Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-oppressive frameworks are well established in both the United Kingdom and North American social work literature as one means of addressing social inequities. The literature in spirituality has grown substantially, establishing initial theoretical models and an empirical trail. The relationship of spirituality to critical social work models including anti-oppressive frameworks have yet to be fully examined. The purpose of this paper is to conceptually explore relationships between spirituality and anti-oppressive practice, specifically anti-oppressive organizational change, using as exemplar a small women-centered agency's four-year engagement in anti-oppressive organizational change. Using qualitative methodology, four in-depth interviews explored the experiences of agency staff and volunteer members during this agency's period of transition. Analysis of the interviews revealed the importance of critical consciousness in an examination of power, privilege and oppression, and the importance of empowerment approaches. Additionally, results describe the importance of spirituality in establishing purpose and connection, and in this study, in shaping interpersonal, intrapersonal processes and the quality of the experience of anti-oppressive organizational change. Future research addressing social inequities within an anti-oppressive framework should consider the potential role or influence of the spiritual dimension.
 Key words: spirituality, anti-oppression models, social justice, organizational change, women's organizations
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".