Toward a reflective and embodied approach to spirituality in social work education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past three decades have witnessed the growing recognition that spirituality is a fundamental component of social work practice and an essential part of the lives and well-being of service users. Given its rising predominance, social work education offers students an opportunity to explore their own sense of spirituality in addition to processing service users’ concerns of a spiritual nature. These explorations can surface feelings of uncertainty, confusion, and dysregulation for social work students who may lack the skills to process complex and conflicted emotions related to spirituality or meaning-making. This conceptual article outlines how mindfulness and embodiment can be used as sources of reflective practice with graduate social work students in an advanced, direct practice course to diminish emotional dysregulation when faced with spiritual concerns. In the practice component of the course, students work with a Standardized Client around a case vignette where spirituality is integrated and where they can utilize the contemplative practices of mindfulness and embodiment. Implications for social work educators are offered.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".