Social Work Practica in Family Defense: A Model for Critical Field Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, there has been a growing movement in social work education calling for the centering of anti-oppressive and critical approaches. As field education is considered social work’s “signature pedagogy,” it must central to any program of critical social work education. This study explores a type field education site that explicitly engages in the activism and resistance work inherent in critical practice – holistic family defense. Ten social work field instructors from nine different family defense practices were interviewed about the structure, goals, and perceived outcomes of their internship programs and recommendations for expanding social work practica in family defense and related contexts. Results illustrate how field placements in family defense practices allow students to increase their awareness of how racism, classism, and misogyny are enacted and reproduced through government systems, learn to question the dominant discourses around ideas of “protecting children,” re-examine social work’s participation and collusion in systems of control, and engage in the direct work of challenging systems of oppression and injustice. Recommendations are made for expanding social work practica in family defense and developing additional sites for critical field education.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".