Social work indigenization in Mainland China: Towards a state-led decolonizing framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The tension between indigenizing versus internationalizing social work knowledge, resulting from local-specific sensitivity, has been a contemporary dispute in the Global South where there are diverse geo-historical backgrounds. This is the case in China, where the mainstream international narrative surrounding social work development has been configured by the normative values and knowledge of a Euromodern origin. Such misrepresentation rarely reflects indigenous voices from the local social work academy. Informed by Foucault’s thesis of power/knowledge, this article first compares the model of state social work in China and the world. Then, as a decolonizing project, a narrative review of 26 Chinese language articles was conducted. Findings Distinctive service and policy practices in the Chinese traditional helping system were identified to illustrate how western social work was ethnocentrically repositioned in the “post-socialist” China. These initiatives include micro-level “Civil Affairs” services, meso-level “mass work” practice, and macro-level “Minsheng” State and crossregional Pairing Aid Programs, which are rooted in the cultural (Confucianism), economical (socialist market economy), and political (Marxism) ecosystem in China. Applications Through an indigenized epistemological stance, a state-led anti-colonial framework is presented to unveil the making of social work indigenization and social welfare development that de-centers Eurocentric hegemony. To reorient social work knowledge apart from persistent neo-colonialism in the form of academic imperialism, social work development should be tailored into a locally responsive and geopolitically appropriate models in the non-western world.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it