@inproceedings{Kleibl, author = {Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {The governance agenda and civil society space: A critical reflection from an NGO perspective}, series = {DSAI Governance Debate}, booktitle = {DSAI Governance Debate}, language = {en} } @article{Kleibl, author = {Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {Demonstrating solidarity and supporting protection: The roles and responsibilities of INGOs in enabling civil society space}, series = {INTRAC newsletter ONTRAC}, journal = {INTRAC newsletter ONTRAC}, language = {en} } @article{Kleibl, author = {Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {Eurodad, Turning the tables aid and accountability under the Paris Framework}, series = {Syntheses Report}, journal = {Syntheses Report}, editor = {Hayes, Lucy and Pereira, Javier}, language = {en} } @article{KleiblSoeftestadAlinonetal., author = {Kleibl, Tanja and Soeftestad, Lars T. and Alinon, Koffi and Di{\´e}, Lakhsara Mint and Flyman, Michael Vosa}, title = {Language, culture and communication in development cooperation. On the role of ICTs in networking online communities of practice}, series = {CBNRM Net Papers}, journal = {CBNRM Net Papers}, number = {6}, abstract = {Globalization results in the exclusion and marginalization of diverse categories of stakeholders at the local level in developing countries, while decentralization leads to integration and participation of some of these stakeholders. In this evolving process, increasingly facilitated by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), the role of language and literacy, and their relationship with culture, have been given scant attention. ICTs facilitate language marginalization and homogenization, while it is an open question whether they contribute to language growth and survival. Within the context of development cooperation and natural resource management, the Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network (CBNRM Net), which serves the global CBNRM community of practice, uses ICTs to communicate with its global membership. CBNRM Net is concerned with how globalization and decentralization is influencing traditional and modern CBNRM practices. This includes how the present massive use of ICTs to facilitate communication, relying largely on English, is affecting literacy and language in the area of traditional knowledge on CBNRM. The paper presents a framework for analyzing use of language, and impacts on culture, in online communication and networking.}, language = {en} } @article{Kleibl, author = {Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {Die Wodaabe in Niger}, language = {de} } @incollection{KleiblSevenich, author = {Kleibl, Tanja and Sevenich, L.}, title = {Development, post-development and the alternative beyond-aid debates: A critical international development worker perspective}, series = {Handbuch Internationale Soziale Arbeit - Dimensionen - Konflikte - Positionen}, booktitle = {Handbuch Internationale Soziale Arbeit - Dimensionen - Konflikte - Positionen}, editor = {Wagner, L. and Lutz, Ronald and Rehklau, Ch. and Ross, F.}, publisher = {Beltz Verlag}, language = {en} } @book{DaňkovaAfeworkiAbayXypolytasetal., author = {Daňkov{\´a}, Petra and Afeworki Abay, Robel and Xypolytas, Nikos and Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {Transnational Mobility and Externalization of EU Borders}, publisher = {Lexington Books}, abstract = {The dramatic pictures of violence on the Polish - Belorussian border are just the latest manifestation of the dehumanization, securitization and externalization of the EU migration management policies. A trend that can be traced to early 2000s has achieved a new level in recent years after a brief opening of EU borders in 2015. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified these dynamics in different ways and deepened inequalities of the transnational mobility (Lee 2020; Sumba 2021; Afeworki Abay, Kassaye \& Kleibl 2022; Matela \& Maaza 2022). In addition to physical violence by state and non-state actors along the EU external border, EU migration management employs strategies that condone prolonged exposure of mobile people to death and to a host of human rights violations (Mbembe 2003, 2019; Mayblin \& Turner 2020; Mayblin 2016, 2019; Abuya, Krause \& Mayblin 2021; Sadeghi 2019). At the same time, civil society members, media representatives and those who attempt to assist mobile people are also increasingly criminalized, exposed to right-extremist violence and targeted by excessive legal, financial and bureaucratic burdens that make their work difficult, if not impossible. Externalization as a central characteristic of EU border management refers to the propounding mechanisms of moving the border forward (Andrews 2021; Getachew 2019; Guti{\´e}rrez Rodr{\´i}guez 2018a, 2018b; Mayblin, 2017; Mayblin, Wake \& Kazemi 2019). Outside of the EU, externalization policies construct EU border controls in so-called countries of origin and transit. In this process, EU migration management is fused with foreign policy, international development and international trade mechanisms. These incursions disrupt socioeconomic dynamics and local mobility patterns as far as Iran-Turkey borderlands, West African ECOWAS region or the border between Ethiopia and the Sudan. The internal and external EU migration management developments are inseparable and materialized legacies of colonialism, enduring gender inequalities, politics of citizenship and racialized economies (Andrews 2021; Getachew 2019). This book therefore aims to critically analyze how Social Work and EU migration management regimes co-constitute each other. The here presented book will offer theoretical discussions and practical experiences around the following questions: In which way is Social Work complicit in the EU migration management regime? Where do Social Workers find opportunities to build solidarities, become subversive of the hegemonic structures and work for empowerment? How do Social Workers deal with the increasingly restrictive political, legal and economic environment, in which they engage with mobile people? How can Social Work become more apt to working with people who are at times highly mobile and at times immobilized in remote camps, forests or desert outposts? Moreover, this book espouses the broadest definition of Social Work as a human rights profession and an academic discipline but also as an indigenous way of social assistance and social change (Staub-Bernasconi 2012, 2016; Healy \& Link 2011; Kleibl, Lutz \& Noyoo 2020). By paying attention to the temporal and spatial aspects of Social Work with mobile people, we explicitly refuse the apolitical, decontextualized view of Social Work as neutral „helping", instead we plea for critical reflection on the entanglements of Social Work in complex, intersecting power dynamics. Hence, this book seeks to critically analyze how Social Work becomes entangled in categorization of people to make them „legible" and „visible" to EU migration management and how Social Work itself is categorized in order to be disciplined as a „helping" profession and an instrument of the state/EU migration management. We ask how Social Work could be transformed to work in a multiscalar, transnational scale, truly living up to the ambition to employ „glocal" approach.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KlagesRodriguezLugoAfeworkiAbayetal., author = {Klages, Anna-Lisa and Rodr{\´i}guez Lugo, Sara and Afeworki Abay, Robel and Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {The Relevance of Decolonizing Social Work: Critical Reflections on Colonial Pasts, Post-Colonial Presents and Decolonial Futures}, series = {Decolonizing Social Work: From Theory to Transformative Practice}, booktitle = {Decolonizing Social Work: From Theory to Transformative Practice}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, abstract = {The multiple and simultaneous realities of Social Work practice have always been more complex than its theories suggested. The knowledges, desires and perspectives of its addressees are much more nuanced than standardized empirical qualitative and quantitative research methodologies (that inform theorization) could possibly grasp. In consequence, many assumingly universal and evidence-based methods and instruments in Social Work do not lead towards anticipated outcomes that aim to support the social, political, ecological and economic needs of the addressees. Social Work theories in turn often lack the consideration of, under others, race, class and gender subordination and domination effects, which form integral parts of power dynamics between the oppressed and the oppressors at play in the 21st century. This leads to downplaying the need to theorize and support solidarity from below, as well as to strengthen relational accountability between those that want to advance social justice. In addition, structural elements "from above" such as political and welfare systems and development economies do not receive significant attention either. In consequence, many theories do not lead to concepts, approaches and praxis that sufficiently grasp the historical and contemporary situatedness in which Social Work operates.}, language = {en} } @incollection{AfeworkiAbayKleiblRodriguezLugoetal., author = {Afeworki Abay, Robel and Kleibl, Tanja and Rodr{\´i}guez Lugo, Sara and Klages, Anna-Lisa}, title = {Implications of Decolonizing Social Work: Critical Reflections on Colonial Pasts, Post-Colonial Presents and Decolonial Futures}, series = {Decolonizing Social Work: From Theory to Transformative Practice}, booktitle = {Decolonizing Social Work: From Theory to Transformative Practice}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, abstract = {While there is an evident need for establishing thorough processes of decolonizing Social Work in education, research and practice, there is only a limited number of literature available on the complex decolonization project. It includes the co-edited volume Decolonizing Social Work by Mel Gray, John Coates, Michael Yellow Bird and Tiani Hetherington (2013), Trabajo Social y Descolonialidad, by Mar{\´i}a Eugenia Hermida and Paula Meschini (2017) or the Routledge Handbook of Postcolonial Social Work, by Tanja Kleibl, Ronald Lutz, Ndangwa Noyoo, Benjamin Bunk, Annika Dittmann and Boitumelo Seepamore (2020). These foundational works contribute immensely to the much-needed discussion on the diversification of Social Work theories and methods, yet their foci cannot possibly attempt to address a full scope to the decolonization of all Social Work dimensions in greater detail. Furthermore, most publications (e.g., Tasc{\´o}n and Ife, 2020; Fortier and Hon-Sing Wong, 2018) focus on theoretical reflections, leaving the important gap regarding the necessary knowledge transfer into practice, research and education still broadly opened.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KlagesKleiblRodriguezLugoetal., author = {Klages, Anna-Lisa and Kleibl, Tanja and Rodr{\´i}guez Lugo, Sara and Afeworki Abay, Robel}, title = {Introduction to Decolonial Methodologies in Social Work: Transcending Eurocentrism and Foregrounding Pluriversalism}, series = {Decolonial Methodologies in Social Work: Foregrounding Pluriversalism in Teaching and Research}, booktitle = {Decolonial Methodologies in Social Work: Foregrounding Pluriversalism in Teaching and Research}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, abstract = {Since the publication of Linda Tuhiwai Smith's book (1999), Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, researchers in various disciplines in social and health sciences have increasingly become aware of the importance of adopting decolonial research methodologies. However, the transnational project of decolonization might be challenging and complex to implement in research projects and teaching formats in Social Work. The chapter contributions in this co-edited volume give insight from a broader geopolitical perspective into how established Eurocentric concepts, perceptions, practices, and paradigms in Social Work have been continuously re-assessed and re-nuanced within the last two decades (Tamburro, 2013; Noyoo, 2020; Kleibl et al., 2020; Castro Varela and Mohamed, 2021; Gray et al., 2023; Harms-Smith and Rasool, 2020). Within the broader project of Western academia, one effect of decolonization is challenging the allegedly objective "scientific knowledge, in view of its rigor and instrumental potential, [as] radically different from other ways of knowing, be they lay, popular, practical, commonsensical, intuitive, or religious" (de Sousa Santos, 2018b: 5). Moreover, decolonial concepts such as "epistemic de-linking" (Mignolo, 2007: 450) and "epistemic disobedience" (Mignolo, 2009: 8) are indispensable in unpacking the colonial roots of epistemic violence and foregrounding 'Epistemologies of the South' (de Sousa Santos, 2014) in Social Work research in order to establish "a time of epistemological imagination aimed at refounding the political imagination (…) to strengthen the social struggles against domination" (de Sousa Santos, 2018a: 126-127). The continuous problematization of Eurocentric knowledge production (e.g., methodological nationalism, culturalization, westernization) is therefore important for establishing critical dialogues in Social Work. Most importantly, decolonizing university education (Rodr{\´i}guez, 2018; Mbembe, 2016; Mignolo, 2013; de Sousa Santos, 2017) in general is the first step in order to disrupt the colonial continuity of knowledge production that "operates as an invisible power matrix that is shaping and sustaining asymmetrical power relations between the Global North and the Global South" (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2014: 181). In moving beyond theoretical discussions and reflections, this co-edited volume addresses the essential questions regarding the implementation of decolonial approaches in research methodologies and teaching formats in Social Work. This co-edited volume is therefore an important contribution for critically minded Social Work educators and students who seek to understand the complex structures of the colonial past, the contemporary postcolonial moment as well as to decolonize their teaching, researching, and visions of decolonialized Social Work.}, language = {en} } @incollection{AfeworkiAbayRodriguezLugoKleibletal., author = {Afeworki Abay, Robel and Rodr{\´i}guez Lugo, Sara and Kleibl, Tanja and Klages, Anna-Lisa}, title = {Methodological and Pedagogical Implications of Decolonizing Social Work}, series = {Decolonial Methodologies in Social Work: Foregrounding Pluriversalism in Teaching and Research}, booktitle = {Decolonial Methodologies in Social Work: Foregrounding Pluriversalism in Teaching and Research}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, abstract = {The fact that the coloniality of power and knowledge (Quijano; 2000; Mignolo, 2007, 2011; Grosfoguel, 2013) has only been addressed poorly in Social Work contributes to what Paulo Freire (1970: 12) referred to as "a culture of silence". A culture of silence exists where those who are oppressed are not heard in society, and where a lack of knowledge about their contexts creates a high risk for the perpetuation of racism, discrimination, and the violent process of 'blaming the victim'. Research methodologies and teaching formats in Social Work have always been embedded in the colonial archives of Eurocentric knowledge (Quijano; 2000; Mbembe, 2016; Grosfoguel, 2013). As Freire (1970: 5) argues that "The social worker, as much as the educator, is not a neutral agent, either in practice or in action". In the last decade, Social Work education and research methodologies have been continuously criticized for being complicit in downplaying and silencing the brutality of the colonial project (Harms-Smith and Rasool, 2020; Kleibl et al., 2020; Tamburro, 2013). This includes but not only limited to the ignorance of the social, political, ecological and economic implications of colonial legacies as well as post and neocolonial continuities in the 21st century. In addition, the development of Western political and welfare systems 'from above' do not result in significant social change and transformative justice. In consequence, many theories do not lead to concepts, approaches and praxis that sufficiently grasp the historical and contemporary situatedness of coloniality of knowledge and power in which Social Work keeps operating (Afeworki Abay, 2023; Daňkov{\´a} et al., 2024; Kleibl et al., 2024). In response to the continuities of colonial epistemologies and methodologies in Social Work, the chapter contributions in this co-edited volume show the relevance of Pluriversality as one of the various decolonial strategies to unsettle the coloniality of Eurocentric knowledge production (Quijano; 2000; Mignolo, 2007, 2017; Grosfoguel, 2013). One of strategies of decolonizing research methodologies and teaching formats is to universalize and normalize ways of knowing and knowledge production that Eurocentric systems of knowledge portray as 'not valuable' or 'not objective enough' (Tuck and Yang, 2012; Tlostanova and Mignolo. 2012; Afeworki Abay, 2023). Likewise, an important analytic strategy for decolonizing research methodologies is to draw upon marginalized and Indigenous knowledge systems (Smith, 1999; Tamburro, 2013; Zavala, 2016) that have been to taken-for-granted in the social, political, economic, and environmental discourses in Social Work.}, language = {en} } @book{KleiblAfeworkiAbayKlagesetal., author = {Kleibl, Tanja and Afeworki Abay, Robel and Klages, Anna-Lisa and Rodr{\´i}guez Lugo, Sara}, title = {Decolonizing Social Work}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, abstract = {Over the last three decades, "decolonization" has become an increasingly emergent framework in tracing and addressing the complex mechanisms of coloniality of knowledge and power (Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000). Surprisingly enough, decolonial perspectives have hardly been considered in Social Work education, research and practice (e.g. Harms-Smith \& Rasool, 2020; Kleibl et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2016; Tamburro, 2013; Lutz, Sachau, \& Stauß, 2017). Even though, there is a growing body of literature that addresses the need for decolonization of Social Work with indigenous people (e.g. Tanemura et al., 2016; Ives \& Thaweiakenrat Loft, 2016) or individuals and communities in and from the Global South (e.g. Noyoo, 2020; Kreitzer, 2016; Freire, 1970), many Social Workers in the Global North (both in academia and practice) argue that the need for decolonization does not apply to their work. This is particularly true in countries of the Global North that claim to have had little engagement with colonialism (e.g. Ranta-Tyrkk{\"o}, 2011). Historically, much of Social Work theory and practice was developed in the Global North and exported across the globe as a byproduct of colonization and - in the postcolonial era - in form of development aid (Schirilla, 2018). Within the hegemonic discourses, knowledges produced at the peripheries and in the context of social struggles has been delegitimized and rendered invisible. Therefore, Social Work remains dominated by Euro-American perspectives, which oftentimes reproduce epistemic violence (Spivak, 1988). This acknowledgment, then, calls for a critical analysis of Social Work education, research and practice as well. Recent emerging discussions on implementing decolonial approaches in Social Work (Harms-Smith \& Rasool, 2020; Tamburro, 2013; Lutz, Kleibl \& Neureither, 2021) have drawn the attention to the possibilities of "epistemic disobedience" (Mignolo, 2009: 8). They brought forward Afrocentric approaches to pedagogy (van Wyk 2014; Watson-Vandiver \& Wiggan, 2021), pedagogies that centralize the oppressed (Freire, 1970; Kohan, 2021), non-extractivist research approaches and methods that focus on embodied knowledge and corporeal emancipation (de Sousa-Santos, 2018), as well as creating South-South links (Rivera, 2012).}, language = {en} } @book{AfeworkiAbayKlagesRodriguezLugoetal., author = {Afeworki Abay, Robel and Klages, Anna-Lisa and Rodr{\´i}guez Lugo, Sara and Kleibl, Tanja}, title = {Decolonial Methodologies in Social Work: Foregrounding Pluriversalism in Teaching and Research}, publisher = {Bloomsbury Publishing}, abstract = {While decolonial perspectives have continuously been discussed in contemporary academic discourse in Social Work in the last two decades, yet, the complex legacies of colonialism are often left unreflected within methodological and pedagogical conceptualizations in Social Work (Harms-Smith and Rasool, 2020; Tamburro, 2013; Kleibl et al., 2020; Harms-Smith and Afeworki Abay, 2024). With this understanding in mind, it is imperative to critically engage with the growing interest of mainstream discourse on decolonizing research and education in Social Work and as well as to understand the broader project of decolonization as a way of "epistemic de-linking" (Mignolo, 2007: 450) from colonial thoughts and practices. Decolonial perspectives in Social Work's knowledge production require a deep look into the core concept of Pluriversality in foregrounding theories, epistemologies and methodologies of the South. According to Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2018), decolonizing theories, epistemologies and methodologies is an asymmetrical and long-term process that requires deep analysis and reflection both in formerly colonized and colonizing regions. As there are only insufficient methodological reflections on these complex topics of "decolonization" in Social Work (see among others: Kleibl et al., 2024), the aim of this book is to go one-step further and put a spotlight on the increasing number of critical teaching formats as well as research projects in Social Work that aim to challenge the current status-quo of coloniality of power, knowledge and being (Quijano, 2007). This co-edited volume provides discussions and experiences with decolonial approaches in research and education of Social Work. It centres methodologies developed in the Global South (de Sousa Santos, 2014; Connell, 2014) in an attempt to decolonize Eurocentrism, as the knowledge produced by subaltern communities and scholars of the global South have been rendered invisible.}, language = {en} }