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://
climate.mit.edu/explainers/climate-justice (29.08.2024).
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,
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