Individuality in approaches to emotionally demanding work and coping among experienced British Columbia social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many social workers experience high levels of emotional exhaustion (Kim, Ji, & Kao, 2011), directly contributing to poor professional retention, with numbers of social workers leaving the field between 20 and 40% annually in some sectors (Font, 2012).Additionally, social work is a highly gendered field (Sloan, 2012), and expectations of social workers' emotional labour as well as their prospects for influence and advancement reflect this (Lane & Flowers, 2015).Rather than examining the struggles social workers face (the subject of numerous studies already), this qualitative study examines the experiences of six female social workers, who selfidentified as being emotionally healthy, thriving in their job, and who intended to continue as social workers.Each participant had a minimum of five years' experience following completion of their BSW or MSW.The participants' perceptions of social work, experience of emotional demands in the field, and knowledge of emotional supports for social workers were examined.Additionally, participants' self-assessments of their personality and qualities of personal hardiness or resilience were examined, based on the literature review findings that suggested relationships between these factors and emotional coping.The research was informed by critical theory on structural social work, and a thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative interviews to draw out shared thematic elements.Successful social work is a complex accomplishment: professionalism intersects with informal client-focused work, and emotionally demanding labour intersects gendered stereotypes on appropriate emotional expression.This research found that successful social workers considered their personality and approach to be instrumental in their success.Though individual interpretations differed, participants shared beliefs that they were personally suited for social work.In other words, the people who thrive as social workers are as complex, nuanced and interesting as the work itself.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".