Dissent against ‘Definition debates’ about Social Work

IF 0.5 Q4 SOCIAL WORK Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Pub Date : 2022-09-24 DOI:10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss3id945
Caroline McGregor
{"title":"Dissent against ‘Definition debates’ about Social Work","authors":"Caroline McGregor","doi":"10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss3id945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\n\nThis commentary dissents against definition debates. I argue that ongoing discussion about what social work is needs to find a common ground of recognition. Arguments about the bifurcation, demise or “end of social work” are challenged. Starting with the position that social work operates on a necessarily contested and contradictory space, the case is made for a shared definition of social work as a “mediator in the social”. To stand up as a foundational definition for the diversity of social work worldwide, “mediation in the social” as described by Philp (1979) requires important updates to fit the complex “socials” of the 21st century. This necessitates a shift from the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge as an add-on to expansively identifying indigenous knowledge as a constant that underpins social work internationally. This definition needs to be founded on shared values and assumptions that capture the essence of social work such as citizenship, relational practices, human rights and social justice as expressed in diverse cultural contexts worldwide.\n\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":44524,"journal":{"name":"Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss3id945","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This commentary dissents against definition debates. I argue that ongoing discussion about what social work is needs to find a common ground of recognition. Arguments about the bifurcation, demise or “end of social work” are challenged. Starting with the position that social work operates on a necessarily contested and contradictory space, the case is made for a shared definition of social work as a “mediator in the social”. To stand up as a foundational definition for the diversity of social work worldwide, “mediation in the social” as described by Philp (1979) requires important updates to fit the complex “socials” of the 21st century. This necessitates a shift from the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge as an add-on to expansively identifying indigenous knowledge as a constant that underpins social work internationally. This definition needs to be founded on shared values and assumptions that capture the essence of social work such as citizenship, relational practices, human rights and social justice as expressed in diverse cultural contexts worldwide.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反对关于社会工作的“定义辩论”
这篇评论反对关于定义的争论。我认为,正在进行的关于什么是社会工作的讨论需要找到一个共同的认识基础。关于社会工作的分化、消亡或“终结”的争论受到了挑战。从社会工作在一个必然存在争议和矛盾的空间中运作的立场出发,提出了社会工作作为“社会中的调解人”的共同定义。Philp(1979)所描述的“社会中的调解”,要成为世界范围内社会工作多样性的基本定义,需要对其进行重要的更新,以适应21世纪复杂的“社会”。这就需要从将土著知识作为附加内容纳入到广泛地将土著知识确定为支撑国际社会工作的一个常量。这一定义需要建立在共同的价值观和假设的基础上,这些价值观和假设抓住了社会工作的本质,如世界各地不同文化背景下所表达的公民身份、关系实践、人权和社会正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
28.60%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pacific social work navigating practice, policy and research Resistance, reclaiming and reframing: Relationship-based Pacific social work practice Disrupting Whiteness in Social Work Fieldwork placement reflection from a regional Pacific university during Covid-19 The Fono's 'Alert Level 4' Story
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1