Caring, Mutuality and Reciprocity in Social Worker—Client Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Summary: In this article we report the findings of a qualitative study of social workers' experiences of receiving care from their clients to present a case for a re-examination of the social worker—client relationship. • Findings: Participating social workers describe their awareness of the mutuality within their relationships with clients, including an awareness of the care their clients have and express towards them. However, participants report that this openness to mutuality and reciprocity in their relationships with clients is subversive of social work practice norms, which warn against dual relationships. These findings indicate that there is a serious disconnection between social work training and standards, and the ways social workers practice in the field. This puts workers in a potentially untenable position caught between ideals of professional behaviour and their relationships with their clients. • Application: The findings of this study suggest the need for potentially radical shifts in how we conceptualize worker—client relationships within social work practice. We suggest that the accommodation of a theoretical orientation that incorporates an understanding of mutuality of care and the interdependency of identity and human development within all interpersonal relationships provides a significant opportunity to our profession to reexamine how we interact with our clients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it