Social work practice in complex emergencies: A study of Northwest Syria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Existing scholarship discusses social work during war and conflict, but less social work scholarship specifically names and focuses on the reality of complex emergencies. This article discusses perspectives on "good" social work practice in complex emergencies by drawing upon a study of Northwest Syria which included 29 interviews with international and Syrian practitioners. Findings: This study found that although Syria did not have a formal social work profession before the emergency, the crisis created a need for social work practice to bolster and help reactivate Syrian families and communities' supportive nature. Participants perceived "good" social work practices as a range of practices, that are suitable to the community, which helped to reactivate the family and community's supportive role. Practitioners described how "good" social work practices incorporated Syrian culture and were best performed by practitioners with certain characteristics. Ultimately, this article argues social work practice should aim to reactivate rather than replace these important and existing culturally embedded forms of support. Applications: During complex emergencies, "good" social work practice considers and incorporates cultural aspects such as spirituality and stigma. A range of social work practices, which are suitable to the community, can help to restore family and community supports. Practitioners who know the community, are trustworthy, and have a relevant background can best perform what are regarded as "good" social work practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".