MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W205906981

The Client-Centered Integrative Strengths-Based Approach: Ending Longstanding Conflict between Social Work Values and Practice L'APPROCHE BASÉE SUR LES FORCES INTÉGRATIVE CLIENT-CENTRÉE: TERMINAISON DU CONFLIT DE LONGUE DATE ENTRE LES VALEURS DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LA PRATIQUE

2011· article· fr· W205906981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyWork (physics)Perspective (graphical)Social workHumanityStrengths and weaknessesHumanitiesSocial psychologyEpistemologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The 1980s saw the rising of strengths-based approach, which is now coming to be one of the most influential perspectives in the field of both social work theories and practice. It is an attempt in response to the demand for ending the longstanding conflict between social work values and practice caused by the traditional deficit-focused approach, and also for the search for the essence of social work. As the concept of strength is technically vague and contradictory, it makes the current strengths-based perspective impossible to address simultaneously humanity caring and service efficacy as the two fundamental demands of social work practice. Therefore, grounded on literature review of the strengths perspective and reflecting of our social work practice, a new strengths-based approach, the client-centered integrative strengths-based approach, is proposed to fulfill the two fundamental demands of social work, which is to assist clients to make full use of their strengths and resources, and to cope better with and exceed the problems, and to enrich their life through the process of transition and reduction of with the help of social workers. Key words: Strengths-based Approach; Strength; Problem; Nature of Social Work Resume: Les armees 1980 ont vu la montee de l'approche basee sur forces, qui vient maintenant pour etre l'une des perspectives les plus influentes dans le domaine des deux theories et pratique en matiere de travail social. C'est une tentative en reponse a la demande en finir le conflit de longue date entre les valeurs de travail social et la pratique provoquees par l'approche deficit-focalisee traditionnelle, et egalement de la recherche de l'essence du travail social. Car le concept de la force est techniquement vague et contradictoire, il rend la perspective basee sur les forces actuelle impossible d'adresser simultanement l'humanite s'inquietant et d'entretenir l'efficacite comme deux exigences fondamentales de pratique en matiere de travail social. Par consequent, fonde sur l'examen de litterature de la perspective de forces et de se refleter de notre pratique en matiere de travail social, on propose une nouvelle approche basee sur forces, l'approche basee sur forces integrative client-centree, pour accomplir les deux exigences fondamentales du travail social, qui est d'aider des clients pour utiliser pleinement leurs forces et ressources, et pour faire face mieux a et pour depasser les «problemes», et pour enrichir leur vie par le processus de la transition et la reduction de «problemes» avec l'aide des assistants sociaux. Mots cles: Approche basee sur forces; Force; Probleme; Nature de travail social Unsatisfied with the traditional deficit-focused perspective in mental health services, a group of scholars at Welfare College of Kansas University in the United States, began to make the earliest exploration to reform social work perspectives in 1980s. As a result, they created a new model, the strengths-based case management, to deal with the main problems faced in the social work practice when applying the traditional deficit-focused perspective. The strengths-based approach soon drew great attention and became a significant perspective for social work theories and practice as it was presented publicly in 1980s. Since then, its applied fields extend from the earliest mental health services (Rapp & Chamberlain, 1985) to the elderly services (Lewis, 1996; Perkins & Tice, 1994; 1995; 1999), women services (Thrasher & Mowbray, 1995), teenagers services (Yip, 2003; 2005), family (Bell, 2003; Carter, 1997; Erera & Fredriksen), poverty (Sousa, Ribeiro & Rodrigues, 2006), multi-culture (Chazin, Kaplan & Terio, 2000; Lee, 2003; Voss et al., 1999), the social work education (Cox, 2001), the social policy (Chapin, 1995) and etc. In light of the service methods, the strengths-based approach develops from the first form of case management to a variety of integrated models, such as uncovering survival abilities in sexually abused children with combination of the strengths perspective and resilience (Anderson, 1997), treating juvenile offenders and domestic violence offenders with blending of the strengths perspective and the solution-focused brief therapy (Clark, 1999; Lee, Uken & Sebold, 2004), addressing youth obesity with incorporating the strengths perspective into a biopsychosocial model (Goetz & Caron: 1999), organizing delivery of interventions for rural substance abuse clients with combination of the strengths perspective and behavioral contracting (Clark, Leukefeld & Godlaski, 1999), arresting the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder with integration of strengths perspective and constructive perspective (Norman, 2000), working with battered women with implementing the feminist and strengths perspective (Black, 2003; Mary & Katherine, 1997), counseling with the elderly with consideration of resiliency and spirituality in the strengths perspective (Langer, 2004). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social science→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→