Indigenization without ‘Indigeneity’: Problematizing the Discourse of Indigenization of Social Work in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While acknowledging mutual alignment in their critique of social work’s dominant Eurocentric lens, indigenous and indigenization of social work have thus far forged separate routes. Indigenous social work predominantly focuses on groups in the settler colonial states of North America and Australia where the term ‘indigenous’ as an official identity category is embraced by groups to signify their a priori territorial claims, traditional way of life, and distinct world views. Indigenization of social work, on the other hand, primarily deals with the effective transmission of praxis in non-western regions. Yet complex linkages between the two exist that impacts the trajectory of indigenization of social work. This article draws upon indigenous theorizing and transdisciplinary learning to examine the neglect of highly charged concepts such as ‘indigenous’ and relationally notions of indigeneity within the social work indigenization discourse in China. Further, grounding the analysis within the liminal sphere of China’s ethnic minorities, particularly the case of Tibet Autonomous Region, it presents a preliminary discussion on potential ways to conceptualize ways forward.
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 | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".