk is embedded in cultural safety definitions that diminish (meddlesome modifications and discombobulating discourse), demean (developmentally dubious and validation vacillations), and disempower (professional prose, redundant reflexivity, and scholarly shenanigans) the cultural identity (problematic provenance and ostracised ontology) of First Nations Australians. We offer four guidelines for future definitional construction processes, and methodology and taxonomy for building consensus based of definitions of cultural safety. Using this approach could reduce cultural risk and contribute to improved workforce ability to respond to the cultural strengths of First Nations Australians.