Barriers to Retaining and Using Professional Knowledge in Local Authority Social Work Practice with Adults in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of community care policy and practice in the UK has taken place in the context of the growth of neo-liberal ideologies and managerialism. This has had an impact on service provision and professional practice which has been pronounced in statutory agencies. Research evidence indicates that the workforce in adult social care is demoralized and de-motivated and that there is dissonance between working practices and social work education. Empirical research undertaken in 2003 found difficulties at three levels: structural, managerial and practitioner. The difficulties encountered compromise effective inter-agency and partnership working, indicate problems in the supervisory relationship and lead to practitioners acting defensively and without reference to theory or a clear knowledge base. When these findings are compared with those from earlier studies, explanations may be found beyond blaming individuals or locating conflict within service users’ expectations regarding services. The paper concludes that there is an urgent need to consider and debate the form that contemporary practice in adult care should take and the education of practitioners for this task, in order to support the workforce and to meet the social policy aims of community care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".