Building Bridges: Blended Intensive Program on Social Community Intervention, Urbanism, and Management
In the end of the course, the student should be able to:
Analyse urban contexts and social vulnerabilities using evidence and field‑based observations; design community intervention strategies that integrate social work, urbanism and management; apply participatory methodologies (co‑design) and project‑management principles to real‑life cases; communicate technical‑scientific proposals clearly to peers and stakeholders (including communities); and work effectively within multidisciplinary teams, assuming differentiated roles and responsibilities.
Day 1 – Opening, integration and overview of interdisciplinary collaboration; PT/ES/TR context; climate‑related case studies.
Day 2 – Field visits; vulnerability mapping; strategy brainstorming.
Day 3 – Parallel workshops (co‑design, community engagement, impact assessment, project management); simulation.
Day 4 – Teamwork sessions; consolidation of the proposal; cross‑reviews.
Day 5 – Final pitches; feedback from faculty and, when available, community representatives; closing session.
Erasmus+ horizontal priorities addressed: Inclusion and diversity; common values and civic engagement; environment and climate action; multidisciplinary work.
Assessment, without final exam, consisting of:
Participation and Practical In-Class Exercises (30%) – individual and group assessment
Includes: contributions to discussions, engagement in activities, small group problem‑solving exercises, case analyses, and collaborative syntheses. The aim is to ensure continuous learning, evaluative flexibility, and adaptation to interdisciplinary dynamics.
Final Interdisciplinary Poster – Practical Application (50%) – group assessment
Each group (which must be interdisciplinary) develops a poster presenting: a community diagnosis, identification of vulnerabilities, an integrated intervention proposal (social work + urban planning + management + public policies), and key principles for implementation. The poster will be publicly presented on the final day.
Individual Critical Reflection (20%) – individual assessment
A short document (800–1000 words) addressing the learning process, the student’s role in the group, the challenges of interdisciplinarity, and the ethical and community-related implications of the intervention.
Admission requirements: minimum attendance of 75% in synchronous activities (in person or online).
Additional flexibility:
Replacement of one practical exercise with an equivalent alternative for students with Special Status.
Possibility of an oral defence at a later stage for clarification of the grade, if necessary.
Mandatory
Andrei, R. (2022). Natural Gas at the Frontline Between the EU, Russia and Turkey: A Conflict-Cooperation Perpetuum. Palgrave. | Buchan, D., & Downie, C. (2022). “The EU’s Energy Security Dilemma: Balancing Sustainability and Reliability.” Energy Economics, 102, 105670. | Jäger, D., & Olszewska, A. (2022). “Renewable Energy and Geopolitical Risk: How Global Transition Can Alter Power Structures.” Journal of Energy and Development, 48(3), 173-189. | Kahl, D., & Lueger, A. (2023). “The Politics of Renewable Energy: Shaping the Future of Global Geopolitics.” Global Energy Transition, 12, 41-58. | Kahraman, C., & Yildiz, M. (2023). “Energy Interdependence and Geopolitical Shifts: The Role of Natural Gas in Global Power Dynamics.” Energy Reports, 9, 247-261. | Montfort, R. (2022). Energy and Geopolitics in the Global Market. Palgrave. | Perkovic, J., & Oosterhuis, F. (2023). “Geopolitics of Green Energy Transition: The Strategic Implications of Renewables in Europe.” Energy Policy, 168.
Optional
Freitas, D., & Belchior-Rocha, H. (2025). “Serviço Social e Prática Eco-Social: Promover sustentabilidade através da intervenção comunitária.” Trabajo Social Global-Global Social Work, 15, 106–129. | Casquilho-Martins, I., & Rocha, H. B. (2020). “Community strategies for intercultural participation.” Trabajo Social Global-Global Social Work, 10(19), 157-179. | Ife, J. (2013). “Community development in an uncertain global landscape: An agenda for radical action.” Community Development Journal, 48(4), 638-642. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bst038 | Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Macmillan. | Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763 | Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press. | Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (Eds.). (2017). Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Routledge. | Laine, J. P., Rantamäki, A., & Väänänen, A. (2019). “Eco-social innovations in social work practice.” In A. L. Matthies & K. Nähri (Eds.), The Ecosocial Transition of Societies (pp. 145-162). Routledge. | Peeters, J. (2012). “An ecological approach to social work practice.” European Journal of Social Work, 15(4), 467-482. | Rocha, H. B., & Ferreira, J. (2016). “An Ecosocial model for the sustainability of vulnerable communities.” In The Ecosocial Transition of Societies: The Contribution of Social Work. | Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. ACTA Publications. | Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., Blachman, M., Dunville, R., & Saegert, S. (2008). “Community science: Bridging the gap between science and practice with community-centered models.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9172-z
