Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
This chapter presents the results analysis of the study. As mentioned in the previous chapters, the research employs the use of questionnaire where the questions were set from different criterion. Then, after well completion and compilation of the questionnaire, it was presented to the fifty respondents identified to participate in the study. The results were coded into excel spreadsheets to create figures and tables for the purpose of easy analysis and interpretation.
Descriptive analysis
The purpose of the research is to establish whether the students/respondents enrolled in SSW 503/504 class are well competent with their cultural endurances. The compilation of questions was based on observation among other sources of primary data collection. All protocols were observed to ensure that the results analysis is par expectations. These elements include ethical concerns whereby respondents were presented with the necessary information before the beginning of the research. Any of irregularities was not tolerated as the study was to present valid and highly realistic outcomes for the purpose of presenting reliable and sensitive recommendations (Perry & Tate-Manning, 2007). In the computation and coding of results, all measures were appropriately incorporated to ensure that the no bias whatsoever is allowed in the course of the research. Each of the students was requested to fill in the questionnaire appropriately on voluntarily basis. This was necessary to avoiding results manipulation and any issues of credibility (Babbie, 2013). Quantitative approach was vastly used in the complication of figures for a better and clear understanding of results.
Of the 50 respondents, 23 representing 46% somewhat can describe the cultural group of the people within their area of residence. Seventeen respondents, representing thirty-four percent can describe their people’s cultural group well while only 10 respondents are well conversant with the cultural group of the people living in their area of residence. This is represented by 20% out of the 50 respondents who took part in the study. The percentage distribution is clearly shown in the figure 1.0 below.
Figure 1.0 percentage distribution of respondents on whether they can describe their cultural group within their living area.
Out of the 50 participants 17 representing 34% are not able to describe the social problems of the distinctive cultural groups in areas they live. Thirteen respondents representing 26% were somewhat able to describe the social problems of the various cultural groups within their areas of residence. More so, 11 and 9 respondents were well and very well able to describe the social problems of the cultural groups. This was presented by 22% and 18% respectively.
Figure 2.0 percentage distribution of respondents’ ability to describe social problems
Ten respondents out of the 50 who participated in the research could not at all describe the social structure of the cultural groups they belong. This was represented by 19%. Twenty-seven respondents representing 50% were somewhat able to describe the social structure of their cultural group they belong. Eleven and six respondents representing 20% and 11% respectively could well and very well describe the social structure of their cultural groups. The percentage distribution is presented by the figure below.
Figure 3.0 percentage distribution of respondents’ ability to describe their social structure of their cultural groups.
Twelve out of 50 respondents representing 24%were not competent with their culture. Eleven respondents were somewhat competent as they could tell was their cultural practices entails. That group was represented by 22%. Those who were competent about their culture fairly well and very well were twenty two and five respondents respectively. They were represented by 44% and 10% respectively. Below is the pie chart that clearly showing the percentage distribution of the respondents.
Figure 4.0 percentage distribution of testing the cultural competency ability of respondents.
Out of the 50 participants in the study, thirty of them, representing 60% barely understood the demonstration of cultural competency within real life social work practice. This was a vast presentation bearing in mind that only 6 respondents out of the 50 represented by 12% were somewhat aware of the cultural demonstrations. Eight respondents representing 15% fairly demonstrated the cultural competency within real life social work practice while the rest – 6 – respondents were very well conversant with the demonstration of the cultural competency. This was represented by 12%. The below bar chart indicates the distribution.
Figure 5.0 respondents’ distribution of competency of cultural demonstration within real life and social work practice.
Out of the 50 respondents, those that can identify themselves into a cultural group within the elements of race/ethnicity and gender were 15 each. This was represented by 30% respectively. Those who could identify themselves with the element of sexual identity were 12 respondents representing 245%. More so, only 8 respondents representing 16% could identify their cultural group identity through the social and economic status of their people. However, there was none of the respondents were could not identify their cultural group through any of the elements provided. The figure below shows the percentage distribution.
Figure 6.0 percentage distribution of respondents’ elements in which they can identify their cultural identity
As indicated above, 10 respondents representing 20% always developed personal relationships with people outside their cultural group. Thirty-two percent representing 16 respondents often developed relationships with people that were out of their cultural group while 15 respondents represented by 30% sometimes made relationships. Seven respondents answered that they rarely made relationships with other people from different cultural groups. This was represented by 14%. However, 2 respondents representing 4% never created relationships with people outside their cultural group. This means that they were only conversant with their cultural practices and not that of others. The figure 7.0 below shows the percentage distribution.
Figure 7.0 percentage distribution of respondents’ frequency of building relationship with people outside their cultural group.
The extent in which respondents patronized businesses owned by people outside their cultural group also showed unique scenario. Only 8 respondents representing 16% frequently patronized businesses owned by other people from different cultural groups. This was followed by 12 respondents represented by 24% who often patronized businesses owned by people of outside their cultural groups. Majority of the respondents – 16 of them – representing 32% only sometime patronized businesses owned by individuals outside their cultural group. More so, 4 respondents representing 8% never patronize businesses owned by people outside their cultural group. Figure 8.0 below shows the percentage distribution.
Figure 8.0 percentage distribution of respondents’ patronization to businesses owned by people outside their cultural group.
This question aimed at establishing the criteria in which respondents developed their answers when responding to questions 1-5 of the questionnaire. The various elements included that of gender, social and economic statuses or that of sexual identity. Evidently, 36 respondents representing 72% considered these elements of gender, sex and economic statuses in responding to questions 1-5. However, 14 respondents representing 28% did not consider such elements in their response. Below is the figure showing the percentage distribution.
Figure 9.0 percentage distribution
Correlations
References
Babbie, E. R. (2013). The practice of social research. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Perry, C. & Tate-Manning, L. (2007) Unraveling Cultural Construction in Social Work Education: Journeying Toward Cultural Competence. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 25(7).
