Social Workers' Use of Power in Relationships with Grandparents in Child Welfare Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on ways in which social workers use power in their relationships with grandparents who are caring for grandchildren involved with child welfare agencies. Also examined are the ways in which grandparents perceive this use of power. Qualitative data were gathered from forty-three social workers and thirty-two grandparents in kinship care settings. Findings showed that social workers' expression of power falls into three main categories. Workers ‘dispense resources’, which include the provision of material support and services, the use of clinical skills and their influence over the middle generation. Workers can be ‘directive’, which involves their controlling interaction and defining the meanings of help. They also ‘manage negotiations’, which can occur in both an open and an implicit manner. Findings showed that workers' use of power can be beneficial to grandparents. A central issue for grandparents is whether there is reciprocity in their relationships with workers. Our conclusion is that being less directive and engaging in negotiations will result in collaborative relationships in which the needs of grandparents, as well as the agency, are more likely to be met.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".