Decolonizing Social Work Education Through Indigenous Family-Based Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-based research is an Indigenous methodology that engages the self, family, and relationships as important sites of resistance and resurgence. Grounded in an Indigenous worldview, family-based research invokes a broad concept of family that recognizes both human and non-human relations. Family-based research is explicitly introspective and emphasizes the power of personal, relational, and small-scale change in supporting the broader movement of Indigenous resistance, resurgence, and transformation. Mainstream social work education does not know how to deal with, assess, or value family-based research. Western academia claims to have “made space” for Indigenous research, yet there remain limits to this acceptance. Social work education continues to privilege Western methodologies. In doing so, social work disciplines Indigenous students into pursuing research that supports wWestern theories of knowledge production and Western strategies of change. If social work is truly committed to transforming Canada’s colonial reality, then changes to social work curriculum, assessment, and training standards are needed to support diverse understandings and strategies of Indigenous resistance and resurgence, including Indigenous methodologies such as family-based research. To improve student experience, social work education needs to unpack its ongoing role in colonizing Indigenous students through academic gatekeeping.
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 | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".