Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The migrant is the political figure of our time. (Nail, 2015, p 235) This chapter explores the Australian approach to the recognition of transnational social workers migrating to Australia. Prior research into transnational social work has: questioned the portability of values, skills and knowledge across cultural contexts (McDonald et al, 2003; Walsh et al, 2010; Pullen-Sansfaçon et al, 2012); explored the experiences of migrant social workers’ adaptation to destination country practices (Kornbeck, 2004; Hussein et al, 2010; Bartley et al, 2011; Beddoe et al, 2012; Sims, 2012; Harrison, 2013; Beddoe and Fouché, 2014; Hussein, 2014); and also noted the ethical implications of social workers migrating from countries that need their services (IFSW, 2012), and the obligations of destination countries to migrant social workers (McDonald et al, 2003; Walsh et al, 2010; Pullen-Sansfaçon et al, 2012; Fouché et al, 2016). As the opening quote from Nail suggests, these themes all touch on the political, and they inform the background to a critical analysis of current processes of professional recognition in Australia. Empirical research has recently begun to explore the complexity of recognition processes as a significant variable in the migration experiences of social workers in Canada (Fang, 2012; Brown et al, 2015) and New Zealand (Fouché et al, 2014a, 2014b). In the Australian case, there is a lack of scholarship and data illustrating the migration patterns of social workers, the absence of which relates to Australian social work's ambiguous professional status. While the occupation of ‘social worker’ comprehends a broad range of practices across myriad contexts, one characteristic of social work that clearly transcends national boundaries is the espoused self-concept of the profession as ethical. This is expressed through codes and standards of practice to which practitioners are expected to adhere across fields of practice, framed both nationally and internationally. Comparing national codes of ethics of social work practice, Banks (2012, p 111) identified common orienting ethical principles across nations: ‘respect for persons, respect for and promotion of the autonomy of service users, promotion of human welfare, social justice and professional integrity’ – a commonality she attributes to the influence of the International Federation of Social Work (IFSW).
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 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 teacher head, 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".