Remembering Amy Rossiter: The Governing Effects of Self-Esteem Knowledge on Social Work Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amy Rossiter has long called our attention to the governing effects of social work knowledge (i.e., how it directs both discursive thinking and the daily actions of people). For her, knowledge itself is neither neutral nor true but is produced and maintained by discourse that defines what is considered acceptable and true. The production of knowledge is a relation of power; therefore, social work knowledge itself should be a topic of scrutiny. Taking her argument to heart, we seek to show how the governing effects of knowledge discursively operates in a practice setting, using a pilot program training manual designed to help East Asian Canadian immigrants to build self-esteem as a case example. Instead of viewing the training manual as having discovered some truths regarding the nature of self-esteem, we take it as knowledge that reflects the dominant discourse of self-esteem that is constituted historically, materially, and discursively. In so doing, we attempt to show how the concept of self-esteem is produced and how it organizes and governs social work practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".