Polikriz Döneminde Eko-Sosyal Çalışma: Kırılganlık, Dönüşümsel Öğrenme ve Epistemik Değişim

Özet (abstract)

Western welfare systems prove structurally inadequate in the face of the polycrisis—the causal entanglement of ecological, economic, health, and democratic crises. This article develops a theoretical reconstructive framework that reframes social work in ecosocial terms around four interconnected axes: the polycrisis as an ontological and epistemic reconfiguration of reality that renders sectoral interventions ineffective; vulnerability reframed as an epistemic and political driver rather than a deficit to be managed; abduction and the buffer zone as method and architecture for transformative collective learning; and conflict as a productive catalyst, with boundary spanning as a connecting function that social work can exercise but does not monopolise. Ecological justice operates as a transversal criterion across all axes. Methodologically, the paper integrates and interrogates secondary evidence from the international literature, re-reading two documented cases that operate at different scales—one meso-local, one running from the embodied and domestic to the regional and supranational—and illustrate institutionalised and self-organised forms of conflict, respectively. The analysis converges into a recursive five-stage transformative cycle that articulates the doler–saber–querer–poder–hacer sequence across three levels of meta-designing—direct intervention, local governance, and regulatory arrangements—identifying enabling conditions and structural obstacles, including institutional permeability. The framework addresses the gap between well-established ecosocial work principles and the scarcity of operational devices capable of supporting collective learning in practice. Where much eco-social scholarship documents why experiential and situated knowledge remains weakly integrated in local welfare and climate governance, the contribution here is architectural: it specifies the devices and institutional conditions through which such integration could be organised and indicates Participatory Action Research as a coherent methodological frame for testing them. The discussion examines the framework’s limits, the tension between institutionalised and self-organised buffer zones, and the trade-off between depth, scale, and speed of transformation.

Yazarların özeti; kaynağından alınmıştır. Social Sciences, 2026 · DOI ↗