Intersecting Interests: Qualitative Research Synthesis on Art in the Social Work Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a qualitative research synthesis that explored the intersections between art and social work. The scholarship notes a rise in interest in integrating creative arts practices in social work classrooms from assignment design to classroom activities. Also highlighted are the potential contributions of these arts-informed practices to teaching about topics related to oppression. The synthesis presented in this paper explored this potential through an interpretivist analysis of articles on the intersection of art and social work. Findings highlight the contribution of this approach to enhancing student engagement and critical reflexivity; creating a sense of collectivity and solidarity in the classroom; as well as transforming the role of the educator. Findings suggest the need for further research to explore the potential contributions of arts-informed approaches in social work education beyond a single classroom. Cet article présente la synthèse d’une recherche qualitative qui a exploré les intersections entre l’art et le travail social. Les recherches effectuées indiquent qu’il existe une augmentation de l’intérêt à intégrer les pratiques des arts créatifs dans les salles de classe de travail social, allant de la conception des devoirs aux activités en salle de classe. Les contributions potentielles de ces pratiques qui intègrent l’art à l’enseignement de sujets liés à l’oppression sont également mises en relief. Les synthèses présentées dans cet article explorent ce potentiel par le biais d’une analyse interprétative d’articles qui se situent à l’intersection de l’art et du travail social. Les résultats mettent en relief la contribution de cette approche à l’amélioration de l’engagement des étudiants et de la réflexion critique; à la création d’un sens de collectivité et de solidarité dans la salle de classe; ainsi qu’à la transformation du rôle de l’éducateur. Les résultats suggèrent qu’il faudrait mener d’autres recherches afin d’explorer les contributions potentielles des approches qui intègrent l’art dans l’enseignement du travail social au-delà de la simple salle de classe.
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 | 0.089 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".