Lost and Finding: Experiences of Newly Graduated Critical Social Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first year of social work practice can be very stressful for new practitioners. Practice develops in response to the meaning we place on what we do and on our professional goals. Having a better\nunderstanding of how new graduates navigate the transition from idealized work to real practice is important if the profession is going to improve the overall self-efficacy, happiness, and commitment of social workers. In this paper, I discuss some of the findings from research that utilized philosophical hermeneutics as an approach to understand how newly graduated social workers, educated in a critical tradition, experience their practice. Critical social workers described their practice as experiences of being both lost and finding. Specifically, it is an experience of trying to get into, around, or through the real world of paid work-based practice. This is the challenge of emancipatory work. The “real world” becomes a box where it is very difficult, if not\nimpossible, within which to move. Arguments are made for critical social work schools and organizations to develop peer-support groups, focused on critical reflection and reflexive practice, to assist current critical social work students and new graduates to recognize, support, and sustain emancipatory practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".