Promoting Critical Reflexivity through Arts-Based Media: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an increasingly central focus of social work pedagogy, critical reflexivity can be distinguished from non-critical forms of reflexivity by its emphasis on the socially constructed, power-laden nature of knowledge and subjectivity, and its embracement of anxiety and other difficult emotions in social work practice. Given the in actu nature of its processes, however, critical reflexivity poses particular challenges as a teaching objective for social work educators. In order to assess the potential of arts-based media to engender critical forms of reflexivity in social work audiences, qualitative inquiry was conducted on social workers' experience of an arts-based video installation on self-determination in social work practice. Participants' reflections strongly supported the installation as a catalyst for processes of critical reflexivity, emphasising the ways it encouraged active reflection on issues of power, knowledge construction and subjectivity, as well as demanded a negotiation with difficult emotions such as anxiety and uncertainty. The arts-based features of the video installation were highlighted as those most productive of these processes of critical reflexivity—a finding with significant implications for social work pedagogy, supporting the call for greater inclusion of arts-based media in social work education.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".