What Social Workers Need to Know about Muslims: An Analysis of the Contemporary Social Work Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes peer-reviewed English-language social work scholarship on Islam and Muslims published between 2011 and 2021. Of these 127 articles, 70 journal venues are represented, and first authors are primarily American (44 percent), followed by British (15 percent) and Canadian (11 percent). A total of 70 journals published studies analyzing data related to Muslims/Islam and social work, with 46 consisting of only one publication between 2011 and 2021. A total of 13 of these journals had a SCImago Journal Rank indicator of over 0.5, and three with rankings over 1.0. The volume of publications was high in 2015 and 2020, in particular. Major themes include faith-aligned and strengths-based approaches, the importance of mosques in the lives of Muslims, the relevance of the hijab in the lives of Muslim women, and the prevalence and impact of sociopolitical stereotypes. The conclusion calls for still greater culturally respectful approaches to the profession that include Islam and Muslim individuals/communities and ensuring that ethics and practice/research continue to evolve in ways that are culturally relevant to diverse communities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".