Towards a pragmatic approach: a critical examination of two assumptions of indigenization discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current discourse of indigenization has been dominated by a normative approach that puts culture and social work values at the centre of discussions of social work's transference ‘from the West to the rest’. Taking a social constructionist perspective, this article argues that we need to critically examine some underlying assumptions of this normative approach, which may have led to misunderstandings of indigenization. The pragmatic approach, which I suggest as an alternative, views indigenization as a process in which various actors with various cultural lenses select the components of Western social work that can be integrated with, or replace, existing local social care practices. The purpose of this integration and replacement is to better serve the needs of the receiving society and its people.
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 | 0.095 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.179 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.054 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| 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".