Family counseling as decolonization: exploring an indigenous social-constructivist approach in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, Indigenous peoples’ lives are shaped by relationships with their families. These relationships are defined by traditional Indigenous conceptions of connectedness with the earth,communities, and the many relations that occur within these contexts and are based on what is termed Indigenous ways of knowing. These relationships are also described through a concept of Western social constructivism. Social constructivism is an ideal mate for Indigenous ways of knowing in the practice of family counseling because it recognizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in human interactions when constructing knowledge based on this understanding. Indigenous ways of knowing have been of recent and growing interest to family mental health practitioners and policy makers who are seeking to support clients in decolonization processes. Family service providers who work in a Western social service or health care setting have an interest in exploring forms of sociocultural theory and practice, such as Indigenous ways of knowing, in order to address and further the practitioner-family interaction and to benefit both individuals and communities in a responsible and sustainable manner. Using current and historical literature, this article presents a summary of issues and guidelines for a hybrid approach that brings together Western and Indigenous approaches for family service workers (such as counsellors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists), and a set of guidelines for practical application. Implications of how these practices can positively impact and promote community mental health in the current climate of recovery from colonialism and cultural genocide are presented.
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 | 0.052 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".