Open Access

Drawing on the work of Antonio Gramsci and liberation scholars from Latin America, this article examines the role of social work, as both an academic discipline and a practice, in the context of the recent refugee crisis. This role mirrors the historical development of social work and is further highlighted by recent empirical studies of refugee experiences on Greek islands. The authors call for an active political coalition between social work practitioners and refugees, with the aim of empowering the latter in their quest for liberation from the regime of European refugee management.

Amyloidosis represents a rare yet heterogeneous multi-system disorder associated with a grave prognosis and an enormous psycho-emotional strain on patients, relatives, and caregivers. We here present the overall study design and first results ofMY-NEED, a research program aiming to systematically assess the needs of patients suffering from amyloidosis, their relatives and health care professionals (HCPs), and develop an amyloidosis-specific care approach.MY-NEEDuses a mixed-methods approach including focus groups (step 1), a questionnaire-based broad evaluation within the local amyloidosis patient collective (step 2), and the development of a needs-adapted care concept (step 3).Seven patients, six relatives and five HCPs participated in the focus groups (step 1). At the time of diagnosis, patients expressed the need of a smooth diagnostic process, possibly enhanced through improved awareness and better education of local HCPs. There was a strong wish to receive well-founded information and comprehensive support including companionship during medical visits, experience the feeling of being understood, find trust in that "everything possible" is being done, and have effortless access to centre staff. In the course of the disease, patients favoured that the specialized centre should manage treatment coordination, monitoring and psychosocial support. The interface between centre and local HCPs was regarded of particular importance, requiring further investigation into its optimal design.Patients with amyloidosis express particular needs that should appropriately be considered in specifically tailored care concepts.

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.

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-Tyrkkö, 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).

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.

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; Gutiérrez Rodríguez 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.

Este volumen cuestiona las formas tradicionales de crear conocimiento en la investigación sobre migración y se propone a descentralizar el sesgo eurocéntrico del país receptor y explorar los procesos de migración Sur-Sur proporcionando perspectivas del país de origen sobre la migración. El libro está dividido en secciones sobre Perspectivas, Experiencias e Intervenciones para buscar activamente posibilidades para como moldear procesos sociales vitales conectados con la migración. Con este fin, en la sección final hay la tradición del trabajo social como disciplina académica y práctica profesional enfocada en la transformación social, más que como una práctica a nivel micro de “control” o “educación” de personas y familias que se consideran fuera de la sociedad “normal”. Este volumen persigue el objetivo de reivindicar la misión política del trabajo social como fuerza activa de transformación social y mostrar cómo el trabajo social puede ser una fuerza para diseñar políticas activamente, en lugar de ser solo una herramienta de control de la migración.