Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article explores critical reflection as practiced by social workers in the context of their personal and professional privilege. It was found that social workers in direct practice were not invested in critical reflection about oppressive discourses in their consciousness when interacting with clients. Rather, critical reflection often happened in times of crises or when social workers encountered difficult client situations. Using the phenomenological methodology of Van Manen and the social constructionist perspective, I present and discuss the findings of a qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with 20 social workers in direct practice. Findings Data analysis indicated that critical reflection is not a priority for direct practice social workers in the context of privilege. Three themes are identified: (1) No time for reflection, (2) Fear of reflection, and (3) Too much reflection. Nevertheless, social workers were still able to reflect alone, with colleagues and with supervisors, and they outlined the benefits of reflection. Applications Social work agencies should provide infrastructure for reflection, create an atmosphere for workers to freely discuss challenges and difficulties, and reduce their fear of reprisals from management. This article broadens the idea of phenomenological reflection by Van Manen.
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 | 0.079 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".