Situating Relationships in the Context of Power, Privilege and Vulnerability: Social Workers Experiences Working with Clients who do not meet the Check Boxes of Marginality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on relational theories, specifically relationship-based, critical, and anti-oppressive social work theories, this thesis explored how social workers in a northern Ontario community experience direct practice relationships with people who occupy multiple privileged identities, who may be enacting their power, and may not be following ascribed roles and rules of client engagement.Interested in listening to social workers direct practice experiences, and situating and contextualizing these experiences in the stories that they shared, four (4) social workers working in a Northern Ontario community participated in two narrative interviews.Data was analyzed through narrative thematic and structural approaches to understand how and in what ways positionality, identity, power, and privilege impacts work with cisgender, straight, white, male clients.Critical and illuminating practices were shared which highlighted how power, privilege and vulnerability were woven into understanding, building and maintaining relationships with clients.Findings of this study offer questions for future practice and education.iii Acknowledgements To my supervisor, Pam, thank you for believing in this project, and taking it on despite your incredibly full plate.Thank you for helping me make this project the beautiful piece that I believe it to be.To my committee, thank you for the hours of reading, comments, and knowledge I could have never found on my own.To my participants: you are this work.Thank you endlessly for your time, your willingness and generosity to share, and your attention.Thank you for your stories, experiences, and honesty.I have learned more from you four and your stories than I ever could have imagined.May you feel your words are accurately depicted and your experiences tenderly attended to in the way I have held and presented
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".