Transnational Social Workers’ Understanding of Australian First Nations Perspectives in Statutory Child Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0312407X.2020.1771389 Abstract: Chronic staff shortages and high rates of turnover in child protection programs create opportunities for social work mobility across the world. Australian child protection departments actively recruit social workers from the United Kingdom and Ireland. This strategy may cause tension relating to the application of known Western social work practice and theory and limited understanding of Australian First Nations worldviews. Australia continues to struggle with the ongoing impact of colonisation; First Nations children are overrepresented in child protection service delivery. The research explored the understanding held by overseas-born and -educated social workers from the UK and Ireland (transnational social workers or TNSWs) of Australian First Nations peoples, when they migrate to practice in frontline child protection. Interviews with 13 practitioners across two time points explored social work practice in the transnational context. The study found that the majority of TNSWs had limited understanding of social work in a colonised country. The results provide a foundation to rethink how TNSW practice is influenced by place-related change. This research identified a need to raise transnational social workers’ awareness of Australian First Nations child rearing practices that may lie outside their experiential understanding. IMPLICATIONS Transnational social workers may advance their understanding of First Nations peoples and their perspectives through increasing their awareness of differences in their personal lived experiences from that of Australian First Nations peoples. The practice of cultural humility may reduce harm in transnational child protection practice. Critical reflection may enable the emergence of counter-colonial thinking in child protection practice with Australian First Nations peoples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".