Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the social contexts that influence lived experience of professional identity for newly qualified social workers during the first twelve months post-qualification. It is argued that the human services sector is impacted by competing discourses that influence ideas about the nature of problems and social service delivery, which do not always sit comfortably with social work values such as social justice and human rights that are reflected in professional identity. There is little understanding of how newly qualified social workers construct and navigate professional identity within these social contexts. An in-depth study underpinned by hermeneutic phenomenology and critical social work theory was undertaken with 17 newly qualified social workers in Australia. From a series of interviews, the participants’ descriptions revealed several intersecting discourses that influenced perceptions of social work, as well as tensions between the participants’ job-role and professional identity. Participants identified strategies to consciously navigate and resist aspects of these discourses to strengthen and make a social work identity more visible in the workplace. Implications for social work educators, supervisors, and professional associations concerned about professional identity are outlined to emphasize preparing and supporting practitioners for identity challenges.
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 | 0.034 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".