Legal Politics of Social Workers Law as an Advocacy Effort of Social Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the organizer of the realization of social welfare, the state has not been able to optimally overcome social changes, which have an impact on increasing the number and complexity of social welfare problems. With the arguments of humanity and the principle of mutual cooperation, some parties help the government, then are called social workers. To ensure their existence, social worker organizations in Indonesia initiated the formation of the Law on the Social Worker Profession. Law Number 14 of 2019 concerning Social Workers was formed. After the birth of this Law, some questions emerged whether the Law provided solutions to the problems faced by social workers in assisting social welfare, or with this Law, the state would be out of hand and emphasize the resolution of social problems to social workers. This study described the legal political conditions for forming this Law. This study answered the politics of the formation of Law Number 14 of 2019 and the challenges for Social Workers in Indonesia after the birth of the Law. Answering those problems, this study used—statute approach, historical approach, and conceptual approach, strengthened by some literature related to Law and social workers. Besides that, this study also used protection theory to assess the Law. This study also compared some regulations in some countries regarding social workers in some cases. In short, this study found that the strong historical background, the long existence of social workers in Indonesia, and the need for legal protection and certainty have become the reason for establishing Law No. 14, 2019. However, after the birth of the Law, challenges arose for social workers where their actualization was not easy and limited according to their profession and education. In addition, it is alleged that the Law could lead to malpractice because there are no sanctions. While in Australia, and USA, social worker laws give more space for social worker.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".