This chapter explores the current discussions and policies towards social exclusion and cohesion in Europe. In a first section will briefly be identified how the wording in the social work discourse changed from originally the thinking in terms of poverty to the ideas of social cohesion nowadays. The section will conclude in the existence of two different perspectives on social cohesion: a socio-economic and a socio-cultural perspective. Next section will discuss the socio-economic approach as mainstream thinking in the European Union. Furthermore, the socio-cultural debate on social cohesion will be discussed in the third section. Finally, some of the consequences of these discussions for social work practice will be explored.
DOCUMENT
Over the last decade, sport and physical activity have become increasingly recognised and implemented as tools to foster social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and communities around Europe. As a result, numerous programmes have emerged that attempt to enhance social cohesion through a variety of sport-based approaches (Moustakas, Sanders, Schlenker, & Robrade, 2021; Svensson & Woods, 2017). However, despite this boom in sport and social cohesion, current definitions and understandings of social cohesion rarely take into account the needs, expectations or views of practitioners, stakeholders and, especially, participants on the ground (Raw, Sherry, & Rowe, 2021). Yet, to truly foster broad social outcomes like social cohesion, there is increasing recognition that programmes must move beyond interventions that only focus on the individual level, and instead find ways to work with and engage a wide array of stakeholders and organisations (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Moustakas, 2022). In turn, this allows programmes to respond to community needs, foster engagement, deliver more sustainable outcomes, and work at both the individual and institutional levels. The Living Lab concept - which is distinguished by multi-stakeholder involvement, user engagement, innovation and co-creation within a real-life setting - provides an innovative approach to help achieve these goals. More formally, Living Labs have been defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” (European Network of Living Labs, 2021). Thus, this can be a powerful approach to engage a wide array of stakeholders, and create interventions that are responsive to community needs. As such, the Sport for Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project was conceived to implement a Living Lab approach within five sport for social cohesion programmes in four different European countries. This approach was chosen to help programmes directly engage programme participants, generate understanding of the elements that promote social cohesion in a sport setting and to co-create activities and tools to explore, support and understand social cohesion within these communities. The following toolkit reflects our multi-national experiences designing and implementing Living Labs across these various contexts. Our partners represent a variety of settings, from schools to community-based organisations, and together these experiences can provide valuable insights to other sport (and non-sport) organisations wishing to implement a Living Lab approach within their contexts and programmes. Thus, practitioners and implementers of community-based programmes should be understood as the immediate target group of this toolkit, though the insights and reflections included here can be of relevance for any individual or organisation seeking to use more participatory approaches within their work. In particular, in the coming sections, this toolkit will define the Living Lab concept more precisely, suggest some steps to launch a Living Lab, and offer insights on how to implement the different components of a Living Lab.
DOCUMENT
Social networks, social cohesion, and place attachment are positive social impacts that can stimulate people’s quality of life. High-rise apartment buildings are often criticized for their negative social impacts, such as social isolation and low levels of interaction and social cohesion. However, there is still insufficient empirical evidence on the relationships between neighborhood social networks, social cohesion, place attachment, and loneliness of high-rise apartment residents and how they are affected by the physical environment and neighborhood satisfaction. This study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate these relationships using data collected in four high-rise apartment complexes in Hanoi, Vietnam. While the number of neighbors in someone’s social network is found to stimulate social cohesion, which can foster neighborhood attachment and reduce feelings of loneliness, the possibility of improving these social impacts is affected by urban contexts, site properties, and the ability to provide communal spaces within and surrounding the buildings.
LINK
The Social Support Act came into effect on 1 January 2007. The purpose of the new legislation is to enable citizens who are dependent on the support of the Municipality and those living around them to be able to live independently for as long as possible. Organizing informal care is one of the main targets of this policy. In the realization of this act several assumptions about informal care giving were implied. In this paper three of them are examined. The first assumption is that neighbourly cohesion will lead to exchanging neighbourly support. On the other hand it is assumed that a lack of neighbourly cohesion impedes neighbourly support. The second assumption is that there is an imminent shortfall in the supply of informal care. The third assumption is that healthy people (are expected to) help the vulnerable and that they have to be stimulated to do so. The findings are based on qualitative in-depth interviews, conducted in a small Dutch neighbourhood in Eindhoven, called Drents Dorp. It is argued that all three assumptions need revision in order that informal care policy can be more effective. This study shows that the relationship between neighbourhood cohesion and informal care is not clear cut. Neighbourliness is individualized, but this doesn't mean that neighbours don't support each other: they do, but on an individual one-to-one basis. Furthermore, the most vulnerable inhabitants are not reached by social interventions aimed at enhancing social cohesion. The assumed shortfall in the supply of informal care turns out to be a shortage in the demand of informal care. Due to their fear of dependency and pursuit of autonomy and independence, people hesitate to ask for support. This is far more an impediment for informal care than the alleged shortfall in supply. The assumption that the strong will support the vulnerable also needs adjustment. At least an important part of the exchange of support takes place between vulnerable people mutually.
DOCUMENT
The number of local energy initiatives in the Netherlands is rising. The so called ‘Buurkrachtbuurten’ are contributing to this growth. ‘Buurkracht’ is a non-profit organisation aiming to support neighbourhoods in their attempts to reduce energy consumption. Their goal is save as much energy as possible and, in the process, to contribute to social cohesion within local communities. An intervention to increase awareness of energy consumption and to increase social cohesion was tested in four villages in the northern part of the Netherlands (the province of Drenthe). The aim of this study was to help people to take their first step in the larger energy transition. Participants (N=75) measured their energy use with energy power meters and shared the results with their neighbours and with the researchers. Through “within-subject comparisons” (of different appliances within homes) and “between-subject comparisons” (of similar appliances within the neighbourhood), participants gained insight in their energy consumption. Furthermore, results showed that after this intervention (“Find the Energy Guzzler”), some participants acted according their insights, e.g. replaced some appliances. The evaluation of the intervention was very positive and participants would recommend this intervention to other people. Also, one of the experienced benefits of participation was that it increased contact with the neighbours. Other strengths and improvements are discussed as well in the paper.
DOCUMENT
conceptualizes the tension between autonomous dance and community dance in the light of the commitment of the state
DOCUMENT
Een bezinning op de identiteit en de positie van het Instituut voor Social Work van Hogeschool Utrecht.
DOCUMENT
This open access book states that the endemic societal faultlines of our times are deeply intertwined and that they confront us with challenges affecting the security and sustainability of our societies. It states that new ways of inhabiting and cultivating our planet are needed to keep it healthy for future generations. This requires a fundamental shift from the current anthropocentric and economic growth-oriented social contract to a more ecocentric and regenerative natural social contract. The author posits that in a natural social contract, society cannot rely on the market or state alone for solutions to grand societal challenges, nor leave them to individual responsibility. Rather, these problems need to be solved through transformative social-ecological innovation (TSEI), which involves systemic changes that affect sustainability, health and justice. The TSEI framework presented in this book helps to diagnose and advance innovation and change across sectors and disciplines, and at different levels of governance. It identifies intervention points and helps formulate sustainable solutions for policymakers, administrators, concerned citizens and professionals in moving towards a more just and equitable society.
MULTIFILE
conceptualizes the tension between autonomous art, community art and the state
DOCUMENT
The implementation of the Ment4EU curriculum on social mentoring (Ciff & Brady, 2025) marked a historic milestone in the advancement of mentorship practices within Europe. Held in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, from 3 to 7 February 2025 as a blended intensive program, this initiative stands as the first known enterprise of its kind in the region. It successfully brought together approximately 250 participants from 29 countries, uniting academics, researchers, practitioners, and students who shared a passion for fostering social mentoring as a transformative tool for inclusion, education, and personal and professional development. This evaluation report serves as a comprehensive reflection on the outcomes of the program, assessing its methodologies, impact, and the exchanges that took place among participants. Through a detailed examination, I aimed to highlight the strengths of this pioneering initiative, identify areas for refinement, and explore pathways for broader implementation across Europe. The discussions, collaborations, and insights generated during this event have laid the groundwork for future advancements in structured mentoring, emphasizing its essential role in social cohesion and knowledge-sharing. Through this comprehensive exploration, the report aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on social mentoring, offering insights into best practices, challenges, and opportunities for expanding mentorship frameworks in European academic institutions. This evaluation report is part of the Erasmus Plus Cooperation Partnership in Higher Education “Mentoring forSocial Inclusion in Europe: Sharing Knowledge and Building Capacity” (Ment4EU), project number 2023-1-AT01-KA220-HED-000158214
DOCUMENT
