Narrative resistance in social work research and practice: Counter-storying in the pursuit of social justice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we propose ‘narrative resistance’ as a potent and useful concept for both social work research and practice. A concept that attends to power and oppression, narrative resistance provides a platform for tangible applications to support people’s efforts to resist harmful storyings of their lives. The aim of this article is to provide practical guidance for how social workers can attend to and support people’s acts of narrative resistance. This is achieved by introducing the functions of narrative in people’s lives and its inextricable links to power; discussing ‘master narratives’ and their potential for harm; and exploring narrative resistance by articulating the role of ‘counter narratives’ as a means to ‘talk back’ to injurious master narratives. The remainder of the article outlines considerations, skills and tools required to enhance counter-storying efforts in the service of emancipatory change. We spotlight examples of narrative resistance in the literature to illustrate the pragmatic mobilization of this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it