Caring, Mutuality and Reciprocity in Social Worker—Client Relationships
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".