Dimension

Contemporary Social Work (synthetic overview)

TCCR

(proposal)

Scientific requirements and cautions for TCCR

(critical points)

Ontology

What is assumed to “be” the reality of intervention

·      A heterogeneous field that often operates with the idea of the person-in-context and social determinants, combining psychosocial, community, and structural readings depending on institutional mandates and training traditions.

·      The object of practice tends to be defined situationally (by program area, field, and population), and the reference unit varies (person, family, group, community, institution/territory).

·      In practice, micro–macro articulation depends on resources, time, and intersectoral coordination.

·      Affirms a relational/systemic ontology: the reality relevant to Social Work is psychosocial, emerging at the intersection of subjectivity–intersubjectivity and always situated historically and culturally.

·      Delimits the object as psychosocial relational structuring (bond/relationship–meaning–context) and its effects (well-being, integration, dignity, participation, and access to rights).

·      Proposes the Cognosystem as an analytic unit of reference: a sociohistorical web of interconnected meanings composed of Cognosystemic Narrative System (SNC; Spanish: Sistema Narrativo Cognosistémico) operating across ecosystemic levels and along temporal trajectories.

·       Avoid totalizing ontological claims (“everything is relational”) without specifying entities, boundaries, and causal status (what functions as cause, mediation, or description).

·       Operationalize the proposed unit: what counts as a Cognosystemic Narrative System (SNC), the limits of the Cognosystem, aggregation rules across levels, and conditions of applicability.

·       Make the micro–macro bridge explicit (mechanisms, mediators, feedback loops, temporality), and avoid hegemonic disciplinary proclamations that are not empirically or philosophically substantiated.

Epistemology

How knowledge is produced/validated in the psychosocial domain

·      Coexisting empiricist/evaluative, interpretive, and critical traditions; tensions frequently arise between standardization (accountability, protocols) and the singularity of cases (situated understanding, professional judgment).

·      Reflexivity appears as a cross-cutting ideal, with variable degrees of formalization across practice settings.

·      Cognosystemic epistemology: knowing requires integrating cognitive–narrative meaning-making with systemic relational organization in order to understand how meanings are constructed, stabilized, and transformed through interaction and under institutional and power conditions.

·      Knowledge is conceived as situated and intersubjective, with requirements of coherence, interpretive traceability, and corroboration with evidence from the case and its context.

·      Professional reflexivity is an epistemic requirement: making assumptions and categories explicit, recognizing standpoint, attending to interpretive effects, and safeguarding representation—especially of historically marginalized voices.

·      Clarify the stance on objectivity, causality, and validity (avoid ambiguity between “situated construction” and strong claims of systemic regularity).

·      Define validity criteria and bias controls: internal coherence, contextual plausibility, triangulation, saturation/interpretive consensus, and auditability of reasoning.

·      Prevent dense concepts (e.g., autopoiesis) from functioning as non-testable metaphors: specify intended meaning and the observable indicators that would support their use.

Methodology

How one intervenes

·      A diverse set of practices (casework/family work, groups, community/territorial intervention, clinical social work, networks and intersectoral coordination).

·      Implementation is strongly shaped by institutional frameworks (time constraints, caseloads, indicators), which can favor procedural approaches; nevertheless, robust rights-based, participatory, and structural-change approaches are present depending on context.

·      Ecosystemic–narrative intervention methodology with explicit traceability from analysis → action → evaluation, organized as a cycle: (A) cognosystemic problem delimitation, (B) relational–narrative change hypothesis and design, (C) implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

·      Intervenes on relational patterns and narrative matrices of meaning, articulating micro/meso/exo/macro levels and temporality.

·      Evaluates change across integrated domains: relationships, narratives/positionings, structural conditions (barriers/resources), and psychosocial outcomes, with iterative adjustment based on evidence.

·      Integrates an orientation toward social justice and empowerment, understood as a situated expansion of agency, rights, and participation—avoiding individualizing reductions where structural constraints are decisive.

·       Specify decision rules: level prioritization, management of cross-level conflicts, and criteria for “dosage” (what to do first, when, and with whom).

·       Develop flexible but replicable manualization: protocols, competencies, minimal records, quality criteria, and fidelity/adaptation standards.

·       Operationalize indicators by level and domain; distinguish process outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, and equity outcomes; state limits, assumptions, and scenarios in which the approach may not be the most appropriate choice.