Strength-based approach in social work: professionals' experiences in working with refugee youth in Nakivale refugee settlement, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the research was to explore the area of social work practice with refugee youth in Nakivale refugee settlement, Uganda, in relation to the use of strength-based approach. Hence, the focus was on the professionals and their experiences in working with the youth, covering the area of strengths and resources, both personal and those acknowledged in their clients, the guidelines used and their approach towards youth. Moreover, on a deeper sense, I tried to observe how professionals’ strengths, values and attitudes are transferred into practice. The research is constructed around the sensitive contexts of refugee settlements and refugees, with a focus on the youth and children as predominant groups in the overall population of refugees in Uganda. The same applies for Nakivale refugee settlement. Within this context and drawing from social work literature, the strength-based approach has been used as theoretical framework. The data was collected through qualitative methods, namely, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and participatory observations, using ethnography as a research design. The main sample consisted of 25 professionals from 6 organizations active in the settlement, focused on the work with youth on different areas of practice and service provision (HIJRA – Humanitarian Initiative Just Relief Aid, War Child Canada, ARC – American Refugee Committee, FRC – Finnish Refugee Council, Tutapona and Windle Trust Uganda). Therefore a purposeful sampling was used. Further on, the voices of the youth were captured through FGDs to enriched the findings. The biggest limitation is the dimension of professionals in relation with social work, since the field of practice includes different areas connected to social work, humanitarian and social sciences. The findings show that the strength-based approach is being used by professionals in their practices. Hence, it is reflected through their attitude towards their clients, through their values, motivations and their passion expressed both for work and humanity. They own the necessary strengths, resources and qualities in order to overcome both personal and work related challenges. Professionals are able to recognize the strengths and resources of their clients and promote them. Emphasizes are made on strong and positive attitudes, genuine relationships, faith and spirituality as a resource and the strength encountered in love, hope and dreams. Reflections made on refugee youth highlight that they are acknowledged as resourceful and resilient. The youth voices are strengthening and confirming the findings. Hence, I conclude that the strength-based approach as a whole is being used by professionals in their practice with the refugees and refugee youth and at a macro level, the aim of self-reliance policies follows the same direction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".