Regina Scheitel, Dainess Ziba Amukwelele, Sofiat Abimbola Busari-Akinbode, Namoonga Chilwalo,  
Georgianna Lynn Dolan-Reilly, Sunday Ofili Ibobor, Núria Prat-Bau, Andrew Spaumer, Hélène Filion  
Onserud, Michelle Willoughby & Samuel Ojima Adejoh. Utilizing International Group Work to  
Address the Impact of Climate Change on Social Work Practice. A Mutual Aid Approach. soziales_  
kapital, Bd. 29 (2024). Rubrik: ema. Eisenstadt. Printversion: http://www.soziales-kapital.at/index.  
29. Ausgabe 2024  
Klimagerechtigkeit und Soziale Arbeit in Österreich  
Utilizing International Group Work to Address the  
Impact of Climate Change on Social Work Practice  
A Mutual Aid Approach  
Regina Scheitel, Dainess Ziba Amukwelele, Sofiat Abimbola Busari-  
Akinbode, Namoonga Chilwalo, Georgianna Lynn Dolan-Reilly,  
Sunday Ofili Ibobor, Núria Prat-Bau, Andrew Spaumer, Hélène  
Filion Onserud, Michelle Willoughby & Samuel Ojima Adejoh  
1
Introduction  
Challenges facing the field of social work (SW) today are compounded by the climate crisis that  
continues to negatively impact the environment, and in turn continues to disproportionately affect  
marginalized groups worldwide (cf. Dominelli 2012; Erikson 2018: 1–5ff.). Social workers (SWrs)  
have begun to recognize the importance of the climate crisis in their work, although the role of SWrs  
in climate crisis is still unclear (cf. Blum 2023: 200–201ff.; Humer 2023: 75f.). These challenges have  
been identified in national and international SW organizations around the world (cf. Arkert/Jacobs  
2023: 144–146f.; Wilson/Lynch/Fisch 2023: 1824–1826ff.). This can lead to SWrs feeling frustrated,  
overwhelmed, and lonely as they attempt to combat unfriendly environmental practices within their  
professional roles.  
Mutual aid groups are a core component of SW group methods used to empower group  
members, provide support, and allow group members to move toward problem-solving approaches  
(cf. Gitterman/Schulman 2005: 21f.; Giacomucci 2021: 171f.). In 2022, The International Social  
Work Group on Ecological Justice (ISWGEJ) was established as one of two eco-social work groups  
affiliated with the International Association of Social Work with Groups (IASWG). The group began  
with over 16 group members from six countries around the world with the purpose of raising  
awareness and consciousness about the environmental crisis. This paper explores the impact of  
the climate crisis on the field of SW from international SW perspectives and focuses on the role that  
mutual aid groups can play for SWrs trying to address the crisis.  
This research aims to enhance SW‘s understanding of international group work and mutual  
aid in addressing the climate crisis, thereby enhancing their role in addressing climate injustice.  
2
Climate Justice and the Relevance for SW Practice  
Research indicates that global understanding of the climate crisis is shifting towards climate justice  
(CJ) (cf. Gach 2019). CJ frames climate change as a global, ethical, and social concern, emphasizing  
the need to address the disproportionate effects of the climate crisis on various populations and  
seeking to rectify the associated injustices through fair and equitable measures (cf. Arcaya/Gribkoff  
2022). CJ seeks to implement systematic changes that address structural inequalities to prevent  
marginalization, exploitation, oppression, and challenging power dynamics responsible for various  
climate injustices (cf. Rice/Burke/Heynen 2015).  
Communities contributing the least to the crisis are the most unduly harmed by its impacts  
(cf. Sultana 2022: 2f.). Past injustices and systematic oppression make certain groups vulnerable  
to climate impacts and increase vulnerability. This makes it integral to consider the intersectional  
gendered, racial, classist, and indigenous aspects of CJ (cf. Whyte 2020). CJ is deeply rooted in  
grassroots initiatives, fostering collaborations through community-based mobilization and alliances.  
Thus, CJ extends beyond an academic interdisciplinary field to also encompass social, racial, and  
environmental movements bridging scholarly discourse with activism (cf. Sultana 2022).  
SWrs are charged to take up the historically neglected roles towards protecting the  
environment (cf. Gray/Coates 2016), considering how the climate crisis impacts food and water  
availability, physical and mental health, economic issues and community engagement. Anderson  
(2021) argued that SWrs can contribute to the mitigative and adaptive efforts to address the crisis  
through advocacy, policy contributions, community mobilization, awareness creation, ecological-  
justice, individual practice, and post-disaster humanitarian therapeutic support.  
3
SW Challenges in Addressing Climate Injustice  
While the prospects of SW involvement in climate related matters have been identified in literature,  
challenges have also been documented. These challenges revolve around teaching, research and  
practice.  
Harris and Boddy (2017) found the inclusion of topics related to the natural environment  
in SW education to be insufficient, with only 0.43% inclusion of these topics in the curriculum.  
Papadimitriou (2023) found that despite the call for inclusion of the natural environment in SW’s  
theory, education, and practice, it remains nearly absent in SW curricula of European Universities.  
In South Africa, Akert and Jacobs (2023) similarly found that despite the positive perception SW  
educators have about the natural environment, its inclusion in curriculum remains minimal.  
Other factors identified as barriers to SW involvement in climate matters are at personal  
levels. Strayer, Joseph and Stoeffler (2023) found that SW educators who had prior training on  
environmental justice found it relevant and felt more prepared to teach about the environment  
compared to their counterparts. With limited curriculum attention, the question of how future  
educators can gain confidence in teaching these topics arises. This can be extrapolated to SW  
researchers and practitioners as well.  
At the professional level, Cumby (2016) attributed barriers to the separation of ‘persons’  
from the ‘environment’ in SW´s conceptualization of the person-in-environment paradigm. Zapf  
(2010) argued that this hinders the profession’s understanding of environmental issues and the  
development of effective strategies to curtail them within SW education, research, and practice.  
Finally, Harris & Boddy (2017) argue that limited integration related to the natural environment  
within SW curriculum is associated with wider institutional and structural factors. These include  
the adoption of Neoliberal ideology that commercializes curriculum, tailoring it towards market  
demand, and limiting the autonomy of academics to shape content (cf. Harris/Boddy 2017).  
4
A Continuum from Mutual Aid to Social Action in Eco-Social Work  
Groups formed for community change exist on a continuum from personal to political and individual  
to social (cf. Cohen/Mullender 1999; Staples 2012). Group work (GW) as a methodology recognizes  
that the principles of mutuality and communality can lead to social action for and/or social change  
(cf. Parra 2018).  
The mutual approach is the basis for SW with groups. Bergart & Simon (2005: 18f.)  
emphasized that feeling supported through GW benefits SWrs well-being. This is “relevant for  
all social action groups” when building community (Fleming/Ward 2017: 75f). By transforming an  
individual’s issue into a group opportunity, collaborative problem solving during mutual aid can help  
members, improve decision making, and strengthen group cohesiveness (cf. Arches/Fleming 2007:  
44f.; Kurland/Salmon 2006: 127f.).  
Kurland & Salmon (1999) point out that the group’s purpose should be clear and concise,  
providing direction and relevant content based on the needs of all participants. It should also be  
specific enough to be measurable when achieved and evolve as the group matures. This common  
purpose differs from individual expectations and goals of group members (cf. Kurland/Salmon  
1999: 107–108ff.).  
Social action and social justice are rarely mentioned as core values of group work (cf. Breton  
2006). Northen (2004: 77f.) identifies social justice as one of the three key GW values along with  
valuing inherent dignity of individuals, and shared responsibility. The aim of a social action group  
is to unite people for a cause which leads to pressure on external decision-makers to achieve a  
specific goal, focusing on reducing injustices (cf. Staples 2016: 9f.). For a truly empowering and  
critical social action practice, it is crucial to pose the question ‘why’ it happens and identify the root  
causes of problems linked to structural inequality (cf. Ledwith/Springett 2010).  
In focusing on a task, the outcome or personal changes are not the main goals (cf. Fleming/Ward  
2017: 79f.). A continuous and lengthy group process is helpful to have new perspectives and  
cultivate hope (cf. Pyles 2017: 641f.; Macy 2022: 25f.). Relevance and inevitable tension which exist  
between the desire for action and the desire for process in group life is expected. Both are essential  
requirements for effective empowerment practice. For Vinik & Levin (1991: 4f.), “[t]heir interaction  
is the catalyst for social action.” When the group’s purpose and process unfold, this tension can  
provide energy for its own release and resolution towards group action (cf. Vinik/Levin 1991: 4f.).  
It is important to emphasize the role of SWrs facilitators in the emergence of mutual aid  
including factors such as setting the stage, ensuring safety, and shifting power to the group (cf.  
Muskat et al. 2020). The social group worker must work especially hard to find the underlying  
commonality regarding needs, desires, and hopes that bind all members together (cf. Steinberg  
2014; Knight/Gitterman 2014). They should believe in mutual aid values and be able to see the  
broader socioeconomic forces that created the challenges they face (cf. Knight/Gitterman, 2018;  
Roy/Pullen-Sansfaçon 2016: 16f.). The facilitator must also recognize the political relevance of  
personal struggles and be prepared to address privilege and how this affects members´ views of  
others or themselves as well as their willingness to engage (cf. Knight/Gitterman 2018: 9f; Hayes/  
Blashki/Wiseman/Burke/Reifels 2018). SW facilitators help to challenge thoughts and behaviors  
in the group and enable the group to address structural inequalities along their process (cf. Roy/  
Pullen-Sansfaçon 2016). The facilitator, together with participants, builds a group space “as a refuge  
from outside forces, having flexibility in relation to organizational issues, and facilitating members to  
take action outside of the group” (Muskat et al. 2020: 250f.).  
Bergart & Simon (2005) describe how GW can be a method to face professional isolation and  
prevent ‘burnout’ by SW practitioners and educators. Weil (2005) affirms that few government jobs  
for SWrs offer opportunities to develop a model of critical practice and political freedom necessary  
to advocate for change. Similarly, “[i]n academia there is also a scarcity of peer support, frequently  
a competitive, rather than cooperative, work environment” (Bergart/Simon 2005: 19f.).  
GW does not need to necessarily take place in person. Online groups, as a substitute for  
traditional forms of groups, were uncommon before the Covid-19 pandemic (cf. Hung/Lee/Cheung  
2021). However, online mutual support groups have been found to be positive in developing support  
for clients and SWrs (cf. Cabiati 2021: 678f.). Nevertheless, research on international SW support  
groups remains limited.  
5
Methodology  
Research questions to guide this project included:  
-
-
How do international SWrs view the impact of the climate crisis on the field of SW?  
How can mutual aid group approaches be used to facilitate actions related to the climate  
crisis within the field of SW?  
-
In what ways has this international approach to group work impacted participating SWrs  
and the work they engage in, in attempting to address the climate crisis?  
Data collection was conducted using recordings of previous group meetings (N=3), as well as  
individual reflection letters collected using phenomenological polyethnography approaches (N=8)  
(cf. Olt/Telman 2019). Consent to use group meeting recordings and letters was obtained before  
data collection. Recordings were transcribed following Vanover (2022) guidelines, and letters were  
adapted to follow these guidelines.  
This material was analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) with a coding  
team comprised of 4, to ensure validity and reliability (cf. Smith/Flowers/Larkin 2022). This included  
a multi-phase coding process, with a specific focus on hermeneutics and individual experiences (cf.  
Smith et al. 2022). For the purposes of this study, the focus remains on group experiential themes  
as opposed to personal experiential themes.  
Data from members not active in the group was excluded in this study. Members of the  
group represent six countries including: Nigeria, USA, Namibia, Austria, South Africa, and Spain.  
Members largely identify as female (N=7), with three males and one nonbinary member. Ages range  
from 35 years to 65 and older. With at least half of the members from countries in Africa, and most  
members identifying as female or non-binary, these demographics represent some of the largest  
populations most impacted by the climate crisis (cf. Benevolenza/DeRigne 2019; Hayes et al. 2018;  
Teixeira/Krings 2015; Tilley/Ranawana/Baldwin/Tully 2023).  
Professionally, most members have a master’s degree or higher and reside in countries  
requiring licensure for SWrs. Members largely hold professional roles in academia (N=10), although  
other roles are concurrently held (ex. researcher, student, community/policy worker, social group  
work practitioner, etc.). Members described varying eco-social work roles, including tasks such  
related to eco-social work in academia inclusive of dissertation writing, boosting awareness of  
the importance of eco-social work by talking about it, volunteering with eco related groups, and  
participating in other forms of activism related to the topic. Members have extensive experience in  
SW (+11 years on average); however, they are less experienced in eco-social work, with all having  
less than 5 years’ experience.  
These characteristics are important to note, as they represent the contexts in which the  
group does their work, informing the way this group and research project were approached. Such  
diverse representation adds value to this research and gives voice to some of the populations  
frequently left out of the conversation around the crisis.  
6
Results  
Five main group experiential themes were identified after triangulation of data from video and letter  
analyses. These themes will be further explored in the next section.  
Figure 1: Group Experiential Themes derived from IPA.  
6.1 Sense of Community Belonging as Motivation to Be Part of the Group  
Attempting to be active in this field can be an isolating experience (cf. Kurland/Salmon 2005). The  
ISWGEJ provided a supportive community for participating SWrs, allowing them to feel like a part  
of something bigger and combat feelings of isolation (cf. GM_7: 6, GM_4: 8).i Emotional support  
was a major reason for people to continue with the group: “[I]t was an emotional experience, and  
I felt a sense of belonging.” (GM_5: 13-14) There was also validation provided, with SWrs feeling  
heard from others who shared their concerns about the environmental crisis (cf. GM_3: 10). This  
sense of community led to feelings of optimism and inspiration, where group members described  
gaining hope from one another through feelings of belonging (cf. V2: 368–370). Group members  
also served as consistent reminders for each other regarding incorporation of core SW values into  
practice, including regarding action related to CJ. Being surrounded by others who have similar  
values allowed for SWrs to more actively reflect on their own principles and contributed to increased  
feelings of being a part of a community of SWrs (cf. GM_3: 33–34; GM_2: 37–38).  
6.1.1 Group Members as Friends and Mentors  
Group members were able to move beyond being professional colleagues and reported developing  
deeper personal connections (cf. GM_7: 9, GM_5: 15–16). Examples of this included receiving  
support when struggling with practice challenges (cf. V1: 91–93), as well as “celebrating  
accomplishments of group members” (GM_5: 16). In addition, referring to each other as “family”  
was also mentioned by some group members (cf. GM_4:15, V2: 353). The personal connection  
alone was not the only way group members felt support. Having the ability to learn from one another  
in a supportive environment was described as having a mentor figure in other group members (cf.  
GM_8: 11, GM_5: 14, GM_3: 39). This allowed group members to ask questions of each other and  
learn in a safe and supportive group setting.  
6.1.2 Group Members Being Accountable and Accommodating to One Another  
Group members attributed some of the group´s success to feelings of responsibility. “As the group  
has evolved, so has my sense of duty and accountability towards my colleagues.” (GM_2: 11–12)  
This was echoed by other members, who noted that the sense of community contributed to feelings  
of obligation, which included wanting to take on more active roles (cf. GM:4: 24, GM_3: 26, V3:  
178–179). This accountability was perceived as intrinsic as opposed to being an outside pressure,  
which helped to build a sense of connection (cf. GM_1: 31–32).  
6.2 Group Offering the Opportunity for International Interaction  
One theme that was consistently echoed was the experience of group members feeling privileged  
to have access to international interactions. Being able to collaborate with individuals from across  
the world led others to feeling more empowered and understood. This included recognizing  
similarities that international SWrs also struggle with and acknowledging the importance of various  
perspectives when addressing macro-level issues (cf. GM_4: 29; GM_7: 4–5). Being a part of  
international collaboration allowed group members to feel more inspired in addressing CJ on local  
scales (cf. GM_1: 50–51; GM_8: 28–29). This included SWrs feeling more confident to include  
international approaches within their work in academia (cf. GM_2: 4).  
Group members discussed the richness that comes from engagement with diverse  
individuals, including leading to expanded worldviews (cf. GM_4: 8–9). This led to a deeper  
understanding of social injustices on global levels and prompted group members to become more  
aware of international issues (cf. GM_7: 25–26, GM_3: 21–22, GM_2: 29–30).  
6.3 Challenges the Group Faced  
The ISWGEJ faced various challenges that threatened group stability and outcomes. Some of  
these included logistic factors that were able to be overcome. Others were more complicated to  
address, such as having to confront injustices that impact group members, as well as deciding  
on what direction the group should go in. Despite the challenges, group members recognized the  
effectiveness of the group and felt these challenges allowed the group to develop resilience (cf.  
GM_3: 21).  
6.3.1 Scheduling Challenges  
Coordinating meeting times proved to be a challenge for group members who were on different  
time zones and balancing busy schedules (cf. GM_5: 19, GM_4: 17–18, GM_2: 35). Compromises  
were able to be made, allowing for the group to overcome this challenge with various discussions  
(cf. GM_4: 20–21).  
6.3.2 Managing Uncertainty within the Group Process  
The group struggled at times to achieve a consensus about what direction the group should take.  
While mutual aid remained a focus, after a time, there was frustration with wanting to move beyond  
this due to feelings of needing to act (cf. GM_2: 32). In addition, the group required a stabilization  
period, which some group members found to be challenging. People would come and leave the  
group making it difficult to develop a steady group dynamic (cf. GM_2: 34–35; GM_3: 17–18). These  
issues required discussion but also created a learning effect for the group: “Looking back, this was  
exactly what we needed to go through to come out as the group we are now.” (GM_2: 33)  
6.3.3 Facing Injustices  
Not all group difficulties were able to be solved with discussion. Part of the challenges included  
discrimination some group members faced, which required the understanding that these issues  
would not be fixed overnight. Examples of this became present when various members from African  
countries were limited in being able to participate in a conference due to visa challenges (cf. GM_2:  
28–29). This experience was met with feelings of frustration and helplessness, which also led to an  
increased desire to change systemic inequities. Other inequalities stemmed from a lack of access  
to infrastructure supporting internet, which caused some frustration and feelings of not being heard  
(cf. GM_5: 18, GM_15–16, GM_4: 19). Those impacted by this were primarily members from various  
African countries. Similarly, not all group members felt comfortable at times communicating in  
English (cf. GM_1:37, GM_7:18–19). Being mindful of this was also critical to help the group avoid  
perpetuating injustices (cf. GM_7: 19).  
In addition, there were uncomfortable moments that arose when group members were  
confronted with different realities. One example of this was media coverage, where a major event  
had occurred in one African country, and SWrs from western countries were not aware of it: “Some  
news is treated as ‘more important’ than others, not by us but by larger media outlets.” (GM_2: 30)  
Other examples include the recognition that advocacy is not a privilege that may exist among all  
group members:  
“[W]hatisactivism,whatwillactivismmeanintheglobalsouthandactivismintheglobal  
north? But also, it is important that in our activism we should not put our families’  
lives in danger and also our lives in danger.” (V2: 331–334)  
“Having a fine that you have to pay, for example, is very different to potentially losing  
your life over being an activist...we have to also be up front and talk about there’s  
different levels of ways we can do activism in safe ways. And that is a privilege that  
some people can choose that, and other people can’t.” (V2: 206–209)  
The discourse in the group regarding these injustices, although initially overwhelming and frustrating,  
also led to the group wanting to push forward and talk about these topics, including discussing  
ways to protect each other and also address systemic injustices: “And that the profession should  
be more of an activist, because a profession is something that is more difficult to attack than a  
person or a group.” (V2: 232–233)  
6.4 Environmental Advocacy and Empowerment Through SW Group Practice  
Group members consistently mentioned the frustration they felt with the lack of engagement from  
the SW profession related to addressing CJ. For some, this had led to disillusionment and feeling  
disconnected from the profession (cf. GM_7: 22–23, GM_3: 8–9). Other examples from academia  
included lecturers feeling discouraged due to a lack of curriculum focusing on this issue, which  
they believed led to a lack of student engagement (cf. V1: 349). With motivation from the group, the  
sense of responsibility to move towards advocacy became a focus (cf. V1: 362–363, V2: 330–331,  
GM_4: 30).  
This motivation included members being inspired to write and publish articles addressing  
the issues discussed in the group, (cf. GM_2: 46, V2: 486, V3: 27–28) as well as wanting to take on  
more active roles in local community advocacy (cf. GM_3: 37, GM_5: 22–23). Calls to address local  
governments as SW professionals also became a focus (cf. V2: 249–250, GM_1: 70–71). Group  
members were able to continue to stay motivated as they experienced the group constellation itself  
to be an inspiring place (cf. GM_8: 21–22), which allowed for collaborative advancement. This sense  
of responsibility to advocate for change resulted in the group moving towards action which included  
things such as conference presentations, plans for future meetings, and journal publications (cf. V2:  
335, V3: 147–149, GM_2: 46).  
6.5 Group Fostering Individual Growth, Enhancing SW Identity  
The group served as a space for continuous learning which in turn led to individual reflection  
and new knowledge (cf. GM_7: 25–26, GM_5: 21–22). Increased understanding of GW methods  
themselves was also noted to be one of the outcomes experienced (cf. GM_5: 23–24). Through this  
continuous cycle of discussing, learning, and applying knowledge learned, group members were  
able to identify a shift in re-alignment of their professional SW values with their personal values: “It  
allows me to grow both personally and professionally by providing a platform for collaboration and  
networking that goes beyond individual cases and technical solutions.” (GM_1: 52–54)  
Individual changes were noted to be a positive and sustainable outcome of being a part of  
the group. This included being actively more aware and searching for non-biased media reporting  
(cf. GM_2: 44) and applying the techniques learned to practice, for example: “[I]ntegrating Eco-  
social work in my academic work of teaching and sensitizing students and colleagues on Eco-  
justice.” (GM_5: 31–32) Among all group members, there were positives overwhelmingly reported:  
“As a person it has been transformative.” (GM_3: 34–35) This helped the group members to feel an  
increased sense of pride in their profession as SWrs, and a renewed sense of optimism about the  
field.  
7
Conclusions and Future Recommendations  
This research demonstrates the value and contribution of GW to the SW discourse around the  
climate crisis, and its significant role in promoting multilevel social action, while also highlighting the  
complexity of CJ and GW. In relation to the first research question, it is evident that the international  
group members view the impact of the climate crisis on the field of SW as a complex network of  
intersecting oppressions that exacerbate already existing injustices. The general sense is that this  
crisis impacts all areas of SW practice, yet the profession globally has not done enough to address  
this and sometimes puts up barriers to such work.  
In answer to the second research question, by offering a supportive environment to unpack  
the complexity of the climate crisis as it relates to SW, mutual aid groups offer a venue to overcome  
the above and reduce hopelessness, burn out, and inaction. Referring to climate injustice and the  
social, economic, and environmental inequalities that characterize a complex world, the mutual  
aid group oriented to social action can offer a process of reciprocal learning and support among  
members, a solidarity test for society, and be a reminder of how SW is passionate, creative, and  
highly mobile (cf. Cabiati 2021). It is evident that mutual aid and social action groups focused on CJ  
can foster a sense of belonging, thus promoting a sense of empowerment that allows for personal  
and collective growth towards creating eco-social work identities and professional environments  
which support climate action.  
Regarding the third research question, the group impacted members in significant ways, thus  
changing the work they engaged in. Members felt as though they were able to develop connections  
in the form of friendship and mentorship, build awareness and skills, develop a shared sense of  
empowerment, and more, which has led them to feel more confident. This has enhanced capacity  
to act and has led to more production of scholarly work such as presentations and publications,  
enhanced engagement in advocacy and governmental work, and further integration of eco-social  
work within teaching.  
The biggest impact on members came from the international element of the group. While initially  
focused more on individual local issues (i.e. resistance to eco-social work within a particular  
university) members have developed a clear sense of understanding about the interconnection  
between global and local climate crisis related issues. This realization supports the literature which  
says that overcoming the local approach to CJ will enhance our ability to address climate injustice  
on a larger scale (cf. Pellow 2018). At the same time, while GW is an example of our capacity  
for crossing borders and reducing geographic and cultural limitations, global digital connections  
present real inequities. Structural injustices persist in GW, often mirroring those of the larger society,  
and require more action on environmental and climate justice.  
These contributions are significant as work to address the climate crisis continues to be  
done within structures and systems that seem resistant to such work. SWrs can benefit from  
considering the use of eco-social group work mutual aid and social action groups for SW staff  
as well as clients, communities, and students. These small groups would be enhanced by being  
connected with others outside of their geographic areas to expand understanding of the complexity  
of the climate crisis and move towards action. Ideally, the development of a community practice  
network for eco-social work would be developed.  
With the climate crisis still so minimally integrated into the SW curriculum (cf. Akert/Jacobs  
2023; Harris/Boddy 2017; Papadimitriou 2023), GW offers an ideal inlet for further integration.  
SW educators would be remiss not to reinforce and center the use of collective methodologies  
using GW exercises in class that integrate policy and social action and foster critical thinking  
about the international lens of the crisis. To enhance the international lens, educators should foster  
collaboration with other scholars doing this work in other countries and continents, allowing space  
for their students to connect. SWrs engaged in policy and community work would also benefit from  
similar approaches in developing space for collective action and allowing for the centering of voices  
of those most impacted by the climate crisis.  
SW researchers might consider conducting more research on the role of GW in addressing  
the climate crisis and fostering climate justice action within other international networks or with  
other types of practitioners to explore if the emergent themes here are consistent or specific to  
this group. Furthermore, research in the above practice, policy, and pedagogical recommendations  
would enhance understanding of this topic. The facilitator’s role in creating an environment in which  
belonging is promoted is also a recommended area for future research.  
Now is the time to better enhance mutual aid and social action group work into all areas of  
practice if SWrs are to tackle the ever-expanding injustice that is the climate crisis.  
Verweise  
i In total three video transcripts were made, which will be referred to in the following as V1–V3; Group Member Letters 1–8 will be referred  
to as GM_1–GM_8.  
Literaturverzeichnis  
Anderson, Rose (2021): Why is climate change a pertinent issues for social work and how can social  
workers contribute to efforts to address it? In: Social work and Policy Studies, 4(1), pp. 1–8.  
Arcaya, Maria/Gribkoff, Elisabeth (2022): Climate justice. MIT Climate Portal, 14 March. https://  
Arches, Joan/Fleming, Jenny (2007): ‘Building our own monument’: A social action group revisited.  
In: Practice, 19(1), pp. 33–45.  
Arkert, Laura/Jacobs, Ian (2023): Social work educators’ perceptions of the importance and  
relevance of environmental social work. In: Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 51(9), pp. 129–151.  
Benevolenza, Mia A. /DeRigne, Leaanne (2019): The impact of climate change and natural disasters  
on vulnerable populations: A systematic Review of literature. In: Journal of Human Behavior in the  
Social Environment, 29(2), pp. 266–281.  
Bergart, Ann M./ Simon, Shirley R. (2005): Practicing what we preach: Creating groups for ourselve.  
In: Social Work with Groups, 27(4), pp. 17–30.  
Blum, Robert (2023): Who cares? Die Sozialarbeitspraxis in der Klimakrise. In: Die Armutskonferenz/  
Appel, Margit/Brenner-Skazedonig, Alexander/Fabris, Verena/Graf, Gunter/Knecht, Alban/  
Matzinger, Sandra/Rybaczek, Robert/Schenk, Martin (eds.): Es brennt. Armut bekämpfen, Klima  
retten. BoD, pp. 197–206.  
Breton, Margot (2006): Path dependence and the place of social action in social work practice. In:  
Social Work with Groups, 29(4), pp. 25–44.  
Cabiati, Elena (2021): Social workers helping each other during the COVID-19 pandemic: Online  
mutual support groups. In: International Social Work, 64(5), pp. 676–688.  
Cohen, Marcia/Mullender, Audrey (1999): The personal in the political: Exploring the group work  
continuum from individual to social change goals. In: Social Work with Groups, 22(1), pp. 13–31.  
Cumby,Tina (2016): Climate change and social work: Our roles and barriers to action. PhD Thesis,  
Wilfrid Laurier University. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1828 (29.08.2024).  
Dominelli, Lena (2012): Green social work: from environmental crises to environmental justice.  
Cambridge: Polity Press.  
Erikson, Christina (2018): Environmental Justice as Social Work Practice. New York: Oxford  
University Press.  
Fleming, Jenny/Ward, Dave (2017): Self-directed Groupwork: social justice through social action  
and empowerment. In: Critical and Radical Social Work, 5(1), pp. 75–91.  
Gach, Evan (2019): Normative shifts in the global conception of climate change: The growth of  
climate justice. In: Social Sciences, 8(1), pp. 1–18.  
Giacomucci, Scott (2021): Strengths-Based and Mutual Aid Approaches in Social Work and  
Psychodrama. In: Giacomucci, Scott (ed.): Social Work, Sociometry, and Psychodrama.  
Psychodrama in Counselling, Coaching and Education. Singapore: Springer, pp. 165–185.  
Gitterman, Alex/Schluman, Lawrence (2005): The Life Model, Oppression, Vulnerability, Resilience,  
Mutual Aid, and the Mediating Function. In: Gitterman, Alex/Schulman, Lawrence (eds.): Mutual Aid  
Groups, Vulnerable and Resilient Populations, and the Life Cycle. New York: Columbia University  
Press, pp. 3–37.  
Gray, Mel/Coates, John (2016): ‘Environmental social work as critical decolonizing practice’. In:  
Pease, Bob (ed.): Doing critical social work: Transformative practices for social justice. London:  
Routledge, pp. 8–12.  
Harris, Celeste/Boddy, Jennifer (2017): The Natural Environment in Social Work Education: A  
Content Analysis of Australian Social Work Courses. In: Australian Social Work, 70(3), pp. 337–349.  
Hayes, Katie/Blashki, Grant/Wiseman, John/Burke, Susie/Reifels, Lennart (2018): Climate change  
and mental health: risks, impacts and priority actions. In: International journal of mental health  
systems, 12, pp. 1–12.  
Humer, Andrea (2023): Soziale Arbeit und ihre Rolle in der Klimakrise. Eine Analyse mit Fokus auf  
Österreich. Masterarbeit. FH Oberösterreich, Linz.  
Hung, Elsa Ngai/Lee, Terence/Cheung, Johnson Chun-Sing (2021): Practising social work groups  
online: Practitioners’ reflection on the COVID-19 outbreak. In: International Social Work, 64(5), pp.  
756–760.  
Knight, Carol/Gitterman, Alex (2014): Group work with bereaved individuals: The power of Mutual  
Aid. In: Social Work, 59(1), pp. 5–12.  
Knight, Carol/Gitterman, Alex (2018): Merging Micro and Macro Intervention: Social Work Practice  
With Groups in the Community. In: Journal of Social Work Education, 54(1), pp. 3–17.  
Kurland, Rosselle/Salmon, Robert (1999): Purpose: A misunderstood and misused keystone of  
group work practice. In: Social Work with Groups, 21(3), pp. 5–17.  
Kurland, Rosselle/Salmon, Robert (2005): Group work vs. casework in a group: Principles and  
implications for teaching and practice. In: Social Work with Groups, 28(3/4), pp. 121–132.  
Ledwith, Margaret/Springett, Janet (2010): Participatory Practice: Community-Based Action for  
Transformative Change. Bristol: Policy Press.  
Macy, Joanna (2022): Active hope: how to face the mess we’re in with unexpected resilience and  
creative power. Novato: New WorldLibrary.  
Muskat, Barbara/Greenblatt, Andrea/Garvin, Charles/Pelech, William/Cohen, Carol/ Macgowan,  
Mark/Roy, Velerie (2020): Group workers’ experiences of mutual aid: Stories from the field. In: Social  
Work with Groups, 43(3), pp. 241–256.  
Northen, Helen (2004): Ethics and values in group work. In: Garvin, Charles D./Gutiérrez,Lorraine  
M./Galisnky, Maeda J. (eds.): Handbook of social work with groups. New York: Guilford, pp. 76–89.  
Olt, Phillip A./Teman, Eric D. (2019): Un[bracketed]: Phenomenological polyethnography. In:  
Qualitative Research Journal, 19(2), pp. 146–155.  
Papadimitriou, Evripidis (2023): Coverage of environmental issues in undergraduate curricula in  
social work in four European countries: the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Greece. In: Social Work  
Education, 42(7), pp. 1038–1056.  
Parra, Belén (2018): El trabajo social de grupo en la actualidad: la utilización de los vínculos  
para la promoción del cambio social. PhD Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.  
net/2445/121897 (30.08.2024).  
Pellow, David. N. (2018): What is critical environmental justice? Cambride: Polity Press.  
Pyles, Loreta (2017): Decolonising Disaster Social Work: Environmental Justice and Community  
Participation. In: British Journal of Social Work, 47(3), pp. 630–647.  
Rice, Jeniffer L./Burke, Brian J./Heynen, Nick (2015): Knowing climate change, embodying climate  
praxis: Experiential knowledge in Southern Appalachia. In: Annals of the Association of American  
Geographers, 105(2), pp. 253–262.  
Roy, Véronique/Pullen-Sansfaçon, Anne (2016): Promoting individual and social changes: A hybrid  
model of social work with groups. In: Social Work with Groups, 39(1), pp. 4–20.  
Smith, Jonathan A./Flowers, Paul/Larkin, Michael (2022): Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis:  
Theory, method & research. London: Sage Publications.  
Staples, Lee (2012): Community Organizing for Social Justice: Grassroots Groups for Power. In:  
Social Work With Groups, 35(3), pp. 287–296.  
Staples, Lee (2016): Roots to Power: A manual for grassrroots organazing. Santa Barbara: Praeger.  
Steinberg, Dominique Moyse (2014): A mutual-aid model for social work with groups. Abingdon/  
Oxon: Routledge.  
Strayer, Sara M./Joseph, Rigaud/Stoeffler, Stephen W. (2023): Predictors of integration of  
environmental justice in social work education: A cross-sectional study of faculty in the United  
States. In: Social Work Education, 42(1), pp. 94–111.  
Sultana, Farhana (2022): Critical climate justice. In: The Geographical Journal, 188, pp. 118–124.  
Teixeira, Samantha/Krings, Amy (2015): Sustainable Social Work: An environmental justice  
framework for social work education. In: The International Journal on Social Work Education, 35(5),  
pp. 513–527.  
Tilley, Lisa/Ranawana, Anupama M./Baldwin, Andrew/Tully, Tyler M. (2023): Race and climate  
change: Towards anti-racist ecologies. In: Politics, 43(2), pp. 141–152.  
Vanover, Charles (2022): Transcription as a Form of Qualitative Inquiry. In: Vanover, Charles/Mihas,  
Paul/Saldanda, Johnny (eds.): Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Research: After the Interview.  
London: Sage Publications, pp. 63–79.  
Vinik, Abe/Levin, Morris (1991): Social Action in Group Work. New York: Routledge.  
Weil, Marie (2005): The Handbook of Community Practice. New York: Sage Publications.  
Whyte, Kyle (2020): Too late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping points.  
In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(1), pp. 1–7.  
Wilson, Tina E./Lynch, Heather/Fisch, Verena K. (2023): Raising the ‘environmental question’ in  
social work in Canada and Scotland. In: International Social Work, 66(6), pp. 1816–1830.  
Zapf, Michael Kim (2010): Social Work and the Environment: Understanding People and Place.  
Australian Social Work, 11(3), pp. 366–367.  
Über die Autor:innen  
Regina Scheitel, MSW, MA  
Head of BA Program for SW  
Department of Health and Social Sciences  
UAS Burgenland, Campus Eisenstadt  
Dainess Ziba Amukwelele, MSW  
PhD Candidate, Lecturer, Researcher, Departmental International Coordinator  
Department of Psychology and Social Work, University of Namibia,  
Sofiat Abimbola Busari-Akinbode  
Assistant Lecturer  
Department of Social Work  
University of Lagos  
Namoonga Chilwalo  
Lecturer, Social Work  
Human Science  
University of Namibia  
Georgianna Lynn Dolan-Reilly, LMSW  
PhD Candidate, Adjunct Instructor  
Sacred Heart University, School of Social Work  
Adjunct Instructor  
Yeshiva University, Wurzweiler School of social work  
Sunday Ofili Ibobor, Ph.D  
Associate Professor  
Department of Social Work,  
Faculty of Social Sciences,  
University of Benin, Nigeria  
Núria Prat-Bau, LSW, L Pedagogy  
PhD candidate, Lecturer Social Work  
University of Barcelona,  
Department of Social Work and Social Services, Campus Mundet  
Dr Andrew Spaumer, DSW  
Lecturer  
Department of Social Work  
School of Social Sciences  
University of South African  
Hélène Filion Onserud, LCSW  
Board member of the International Association for Social Work with Groups (IASWG)  
Co-Chair of the New York City Chapter of IASWG  
Member of Sustaining All Life  
Member of the No North Brooklyn Pipeline Alliance  
Michelle Willoughby, DSW, LCSW  
Adjunct Instructor  
New York University  
Silver School of Social Work  
Samuel Ojima Adejoh, Ph.D  
Associate Professor  
Faculty of Social Sciences  
Department of Social Work  
University of Lagos, Akoka  
Nigeria