Westernisation-Indigenisation in Social Work Education and Practice: Understanding Indigenisation in International Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International social work is about thinking globally when acting locally and vice-versa.Most of all, it is a field that requires acknowledging differences and a 'welcoming' of theories and practice models of one's own singularity (cultural, political, economic) for direction in understanding social work.These contextand population-specific approaches build the core identity of the social work profession.However, limited opportunity for these specific approaches, along with knowledge and skill gaps, underscore International Social Work post-secondary curriculum on a global scale.Thus, the authors are centrally concerned with conducting a research-informed study to strengthen International Social Work courses.In this article, the authors outline the development of Indigenisation theory and offer ways of thinking and interacting with social work concepts and methodologies in an International Social Work teaching and learning context.This article offers a pragmatic approach of considering a dialectic of Westernisation-Indigenisation, to connect the local and the global as well as the North and the South by aiming to develop the concept of Indigenisation in International Social Work.Through a tri-continental partnership (Europe, North America, Africa), the authors outline their current and future plans to create a research study to develop curriculum and conduct field work, to focus efforts on decolonizing social work practice and education.This partnership offers a two-directional relationship between global thinking and local acting, therefore modelling Indigenisation theory and its application on an international scale.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".