Globalization, Colonization, Islamization, and Social Work Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the critical intersection of social work and Islam, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region amidst historical and ongoing conflicts. The study examines how Western-oriented social work education often clashes with the realities faced by Muslim populations who interpret the world through an Islamic lens. The impact of colonialism, modernization, and globalization on social work practices in the MENA region is emphasized, highlighting the enduring effects of these forces on local knowledge and the marginalization of indigenous Islamic wisdom. The study advocates for a paradigm shift toward authentization—developing social work approaches grounded in the local cultural and religious contexts of Muslim populations. It discusses the integration of Islamic practices and values into social work and psychotherapy, emphasizing the therapeutic benefits of Islamic rituals, spirituality, and community-oriented practices. The paper also underscores the need for culturally relevant social work education that reflects the diverse realities of Muslim clients. By promoting a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach, the article aims to bridge the gap between Western social work practices and the needs of Muslim communities, fostering better outcomes and enhanced well-being for those served.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".