Social workers' interpretations of generalist social work in rural areas
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The issue of rurality is a concern in many countries, especially with regard to the organisation of welfare services and, although Finland’s geographical and population characteristics qualify it as a rural country, generalist rural social work in rural Finnish municipalities is under-studied. Within this study, I will explicate this phenomenon with the goal of analysing the methods social workers in rural areas use to guide them in identifying their main priorities in conducting social work. The data were drawn from three focus group interviews conducted in rural municipalities in Lapland, which excluded all four cities of the region. Although this study took place in a Finnish context, the phenomenon it addresses exists similarly, at least in some level, in other countries, such as Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. Both the distribution and the comparison of knowledge are needed to promote welfare services in rural areas. Therefore, this study also has international significance. \n \nIn preparing this study, I adapted Ruth Liepins’ method to explore community, in which she holds that community can be analysed through the concepts of meanings, practices, spaces and structures. My focus deviates from her study in that the community is one of the indicators in this study, rather than its target. Because this definition delineates the theoretical approach, the analysis method used in this study was theorybased content analysis. \n \nBased on the focus group interviews, the dimensions of generalist social work can be situated in five, theorybased categories: 1) Geographical and demographic class; 2) Economic class; 3) Structures and spaces; 4) Community; 5) Practices. \n \nAccording to my findings, parts of multidimensional, nuanced generalist rural social work can be universal, but the context and its character relate rural social work specifically to locally-oriented professions. While geographical dimensions do challenge rural social work, they, along with other challenges of population, such as ageing, can also be seen as a resource. Since inhabitants’ livelihood consists of multiple sources, their need for economic support depends on region, its structures and periodic changes in employment opportunities. \n \nMoreover, based on results, the economy of smallness is prevalent in generalist rural social work, where time, local structures and experiential spaces call for it. Local history, too, can hinder generalist social work because the challenges of otherness versus oneness prevail on both professional and personal levels. The organization of generalist rural social work is a crucial factor, and equity in delivering services must also be considered. The importance of nature and green social work is presently under-studied, even when the significance of nature is recognized. Generalist rural social work also makes demands on contemporary research and education. Additional knowledge of generalist rural social work is needed, for both current practice and educational development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,038 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».