Evidence-based practice (EBP) and cultural competence (CC) aim to improve the effectiveness of mental
health care for diverse populations. However, there are basic tensions between these approaches. The
evidence that purports to ground EBP is limited, often in ways that are biased by specific disciplinary,
economic or political interests and cultural assumptions. In particular, the paucity of evidence regarding
cultural minorities results in standard practices based on data from the majority population that have
uncertain relevance for specific cultural groups. As well, research evidence about intervention outcomes
tends to focus on individual symptoms and behaviors and may not reflect culturally relevant outcomes.
To some extent, these limitations can be addressed by refining and extending current methods of
evidence production. However, consideration of culture raises two deeper problems for EBP: 1) The
diagnostic and conceptual frameworks used to pose questions, devise interventions, and determine
outcomes in EBP are themselves culturally determined and therefore potentially biased or inappropriate;
and 2) Cultural communities may have “ways of knowing” that do not rely on the kinds of observational
and experimental measures and methods that characterize EBP. Attention to the nature of clinical
evidence and to the importance of cultural context in illness and healing can help both EBP and CC move
beyond their current limitations and contribute to the evolution of mental health services that respond
effectively to cultural diversity.