A Critical Examination of Immigrant Acculturation: Toward an Anti-Oppressive Social Work Model with Immigrant Adults in a Pluralistic Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, in North America, the idea of complete assimilation of immigrants no longer seems relevant. Under the commonly espoused ideologies of multiculturalism and pluralism, the goal of social work with immigrants is now integration into the host society, whether that be economically, socially and/or psychologically (Li, 2003). However, critics argue that the traditional idea of immigrant assimilation continues to lurk behind social policies and social services for immigrants, in that the successful integration of immigrants is prompted by their conformation to the dominant culture (Balgopal, 2000). While a growing body of literature on social work with immigrants has resulted in an increased understanding of this diverse population and its needs, the literature still lacks coherent theoretical and ideological frameworks necessary to inform effective models of service delivery. Social work literature on immigrants also requires critical interrogation of the impact of social science theories, particularly in terms of long-held assumptions of culture and acculturation. In this paper, a critical review of literature on acculturation and social work with immigrants will be followed by findings of a qualitative study with skilled immigrants in Canada. Based on the research findings, an anti-oppressive approach to social work with immigrants is proposed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".