Speaking from the Margins: A Critical Reflection on the 'Spiritual-but-not-Religious' Discourse in Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to make visible the invisible Euro-Christian ethnocentrism and individualism in the ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ discourse in social work. A critical analysis of the current literature on spirituality and social work, intertwined with the authors' personal narratives of spirituality and religion, calls into question the subject positions of social work authors who argue for differentiating spirituality from religion. We ask: From whose vantage point is the ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ discourse produced? What gets legitimized and who gets excluded from this particular construction of spirituality? This paper deconstructs the power relations of race, ethnicity, and sexuality in the discourse of spirituality in social work. It destabilizes the assumption of spirituality as non-sectarian and inclusive. Contrary to many social work authors and educators' best intention of inclusivity, we contend that the ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ discourse in social work may have inadvertently reproduced the process of colonial othering and further marginalization of racialized ethnic groups who are more often represented as ‘religious’.
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 | 0.048 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.164 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| 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".