The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work 0367499940, 9780367499945

Table of contents :
Cover
Endorsements
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Figures
Tables
Contributors
Introduction: Digital Social Work - Reshaping Social Work Practice in the 21st Century
Digital Social Work: An Introduction
Handbook Structure and Overview
Part 1: Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society
Part 2: Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society
Part 3: Digital Social Work in Practice
Part 3.1: Digital Social Work with Client Groups
Part 3.2: Digital Social Work Methods
Part 4: The Ethics of Digital Social Work
Part 5: Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions: Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases
Part 6: Digital Social Work: Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations
References
Part 1: Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society
2. Digital Social Work: The Opportunity of Digitalisation. A Meta-Analysis
Introduction
Methodology
Coding
Bibliometric Study
Papers by Year
Papers by Country in the Period 2006-2020
Papers by Journal, Google Scholar Citations and JCR 2019 Ranking
Results
The Role of the Pandemic
The Digital Transformation of Social Work
From Digital Social Work to Digital Social Workers
The Dark Side of Digital Social Work
Conclusions
References
3. Social Work: Information and Communication Technologies - Development and Innovation
Introduction
Conceptual Dimensions of Social Work: Digital Social Work
Adaptability of Professional Practices to Teleworking
Telework Social Work Practices
Collaborative Approaches and Social Intervention Plans
Contemporary Challenges to Social Work in an Age of Uncertainty: From Face-to-Face Intervention to Digital Intervention
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Notes
References
4. PhotoVoice in the Time of Digital Social Work
Introduction
PhotoVoice Methodology
Theoretical, Philosophical, and Epistemological Orientations
Ethical Issues
Applications to Social Work
PhotoVoice in the Digital Age
Challenges and Opportunities
New Technologies: Digital Photography and Platforms
Benefits and Challenges of Digital PhotoVoice
Final Reflections and Directions to Digital Research and Intervention
References
5. Networked Relationships: Relationship-Based Social Work Practice in the Digital Era
Introduction
Relationship-Based Practice in the Digital Age
Social Work Practice and the Digital
Benefits
Limitations
Dimensions of Digitalization and Relationship-Based Practice: Materiality and Functionality
Discussion
Conclusions
References
6. Technology Tools for Convivial Communities
Introduction
The Many Layered Internet
The Commons and Data Justice as Forms of Resistance
The AMP
Our Data Bodies
The Design Justice Network
Indigenous Data Sovereignty
Conclusion
References
7. Collective Social Work and Social Movements in the Digital Age
Introduction
Intervention with Communities: Co-building Inclusive Transformation
Connections and Rights: The Foundations of Social Work
Social Movements as Activists of Solidarity: Connecting Actors Locally with a Global Outlook
The New Context and Digitalisation: A Divide and an Opportunity
Conclusions
References
Part 2: Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society
8. Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work: A Second Order Approach
Introduction
The Sociocybernetics Perspective
Beyond ICTs: The Pandemic Context as a Catalyst for Digital Social Work
Social Services Processes Within E-Administration and E-Government
Content Creation and Dissemination Using Digital Tools
Analysis of Social Interactions in Digital Environments
Social Work Education and Professional Training
Reduction of Exclusion Due to Digital Divide
Conclusions
Acknowledgment
References
9. Big Social Data and Social Networking Sites: Opportunities for Social Work Research and Practice
Introduction
Big Social Data and Thick Data as Sources of Analysis of Online Socialization
Using Social Networking Sites to Enhance Social Capital
Social Networking Sites and Social Emergencies
Social Networking Sites to Generate and Sustain Social Movements
Conclusions
References
10. Analysis of Citizen Interactions on Twitter about Social Services and COVID-19
Introduction
Social Work Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic
Context of the Research Study
Social Media and the Pandemic
Objectives of the Study
Methodology
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
11. Viral Artifacts: Social Work Responses to COVID-19 Through YouTube as Archive
Introduction
YouTube as Archive
Methodology
Findings and Discussion
The Role of Social Work[ers] in COVID-19 Response
Changes to Social Work Practice
Responses From Social Work Representational Organizations
Congratulations/Praise to Social Workers
Social Issues/Social Problems
Limitations
Conclusion
References
Appendix
12. Superdiversity and Digital Social Work
Introduction
Contextualizing Superdiversity
Digital Social Work
Integrating the Concept of Superdiversity Into Digital Social Work Practice
Macro Level
Meso Level
Micro Level
Conclusions
References
13. Social Work Research: Digitising the Critical Incident Technique for the 21st Century Using Audio Diaries
Introduction
Critical Incident Technique
Audio Diaries
A Social Work CIT/Audio-Diary Study
Research Methodology
Evaluation of the CIT/Audio-Diary Approach
Stage 1: Audio-Dairy Data Collection
Data Quality Enhancements
Data Accuracy Improvement
Topic and Participant Suitability
Enhanced Participant Experience
Limitations of Diaries as a Research Method
Stage 2: Diary Transcript for the CIT Interview
Stage 3: The CIT Interview and Augmented Diaries
Stage 4: Analysis of Augmented Diaries
Conclusions
References
14. Digital Social Group Work: Evolution, State of the Art and a Renewed Research Agenda
Introduction
Method
Units of Analysis and Search Strategy
Procedure
Findings and Discussion
Annual Production of Research Papers
Journals
Authors
Type of Research
Situations, Problems or Needs Addressed
Type of Groups
Technical Issues and Terminology for Technology-Based Groups
Conclusions
A Renewed Research Agenda for Online Social Group Work
Implications for Teaching and Learning in the Social Work Curriculum
References
Part 3: Digital Social Work in Practice
Part 3a: Digital Social Work with Client Groups
15. Assistive Technologies, Robotics and Gerontological Social Work Practice
Introduction
Development of Care Robots, Assistive Technology and Policy Developments in Relation to Older People Service Provision
What Is Assistive Technology?
Historical Overview of Policy Relating to Assistive Technology
Conceptual Models for Assistive Technology
Use of Assistive Technology in Care Settings: A Case of Care Robots
What Do We Know about Older People, Social Work and Health and Social Care Professionals' (HSCPs) Attitudes and Perceptions of Robotics and Assistive Technology?
The Benefits and Challenges of Assistive Technology and Robotics for Gerontological Social Workers in Practice
Conclusion and Implications for Policy and Practice
Acknowledgements
References
16. Digital Technology in Statutory Children's Services
Introduction
Case Management Systems
Digital Communication Technologies
Digital Tools That Enhance Participation
Digital Technology for Statutory Caseworker Training
Discussion
Conclusion
References
17. The Digitization of Social Work with Vulnerable Children and Older People in the Czech Republic: A Challenge for the Future
Introduction
The Digitization of Czech Social Work with Vulnerable Children and Older People
Researching the Digitization of Social Work
Use of ICT in Families with Vulnerable Children during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Data Analysis and Interpretation
Reflections of Social Workers on the Use of ICT in Interventions with the Target Group of Vulnerable Children
Use of ICT by Older People during the Pandemic COVID-19: Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Reflections of HC Staff on the Use of ICT in Interventions with the Target Group of Older People
Conclusion and Recommendations for the Czech Policy Makers
Acknowledgments
References
18. Digital Social Work and Disability Services
Introduction
Background and Current Situation
The Potential of Technology as a Training Revolution
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Proposal
Conclusion
References
19. The Use of Facebook in Social Work Practice with Families: Safeguarding or Surveillance?
Introduction
Literature
Recent Literature
Ethics and Professional Codes across World
Aotearoa New Zealand Social Media Policy
United Kingdom Social Media Policy
USA Social Media Policy
Use of Facebook in Practice with Children and Families
Monitoring as Safeguarding - a Pragmatic Stance
Surveillance - a Critical Stance
Social Workers Caught in the Middle
Conclusion
References
20. Technology and Children: A Role for Social Work?
Introduction
Children and Young People in an Online World
E-Social Work
Technology, Social Work and Children
Accelerated Pivots to Online Practice - COVID-19
Ethical and Practice Issues
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Part 3b: Digital Social Work Methods
21. Digital Storytelling in Social Work
Introduction
DST as a Specific Type of Story Production
DST as an Umbrella Term
DST as a Mode of Narrative Practice Utilizing Digital Media
Implications for Social Work
Advancing the Role of Social Workers in Technology-Supported Interventions
Actualizing Social Workers' Unique Dual Focus Mission
Concluding Remarks
References
22. The Interface between Technology and Domestic Violence and Abuse: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Work Practice
Introduction
Defining and Conceptualising Domestic Violence and Abuse
Defining and Conceptualising Technology-Assisted Abuse (Digital Coercive Control)
The Nature of Technology-Assisted Abuse
Challenges for Social Work
Opportunities for Social Work Practice
Conclusion
References
23. The Acceleration of the Implementation of Tele-Social Work as a Complementary Intervention Formula: Teleworking, Remote Assistance and Online Home Visiting
Introduction
Definition of Tele-Social Work: Telework, Remote Assistance and Online Home Visits
Tele-Social Work as a New Frontier of Social Work Practice: Benefits and Drawbacks
Recommendations for the Development of Tele-Social Work
Conclusions
References
24. Technology Bridges Community Social Work and Older People Care in Japan
Introduction
Social Work in Japan and Shakai Fukushi
Context and Relationship between Social Work and Kaigo
Utilizing Technology for Social Work with Older People in Japan
Application and Utilization of ICT in Community-based Social Work with the Older People
Case Study: E-recoding System within Gerontological Social Work
Purpose and Function of the E-recording System in Gerontological Social Work
Other Possibilities for Technological Use
Future Opportunities and Challenges
References
25. Social Innovation and Technology for Social Work: A Training and Implementation Experience in Santiago de Chile
Introduction
Situating the Use of Technology
Social Work Training as a Site for Technological Innovation
(Re)building Affective Social Networks
Working Together, from Afar
Author's Note
References
26. The Pandemic of Undesired Loneliness: New Strategies from Digital Social Work
Introduction
Characteristics of Undesired Loneliness
Digital Social Work and Loneliness: Perspectives of Analysis and Intervention
Good Practices from a Comparative Perspective
Future Perspectives: Prevention, Autonomy and the Common Good
References
27. Social Work Education and Digitalisation: The Classroom in Transition
Introduction
Preparing Students for Digital Social Work Practice
The Digital Practice Landscape
Knowledge and Skills Required to Practice Digitally
Digital Education
Understanding Digital Education
Digital Social Work Education
The Classroom in Transition
Digital Education in Social Work before Covid-19
The Emergency Pivot to Remote Teaching
Moving Beyond Transition - High-Quality Digital Education
Developing Educators' Digital Education Skills
Conclusion
References
28. Reflections on Emergency Remote Online Teaching and Learning Group Work Education During COVID-19: South Africa
Introduction
The South African Context
Aspects for Consideration Before Teaching Using EROTL
Group Work Education
The Use of Authentic eLearning
Online Discussion Forums
Use of Breakout Groups
Examples of the Authentic eLearning Elements
The Benefits of EROTL
Constraints of Technology
Future Trends
Conclusions
References
Part 4: The Ethics of Digital Social Work
29. Information and Communications Technology in Social Work: Ethical and Risk Management Issues
Introduction
Informed Consent
Confidentiality and Privacy
Boundary Issues and Conflicts of Interest
Documentation and Records
Collegial Relationships
Practitioner Competence
Ethical, Legal, and Practice Standards
Ethical Standards
Regulatory Standards
Practice Standards
Conclusion
References
30. Privacy and 'Big Data' in Social Work Research: A Risk-based Approach
Introduction
Personal Data: Ethics, Human Rights, and Informed Consent
Privacy - Concepts and Techniques
Personal Information and Identifiers
De-identification and Anonymisation
Anonymisation Techniques
Five Components of a Risk-based Approach
Proportionate Benefit
The Data
Audience
Processing and Anonymisation
Data Storage, Transfer, and Access
Case Example
Perceived Benefit
Data
Audience
Anonymisation and Processing
Transfer and Storage
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
31. Artificial Intelligence and Social Work: Contributions to an Ethical Artificial Intelligence at the Service of People
Introduction
AI and Ethics: Aspects of the Debate
AI Ethics and Ethics of Social Work: Convergent Principles
Ethical Issues in the Fields of Application of AI: Social Networks and Assistance Robots
Social Networks
Assistance Robots
The Future Is Here: Building the Present from Social Work
Summary and Conclusions
References
32. Ethics and Technology in Emergency Situations
Introduction
Competence and Preparation
Human Rights and Social Justice
Respect for the Inherent Dignity of Humanity
Confidentiality and Identity Security
Conclusion
References
33. Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age: Surveillance, Privacy and Professional Boundaries in Social Work Practice
Introduction
The New Digital Era in Social Work
Research with Newly Qualified Social Workers
Surveillance, Counterveillance and Sousveillance
Technologically Mediated Surveillance, Counterveillance and Sousveillance: Functional Necessities or Mechanisms of Power?
Surveillance and Power
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Part 5: Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions: Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases
34. Using Technologies as Allies in Social Work: The Chilean Experience of Reconectando
Introduction
The Digital Component of Chilean Social Work
Reconectando
Methodology
Results
Management System
ICTs and Provision of Services
Supervision of Workers
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
35. Integrating Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies: A Comparative Example between USA and Spain
Introduction
Digital Competence Framework
The Spanish Perspective
The US Perspective
Methodology
Research Design, Target Population, and Sampling Design
Data Collection Instrument
Findings and Discussions
Demographic Information
Dimensions of Digital Competence Framework
Dimension#1: Digital Information and Data Literacy
Dimension#2: Digital Communication and Collaboration
Dimension#3: Digital Content Creation
Dimension#4: Digital/Online Safety
Dimension#5: Digital Problem Solving
Dimension#6: Digital Creativity and Innovation
Discussion
Limitations
Recommendations for Social Work Education and Practice
Conclusion
References
36. Participatory Evaluation in Social Organisations Dealing with Emergency Situations: A Digital Social Work Perspective
Introduction
Methodology
Participants
Research Method
Procedure
Data Analysis
Results
Types of Participatory Evaluations Performed by the Organisations
Conducting Participatory Evaluations: In-house Capacity and Outsourcing
Staff Involved in or Responsible for Evaluations
Demand in Participatory Evaluation Training
References
37. Digital Social Work in Ordinary and Extraordinary Times: The Italian Experience
Introduction
Digitalization Processes Before the Pandemic
Suddenly Digital: Transformations in Social Work Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Digital Competencies and Social Work Education
Conclusion: The (Possible) Future of e-Social Work in Italy
Note
References
38. Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme: Conditional Cash Transfer in Colombia
Introduction
Theoretical Framework
Social and Digital Innovation in Digital Work
Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes
Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Colombia: Familias en Acción
Familias en Acción During the Covid-19 Pandemic
Research Study Method and Design
Evidence from Professionals: Social Workers' Role in Colombian CCT Programs
General Skill and Competency Requirements
Social Workers' Digital Skills
Social Innovation and the Role of Social Work
Social Workers' Digital Training for Social Intervention
Conclusion
References
Part 6: Digital Social Work: Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations
39. 'Harness Technology for Social Good': A Grand Challenge for Social Work
Introduction
What is a Grand Challenge?
The Social Work Grand Challenges
Harness Technology for Social Good
Policy Recommendations
Harnessing Technology Grand Challenge Today
What Changed in the First Five Years?
Challenges to the Technology Grand Challenge Leadership
Implications
The Future of the Grand Challenge to Harness Technology for Social Good
References
40. Digital Social Work: Support at Your Fingertips
Introduction
Methods
Overview
Inclusion Criteria
Search Process
Data Extraction
Summary and Reporting
Results
Social Work Involvement
Behavioral Health
Depression and Suicidality
Anxiety Disorders
Trauma
Substance Use
Schizophrenia
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Mental Wellbeing and Coping
Physical Health
Health Conditions and Chronic Diseases
Sexual Health
Physical Activity
Child and Family Safety and Wellbeing
Domestic Abuse and Dating Violence
Homelessness
Parenting
Discussion
References
41. Digital People Production in Social Work
Introduction
Commensuration, People Production and the Logic of Standards
Client Representation in Digital Social Work
Results
Commensuration-in-interaction
Calculated Life Areas
Digital Clients at-a-distance are Produced
The Computer as a Storyteller
Conclusion
References
42. The Future of Digital Social Work: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities
Index

Citation preview

This book is divided into six sections: Part 1 Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society Part 2 Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society Part 3 Digital Social Work in Practice Part 4 The Ethics of Digital Social Work Part 5 Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions: Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases Part 6 Digital Social Work: Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations This book, comprised of 40 specially commissioned chapters, explores the main intersections between social work theory and practice in an increasingly digitized world. Bringing a critical focus to how social work as a profession is adapting exponentially to embrace the benefits of technology, it gives specific consideration to the digitalization of the social work profession, including the ways in which social workers are using different forms of technology to provide effective services and innovative practice responses. With chapters on big data, digital archiving, e-citizenship and inclusion, gerontechnology, children and technology, smart cities and data ethics, this book will be of interest to all social work scholars, students and professionals as well as those working in science and technology studies more broadly. Antonio López Peláez is Professor of Social Work and Social Services at UNED, Spain, and Executive Director of the International Council on Social Welfare (www.icsw.org). He is Director of the Social Work Series, published by Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. Gloria Kirwan is a Senior Lecturer in the Graduate School of Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. She is currentlty the co-editor of the Journal of Social Work Practice (Taylor & Francis), editor of the journal Groupwork (Whiting & Birch), and editor of the Irish Social Worker, the journal of the Irish Association of Social Workers. SOCIAL WORK / SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

ISBN 978-0-367-49994-5 www.routledge.com

9 780367 499945

Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats

The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work

This handbook provides an authoritative and cutting-edge overview of current research and trends related to the emerging field of digital technology and social work.

Edited by Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

“Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan have compiled the most comprehensive coverage to date of the methods, applications and ethical challenges of digital social work. This informative and thought-provoking volume is a tremendous contribution to the emerging medium of professional practice in the realm of digital technology -- an invaluable reference to everyone interested in this area”. Neil Gilbert, Milton and Gertrude Chernin Chair in Social Welfare, Distinguished Professor of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley

The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work Edited by Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

“This ground-breaking volume provides relevant information on the various characteristics of Digital Social Work, the areas of action, the methodologies that are applied, and the good practices that are already part of this specific field of specialization within social work. It is a fundamental book that can be considered a cornerstone in a quite new area that has been enhanced by the needs and the physical isolation derived by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this publication, academics, researchers, students, professionals and policy makers can find important knowledge and sug­ gestions to develop new strategies and innovative approaches for social work and social services.” Annamaria Campanini, PhD, President of International Association of Schools of Social Work, retired Professor of Social Work at Bicocca University (Italy) “The COVID19 accelerated the digital transformation in the field of social work, changing the very nature of social work professional practices, intervention strategies, and policy design. This timely book offers insightful reflections on the implications of digitalization in the field of social work, critically examining the potential benefits and challenges of using digital technologies in diverse social work arenas. It effectively articulates the significance of digital transformation, providing in-depth analysis of the various aspects of Digital Social Work.” Sang-Mok Suh, President, International Council on Social Welfare(ICSW) “Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan have compiled the most comprehensive coverage to date of the methods, applications and ethical challenges of digital social work. This informative and thought-provoking volume is a tremendous contribution to the emerging medium of pro­ fessional practice in the realm of digital technology – an invaluable refer­ ence to everyone interested in this area.” Neil Gilbert, Milton and Gertrude Chernin Chair in Social Welfare, Distinguished Professor of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley “Digital social work is a remarkable milestone in the development of social work practice in our contemporary society. By using the information and communication technology (ICT), social work practice goes beyond the geographic community and cultural contexts. This attempt expands the possibilities and options of social work practice, not only in policy, research, and education, but also in direct practice with interactive ele­ ments. This Handbook serves more than a guidebook. In fact, it is a brilliant collection of the ideas, ideals, and initiatives of the pioneers in defining and discovering the changes and challenges in front of social workers in different parts of the world. The pandemic of COVID-19 has

been a trauma to all of us, however, it also provides a golden opportunity to develop digital social work to connect different people in difficulties. Chapters in this inspiring book do not only provide useful information, but also valuable insights for us to reflect…” Ming-sum Tsui, Co-Chief Editor, International Social Work Journal and Felizberta Lo Padilla Tong Dean of Social Sciences, Caritas Institute of Higher Education, Hong Kong “The COVID19 pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of everyday life and professional spheres. Accelerating virtualization, online work, and the incorporation of new technologies has deepened social exclusion, but it has also introduced new ways for social inclusion. How to reach and intervene in people living in both the physical and digital worlds? How to keep up with the digitization of social welfare institutions? Users and professionals are demanding specific training in digital skills. This handbook offers the most timely information on digital social work, ranges and opportunities of digitalization, new methods and tools such as PhotoVoice, new ways to bring together social work, digital net­ works and new social movements, and new ethical issues in digital social work. It provides vast and timely knowledge in 40 chapters, authored individually or in teams by over 70 contributors across 17 countries. Read it, if you want to catch the latest information about digital social work on intervention projects, the design of public policies, the reorganization of interactions between the administration and users in the field of social services, or the evaluation of the programs that are carried out, incorpo­ rating the analysis of users’ opinions, and designing intervention strategies in social networks, including the metaverse.” Reyhan Atasü-Topcuoğlu, Professor of Social Work, Hacettepe University, Department of Social Work, Ankara (Turkey) “There is an urgent need for this impressive volume. What will become clear to the reader is that the digital space is not about removing ourselves from contact with service users, but about trying to get closer to the spaces where people now interact and communicate. The chapters in this book help to enhance, not diminish, our core social work values.” Mark Doel, Emeritus Professor, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom “Digitalisation in social work and social services is a constantly evolving matter. The International Handbook of Digital Social Work comes at a time when this theme has become more critical than ever as we emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic. We have witnessed increased vulnerabilities and emerging social needs alongside demographic ageing, which mean that there is a need to refocus social services and modernise them through the use of innovation and technology.

Combining theory and practice, this volume provides stimulating reading in advancing the understanding of innovation in social services through technology; the use of assistive technology and robotics in sup­ porting social inclusion, accessibility, and autonomy; or data improvement and management to support professionals working in the sector. A highly recommended reading to continue progressing the use of technology and digitalisation in the improvement of social services.” Alfonso Lara-Montero, Chief Executive Officer, European Social Network “This is a timely and deeply comprehensive handbook that captures both the current and future role of technology in the field of social work. The handbook brings together 70 top scholars from over 17 countries bringing an exceptional mix of perspectives and contexts to the exciting field of digital social work. The outstanding volume includes chapters ranging from the role of digital social work in communities, organiza­ tions, education, research, clinical practice, and more. The handbook concludes with exceptionally thoughtful contributions related to the ethics and the future of digitization in social work. This handbook is destined to become a “must have” resource for social work practitioners, researchers and educators.” Joseph Himle, Howard V. Brabson Collegiate Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work and Department of Psychiatry

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK

This handbook provides an authoritative and cutting-edge overview of current research and trends related to the emerging field of digital technology and social work. This book is divided into six sections: Part Part Part Part Part

1 Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society 2 Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society 3 Digital Social Work in Practice 4 The Ethics of Digital Social Work 5 Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions: Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases Part 6 Digital Social Work: Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations This book, comprised of 40 specially commissioned chapters, explores the main intersections between social work theory and practice in an increasingly digitized world. Bringing a critical focus to how social work as a profession is adapting exponentially to embrace the benefits of technology, it gives specific consideration to the digitalization of the social work profession, including the ways in which social workers are using different forms of technology to provide effective services and innovative practice responses. With chapters on big data, digital archiving, e-citizenship and inclusion, gerontechnology, children and technology, and data ethics, this book will be of interest to all social work scholars, students and professionals as well as those working in science and technology studies more broadly. Antonio López Peláez is Professor of Social Work and Social Services at UNED, Spain, and Executive Director of the International Council on Social Welfare (www.icsw.org). He is Director of the Social Work Series, published by Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. Gloria Kirwan is a Senior Lecturer in the Graduate School of Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. She is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Social Work Practice (Taylor & Francis), editor of the journal Groupwork (Whiting & Birch), and editor of the Irish Social Worker, the journal of the Irish Association of Social Workers.

ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOKS

The Routledge International Handbook of New Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Edited by Rikke Andreassen, Catrin Lundström, Suvi Keskinen, Shirley Anne Tate Routledge Handbook of Asian Parliaments Edited by Po Jen Yap and Rehan Abeyratne The Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights and Disability Edited by Angharad E. Beckett and Anne-Marie Callus Routledge Handbook of Macroeconomic Methodology Edited by Jesper Jespersen, Victoria Chick and Bert Tieben The Routledge Handbook of Digital Social Work Edited by Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK

Edited by Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

Cover image: © Getty Images First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Names: López Peláez, Antonio, 1965- editor. | Kirwan, Gloria, editor. Title: The Routledge handbook of digital social work / edited by Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan. Description: 1 Edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge international handbooks | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022055665 (print) | LCCN 2022055666 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367499945 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367499921 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003048459 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Social work education‐‐Technological innovations. | Social service‐‐Technological innovations. Classification: LCC HV11 .R6648 2023 (print) | LCC HV11 (ebook) | DDC 361.3/2‐‐dc23/eng/20221116 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022055665 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022055666 ISBN: 978-0-367-49994-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-49992-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-04845-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459 Typeset in Bembo by MPS Limited, Dehradun

CONTENTS

List of Figures List of Tables List of Contributors

xv xvii xix

1 Introduction: Digital Social Work – Reshaping Social Work Practice in the 21st Century Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

1

PART 1

Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society 2 Digital Social Work: The Opportunity of Digitalisation. A Meta-Analysis Antonio López-Peláez, Amaya Erro-Garcés, and Raquel Pérez García 3 Social Work: Information and Communication Technologies – Development and Innovation Jorge M. L. Ferreira 4 Photovoice in the Time of Digital Social Work Eduardo Marques, José Luis Fernández-Pacheco Sáez, and Mieko Yoshihama

ix

11

13

26

36

Contents

5 Networked Relationships: Relationship-Based Social Work Practice in the Digital Era Gloria Kirwan 6 Technology Tools for Convivial Communities Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne 7 Collective Social Work and Social Movements in the Digital Age Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez

46

57

68

PART 2

Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society 8 Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work: A Second Order Approach Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós 9 Big Social Data and Social Networking Sites: Opportunities for Social Work Research and Practice Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

79

81

94

10 Analysis of Citizen Interactions on Twitter about Social Services and COVID-19 Alfonso Chaves-Montero

111

11 Viral Artifacts: Social Work Responses to COVID-19 Through YouTube as Archive Tara La Rose

121

12 Superdiversity and Digital Social Work Pablo Álvarez-Pérez 13 Social Work Research: Digitising the Critical Incident Technique for the 21st Century Using Audio Diaries Niamh Flanagan

x

137

151

Contents

14 Digital Social Group Work: Evolution, State of the Art and a Renewed Research Agenda Andrés Arias Astray, David Alonso González, Linda Vanina Ducca Cisneros, and Juan Brea Iglesias

165

PART 3

Digital Social Work in Practice

179

PART 3A

Digital Social Work with Client Groups

181

15 Assistive Technologies, Robotics and Gerontological Social Work Practice Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly

183

16 Digital Technology in Statutory Children’s Services Thomas Mackrill

196

17 The Digitization of Social Work with Vulnerable Children and Older People in the Czech Republic: A Challenge for the Future Soňa Kalenda, Ivana Kowaliková, Alice Gojová, Adéla Recmanová, and Alena Vysloužilová

206

18 Digital Social Work and Disability Services Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles, María del Carmen Martín Cano, and Enrique García Cortés

219

19 The Use of Facebook in Social Work Practice with Families: Safeguarding or Surveillance? Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner

230

20 Technology and Children: A Role for Social Work? Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin

240

xi

Contents PART 3B

Digital Social Work Methods

251

21 Digital Storytelling in Social Work Chitat Chan

253

22 The Interface Between Technology and Domestic Violence and Abuse: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Work Practice Stephanie Holt, Lynne Cahill, and Ruth Elliffe 23 The Acceleration of the Implementation of Tele-Social Work as a Complementary Intervention Formula: Teleworking, Remote Assistance and Online Home Visiting Joaquín Castillo de Mesa 24 Technology Bridges Community Social Work and Older People Care in Japan Ayako Sasaki and Kana Matsuo 25 Social Innovation and Technology for Social Work: A Training and Implementation Experience in Santiago de Chile Andrés Aparicio and Paula Miranda Sánchez 26 The Pandemic of Undesired Loneliness: New Strategies from Digital Social Work Rafael Acebes Valentín, María Dolores Muñoz de Dios, and Silvia Vázquez González 27 Social Work Education and Digitalisation: The Classroom in Transition Julie Byrne 28 Reflections on Emergency Remote Online Teaching and Learning Group Work Education During COVID-19: South Africa Roshini Pillay

xii

263

276

285

295

304

314

325

Contents PART 4

The Ethics of Digital Social Work

339

29 Information and Communications Technology in Social Work: Ethical and Risk Management Issues Frederic G. Reamer

341

30 Privacy and ‘Big Data’ in Social Work Research: A Risk-based Approach Beth Coulthard

356

31 Artificial Intelligence and Social Work: Contributions to an Ethical Artificial Intelligence at the Service of People Esther Raya Diez

368

32 Ethics and Technology in Emergency Situations Allan Edward Barsky 33 Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age: Surveillance, Privacy and Professional Boundaries in Social Work Practice Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne

382

393

PART 5

Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions: Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases

405

34 Using Technologies as Allies in Social Work: The Chilean Experience of Reconectando Jorge Farah Ojeda and Sofía Cillero Fuenzalida

407

35 Integrating Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies: A Comparative Example between USA and Spain Domingo Carbonero Muñoz, Mioara Diaconu, and Laura Racovita

420

36 Participatory Evaluation in Social Organisations Dealing with Emergency Situations: A Digital Social Work Perspective Ángel De-Juanas, Francisco Javier García-Castilla, and Raquel Pelta xiii

443

Contents

37 Digital Social Work in Ordinary and Extraordinary Times: The Italian Experience Roberta T. Di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici

454

38 Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme: Conditional Cash Transfer in Colombia César Sánchez-Álvarez

464

PART 6

Digital Social Work: Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations 39 ‘Harness Technology for SociaL Good’: A Grand Challenge for Social Work Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

477

479

40 Digital Social Work: Support at Your Fingertips Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

491

41 Digital People Production in Social Work Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed

505

42 The Future of Digital Social Work: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

516

Index

518

xiv

FIGURES

2.1 Evolution of publications on digital social work or e-social work for the period 2006–2020 by percentage (N = 108) 2.2 Knowledge clusters of most cited publications (I) 2.3 Knowledge clusters of most cited publications (II) 2.4 Knowledge clusters of most cited publications (III) 6.1 Mapping your data self 8.1 Digital societies basis 8.2 Digital social work basics 8.3 COVID-19 effects on digital social work 9.1 Communities of interaction between social workers on LinkedIn. Example 1 9.2 Communities of interaction between social workers on LinkedIn. Example 2 9.3 Communities between users of social services based on connectivity on Facebook 9.4 Communities between users based on interaction on Facebook 9.5 Communities between social work colleges based on connectivity on Twitter 9.6 Communities between social work colleges based on interaction on Twitter 9.7 Interaction communities and communities detected around #LondonAttack on Twitter 9.8 Communities of interaction and social support and resilience initiatives around #mequedoencasa and #quédateencasa on Twitter 9.9 Communities of interaction and communities detected around #metoo on Twitter

xv

16 18 19 20 62 85 86 87 97 98 99 99 100 101 102

103 104

Figures

9.10 Interaction communities detected around #Chiledespertó on Twitter 9.11 Example of community interaction detected around the migratory crisis #openarms on Twitter 10.1 Evolution of the volume of tweets during confinement in Spain 12.1 Superdiversity dimensions 12.2 An integrated model of superdiversity and digital technology within social work intervention levels 13.1 The stages of the research strategy 13.2 Augmented diary entry: Original diary interwoven with CIT interview 14.1 Papers on online social group work per year of publication in SWA and SSA 14.2 Most productive authors on online social group work in SWA and SSA 14.3 Type of papers on online group work categorized according to their methodological orientation 14.4 Problems and needs referred to in papers on digital social group work in SWA and SSA 14.5 Type of groups referred to in the articles on online groups collected in the SSA and SWA databases 14.6 Terms most frequently used to refer to technology-mediated groups in articles collected in SSA and SWA 17.1 Relationship between the mutual interaction of the digital and social exclusions 28.1 Requirements for the group assignment 34.1 Management system 36.1 Participatory evaluations outsourced by organisations 36.2 Entity staff involved in or responsible for evaluations

xvi

105 106 116 140 143 154 162 168 171 171 172 173 174 207 329 413 448 448

TABLES

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 14.1 15.1 17.1 17.2 19.1 31.1 34.1 34.2 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.4 35.5 35.6 35.7

Publications by type of research (N = 108) Papers by country Publications by journal Most cited publications Digital tools in social intervention Number of papers on online social group work per Journal (N > 2) Three types of care robots Factors influencing the digital exclusion of vulnerable children Factors influencing the digital exclusion of older people Ethical use of social media: some broad principles Principles of reliable AI and principles of social work Number of sessions of care per patient Services provided during the sessions Description of each subsample Dimension#1: Comparison between Digital Information and Data Literacy in the Spanish and US subsamples Dimension#2: Comparison between digital communication in the Spanish and US subsamples Dimension#2: Comparison between digital collaboration in the Spanish and US subsamples Dimension#3: Comparison between digital content creation in the Spanish and US subsamples Dimension#4: Comparison between digital/online safety in the Spanish and US subsamples Dimension#5: Comparison between digital problem solving in the Spanish and US subsamples

xvii

15 17 17 18 32 170 186 215 216 234 371 411 412 425 426 429 431 433 434 435

Tables

35.8 Dimension#6: Comparison between digital creativity and innovation in the Spanish and US subsamples (additional dimension) 36.1 Types of participatory evaluations performed by social organisations 36.2 Demands in participatory evaluation training 36.3 Use of digital tools for social work in emergency situations

xviii

437 447 449 450

CONTRIBUTORS

Rafael Acebes Valentín is an Associate Professor of Social Work (part-time), National University of Distance Education – Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain. He is also the Coordinator of Civic Centres in the city of Segovia, Spain. His research interests include teaching innovation, including the teaching challenges of digitisation and public and social participation; interdisciplinary practice and education. ORCID: 0000-0002-7988-4552 Adrian Aguilera is an Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare; Digital Health Equity and Access Lab (dHEAL). His research interests include mobile technology (mHealth) and mental health, digital health, Latino and minority mental health, health disparities, cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression, machine learning, user-centered design and implementation science. ORCID: 0000-0003-1773-8768 Patricia Eugenia Almaguer-Kalixto is an Assistant Professor in the area of Social Work and Social Services at the University of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. She currently chairs the Research Committee on Socio-Cybernetics (RC51) of the International Sociological Association and directs the ODS Rural Labs project (Laboratories of social innovation for rural areas). Her research and intervention prioritise an interdisciplinary perspective and are developed along four themes: (1) foresight and systemic change, (2) local and community development, (3) technology and social change and (4) policies for sustainable development, in particular the 2030 agenda. In her work, she integrates the systemic perspective to address issues such as social and institutional innovation, socio-community integration and policy design with a participatory approach. ORCID: 0000-0002-0770-214X

xix

Contributors

David Alonso González is an Associate Professor, Department of Social Work and Social Services, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. He is a member of the Research Group ‘Psychosocial Factors and Social Intervention’ (Complutense University), the Institute of Knowledge Technologies (UCM-ITC) and GESED (Social and Educational Gerontology – University of Castilla La Mancha). His research interests include social innovation and social work, technology and social work, social work with groups, international social work, online pedagogy, active ageing and social and educational gerontology. ORCID: 0000-0002-8876-8916 Pablo Álvarez-Pérez is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Masters in Social Work Program, Department of Political Science and Public Policy, School of Sociology and Public Policy, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal. His areas of interest are linked to immigration (interculturalism, superdiversity, mixed couples and cultural heritage in children), social services, community development, human rights and digital social work. ORCID: 0000-0003-2550-788X Andrés Aparicio is an Associate Researcher at Millennium Institute for Care Research, Chile. His research interests include body diversity and the epistemology of practice, their relationship to technology as process and artifact, and their application to care and social inclusion. ORCID: 0000-0002-0770-214X Andrés Arias Astray is a Professor of Social Work, Department of Social Work and Social Services, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. He is a member of the Research Group ‘Psychosocial Factors and Social Intervention’ (Complutense University) and the Institute of Knowledge Technologies (UCM-ITC). His research interests are diverse, with a current focus on the following: epistemology of social work; social work with groups, especially with online groups; digital inclusion; gender violence; and factors in the detection and assessment of cases of child sexual abuse by the professionals in child welfare systems. ORCID: 0000-0001-8614-0714 Neil Ballantyne is a Principal Lecturer in Social Work at Te Pūkenga – New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, Aotearoa New Zealand. His research interests include the datafication of social welfare, the effects of automated decision-making and the rise of the international movement for data justice. ORCID: 0000-0002-3598-5319 Allan Edward Barsky is Professor of Social Work, Sandler School of Social Work, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Dr. Barsky chaired the National Association of Social Worker’s “Code of Ethics Review Committee” (2016–2017) and was presented with NASW’s “Excellence in Ethics Award” (2015). His teaching and research interests include social work practice theory and skill development, pedagogy, conflict resolution, professional ethics and people affected by substance use disorders. ORCID: 0000-0003-4768-0712 Liz Beddoe is Professor of Social Work, School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work, Te Kura Tauwhiro Tangata, Faculty of Education and Social xx

Contributors

Work, University Auckland, New Zealand. Her research interests include critical perspectives on social work education and supervision, social work professional identity, student hardship in social work education, and the experiences of migrant social workers. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7953-7369 Juan Brea Iglesias is currently a pre-doctoral researcher in the Department of Social Work and Social Services, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. He is a member of the Research Group ‘Psychosocial Factors and Social Intervention’ (Complutense University). His research interests include social work with groups, social work with communities, mental health and activism. ORCID: 0000-0003-4292-5389 Julie Byrne is Assistant Professor in Online Education and Development, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Her research interests include Europe’s digital skills; technology in human services; digital competencies for educators and the history of technology in social work. ORCID: 0000-0002-5913-1158 Lynne Cahill is an Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Her research interests include domestic violence (DV), with a particular focus on the experience of DV in same-sex relationships, and within disability contexts, and more recently, the experience of homelessness. ORCID: 0000-0003-3745-6450 Joaquín Castillo de Mesa is an Associate Professor, Department of Social Psychology, Social Work, Social Anthropology and East Asian Studies, University of Málaga, Spain. His research interests focus on digital social work to create new ways of social analysis and intervention. He mainly uses Big Data and different methods such as social network analysis, netnography and different algorithms to identify influence, power and leadership and to detect communities around social work practice, to analyse social movements, and to attend social emergencies. ORCID: 0000-0001-5022-6794 Domingo Carbonero Muñoz is an Associate Professor of Social Work, Department of Law, La Rioja University, Spain. His research areas of interest include human rights, methodology on research, digital competencies, social exclusion and social policy. ORCID: 0000-0002-6978-1867 Chitat Chan is an Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong. He researches the use of information and communication technology for social work practice, particularly narrative-based practices. ORCID: 0000-0003-4674-9597 Alfonso Chaves-Montero is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, Social Work and Public Health, Faculty of Social Work and COIDESO Research xxi

Contributors

Centre, Contemporary Thought and Innovation for Social Development, University of Huelva, Spain. His research interests include social work, social services, social network analysis, political communication, political sociology, information and communication technology (ICT). ORCID: 0000-0001-5861-3414 Sofía Cillero Fuenzalida is a Social Work Academic, School of Social Work, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. She is Executive Coordinator of IIRD (Instituto Iberoamericano de Reducción de Daños). Her research interests include social work practice and development, contemporary social issues, harm reduction, evaluation of social interventions and social management of programs. ORCID: 0000-0001-7774-8680 Tarsem Singh Cooner is an Associate Professor of Social Work and Director of Social Work Programmes, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. His research interests include ethics in the use of digital media in social work education and practice, and also, using immersive digital media and learning designs to develop social work practice in relationship-based child protection practices. ORCID: 0000-0003-4950-8844 Beth Coulthard is a Research Associate, Ulster University, Northern Ireland. Throughout her career, she has focused on risk, evidence and information systems. Her doctorate examined the factors influencing outcomes for children involved in care proceedings throughout England. The project used ‘big data’ methods, including data linkage and natural language processing. ORCID: 0000-00019395-9031 Ángel De-Juanas is an Associate Professor, National University of Distance Education – Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain. His research interests include social pedagogy, socio-educational intervention with vulnerable groups, humanist leisure in youth and intervention in humanitarian emergency situations. ORCID: 0000-0003-0103-7860 Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles is Professor of Social Work and Social Services, University of Jaén, Spain. She is an International Consultant of the World Bank, expert in Universal Accessibility and Design for All People, Director of the Research Group “Gender, Dependence and Social Exclusion”, and Coordinator of the Official Master’s Degree in Dependency and Equality in Personal Autonomy from the University of Jaén and the Masters in Accessibility for SmartCity, the global city. ORCID: 0000-0002-2643-0100 Roberta T. Di Rosa is Professor of Sociology of Migration and International Social Work at the University of Palermo, Department of Culture and Societies; Scientific Responsible UNIPA for Global Answer H2020-MSCA-RISE-2019; Board of Italian Sociological Association (AIS) and Italian Society of Social Work (SOCISS). She is currently engaged in national and international research programs on international social work, intercultural community development and social integration of migrants; xxii

Contributors

emergency social work and peace building; digital competences and ethics. ORCID: 000-0002-6062-8559 Mioara Diaconu is an Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA. Dr. Diaconu’s research, teaching and practice areas of interest and expertise include education, emergency management and crisis intervention, forced and volunteer migration, global community development and sustainability, and project cycle management (e.g. needs assessment, programing, evaluation). ORCID: 0000-0002-3396-4813 Sarah Donnelly is an Assistant Professor in Social Work, School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, University College Dublin, Ireland. She is coconvenor of the European Network for Gerontological Social Work (ENGSW), and her research interests include ageing and dementia, adult safeguarding and capacity and decision-making. ORCID: 0000-0002-5436-3195 Linda Vanina Ducca Cisneros is an Associate Professor of Social Work, Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), Spain, and a member of the Research Group on Psychosocial Factors and Social Intervention (UCM). Her research interests include youth, adolescence, social work with groups, and art in social work intervention. ORCID: 0000-0002-5501-1191 Ruth Elliffe is an Assistant Professor in Social Work, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Her research interests are located in the field of domestic violence, in particular the experiences of children and young people living with domestic violence and the meaningful inclusion of children in research, policy and practice. ORCID: 0000-0002-7223-1399 Amaya Erro-Garcés is an Associate Professor, Public University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain. Her research interests include digitalisation, teleworking and management. ORCID: 0000-0002-1858-1363 Jorge Farah Ojeda is a Social Work Academic, School of Social Work, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. His research interests include organisational processes in public and private institutions, quality of social services and evaluation of social interventions and social management. ORCID: 00000002-0198-9274 José Luis Fernández-Pacheco Sáez is an Assistant Professor, Department of Business Management and Sociology, University of Extremadura, Spain. His research interests include community local development, sustainability, social and solidarity economy, socio-ecological transition and participatory-action research. ORCID: 0000-0001-9855-5060

xxiii

Contributors

Jorge M. L. Ferreira is an Associate Professor, Director of the Bachelor of Social Work, and Sub-Director Department of Political Science and Public Policy, ISCTE – Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal. His areas of research include Theoretical Investigation (epistemology, theory of social work and interdisciplinary knowledge) and Applied Research (social work practice and social policies related to institutional, community, family and vulnerable adults in the social protection system contexts), Social Sustainability, and Education. ORCID: 0000-0003-4835-242X Niamh Flanagan is an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Director of Social Policy Programmes in the Department of Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Co. Kildare, Ireland. Her research interests include child and family studies, child trafficking, gender based abuse, information behaviour and learning on professional placement. She has a particular interest in creative research methodologies which respond to the unique characteristics of research participants. ORCID: 0000-0003-1431-7132 Francisco Javier García Castilla is an Associate Professor, National University of Distance Education – Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain. His research interests include social work and social services; adolescence and risk; socio-educational interventions with vulnerable groups; and intervention in humanitarian emergency situations. ORCID: 0000-0003-3040-640X Enrique García Cortés is a Technician in the Accessible Technologies Department of Accessibility and Innovation, ONCE Foundation; He is also a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Jaen, Spain. Apart from working day to day with emerging technologies, he also works on the normalisation and visibility of disability. ORCID: 0000-0003-2817-7070 Alice Gojová is a Researcher at the Faculty of Science, and Associate Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Her specific research interests include social work interventions and social exclusion. ORCID: 0000-0003-0656-6278 Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez is an Associate Professor, Department of Social Work and Social Services, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain. Her research interests include social movements, collective action, citizen participation, collective resilience, public policies, and social work with communities and groups. ORCID: 0000-0002-7960-3765 Stephanie Holt is an Associate Professor of Social Work, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Her research expertise focuses mainly on domestic violence, with a particular emphasis on the impact of domestic violence on children and young people, and on engaging children in research with the objective of informing best practice. ORCID: 0000-00018510-9109

xxiv

Contributors

Soňa Kalenda is a Researcher at the Faculty of Science, and a Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Her specific research interests include social work digitalisation, positions of social workers in social services, and the quality of social services and their transformation; primarily with regard to children at risk, older people and persons with disabilities. ORCID 0000-0002-3147-0457 Gloria Kirwan is a Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland; Adjunct Associate Professor, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland; and Adjunct Assistant Professor in Social Work, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Her research interests include digital social work, mental health social work, participation and social inclusion, social work with groups, social work education and professional development. ORCID: 0000-0002-5663-1325 Naonori Kodate is an Associate Professor in Social Policy and Social Robotics, University College Dublin, Ireland, and the founding Director of the UCD Centre for Japanese Studies. He is affiliated with the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe. His research interests include comparative public policy, patient safety, and science, technology and society. ORCID: 0000-0002-6480-7327 Ivana Kowaliková is a Researcher at the Faculty of Science, and an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Her research interests focus on the implementation of social innovation and new technologies in social work and gerontechnology in social work. ORCID: 0000-0002-4295-0579 Tara La Rose is Chair of the McMaster Research Ethics Board and an Associate Professor, School of Social Work, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Her research focuses on the use of digital media in social work, emphasising professional critique, critical reflexivity and knowledge sharing. Her work engages multi-modal analysis, narrative analysis and discourse analysis within critical perspectives such as post-structuralism, post-colonialism, feminist and queer theories. ORCID: 0000-0002-6301-6726 Walter LaMendola is Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Social Work (GSSW), University of Denver, Colorado, USA. His research interests encompass information and communication technology interactions with sociality and forms of relationality, with a goal to contribute to the improvement of social justice, equity, human presence, sustainability and conviviality. ORCID: 0000-0002-0970-6777 Antonio López Peláez is Professor of Social Work and Social Services, Department of Social Work, National University of Distance Education (UNED), Madrid, Spain, and Executive Director of the International Council on Social Welfare (www.icsw.org). He currently holds the position of Chair in Innovation in Social Services and Dependency (UNED-city of Fuenlabrada-Spanish State Association of Directors and Managers of xxv

Contributors

Social Services) and Chair in Social Inclusion (UNED-city of Tomelloso-Spanish State Association of Directors and Managers of Social Services). He is Director of the Social Work Series, published by Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. His research interests cover social welfare, social problems, social intervention and digital social work. ORCID: 0000-0003-0908-4821 Tiffany C. Luo is currently a PhD Student in the School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, USA. ORCID: 0000-0003-4461-8585 Thomas Mackrill is a Researcher at the Danish National Center for Grief, Denmark. His research has focused on counselling, statutory social work and the interface between the two. Drawing on a wide range of research methods, he has researched topics such as outcome monitoring, the use of digital technologies, client agency and families with alcohol problems. ORCID: 0000-0003-0838-6596 Chaime Marcuello-Servós is Professor of Social Work and Social Services, Department of Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, Spain. He coordinates the Interdisciplinary Group of Teaching Innovation and he is a researcher of the Group of Social and Economic Studies of the Third Sector. He was Chair of the Committee on Sociocybernetics (2014-2018) of the International Sociological Association ISA, and co-director and co-founder of the Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios de Desarrollo. He is a Fellow of the Cybernetics Society (UK) and a member of the advisory board since 2020. He is also Chair of the Aragonese Chapter of the Internet Society. His research interests include digital social work, social economy, complex social problems (violence, femicide, water, development cooperation) and social impact assessment. ORCID: 0000-0002-0187-2754 Eduardo Marques is an Assistant Professor, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Azores, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel, Portugal. His research interests include digital social work; ecosocial work; community work, disaster social work and community arts. ORCID: 0000-0001-9697-3381 María del Carmen Martín Cano is an Associate Professor of Social Work and Social Services, Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, Spain. Her research interests include universal accessibility and design for all people, dependence and equality in personal autonomy (associated with ageing and disability), and technology of information and communication. ORCID: 0000-0001-9294-9640 Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed is a Lecturer at the School of Social Work, Lund University, Sweden. With a degree in Social Work, earned in the 1970s, and another in Journalism, earned in the 1980s, social work has been the centre of her research, first in practice, then in academic settings. In November 2008, she defended her PhD dissertation, Adoption Stories, a constructionist and narrative study, at Lund University. Her later work explores standardisation and digitalisation and the consequences for social work. ORCID: 0000-0002-6054-2317 xxvi

Contributors

Kana Matsuo is a Senior Researcher/Associate Professor, Asian Research Institute for International Social Work, Shukutoku University, Chiba, Japan. Her research interests include international social work and social work education. Paula Miranda Sánchez is an Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Sciences, Pontificia Universidad Católica, Santiago, Chile and a Senior Researcher, Millennium Institute for Care Research, Chile. Her research interests include digital social work, informal and formal caregiving of dependent older people, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and social work in social services. ORCID: 0000-0001-7218-6092 María Dolores Muñoz de Dios is an Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Jaén, Spain. Her research interests include universal accessibility and design for all, disability, smart cities and social inclusion ORCID: 0000-00019624-7910 Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin is a Lecturer in Social Work, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Ireland. His research interests have centred on sexual behaviours, GLBTQI issues and investigative interviewing practices in the context of child protection and welfare. ORCID: 0000-0001-8908-1633 Enrique Pastor Seller is a Professor of Social Work and Social Services, Department of Social Work and Social Services, University of Murcia, Spain. His research interests include social work with communities, community social services and social policies, and Citizen Participation at the local level. ORCID: 0000-00018693-5138 Raquel Pelta is an Associate Professor at the University of Barcelona (Faculty of Fine Arts), Spain. Her research interests include social design, co-design in social work, social group work and participatory evaluation in humanitarian aid projects. ORCID: 0000-0001-6146-3795 Raquel Pérez García is a part-time Associate Professor, National University of Distance Education – Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain. Her research interests include digitalisation, social welfare and public health. Roshini Pillay is a Senior Lecturer, Department of Social Work, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg-Braamfontein, South Africa. She is a teacher and a practitioner first. Roshini is curious and knows that learning occurs through pedagogies of discomfort, activity, cognition and affect. She enjoys exploring ways to decolonise the curriculum using blended learning in course design. Her research interests include teaching with technology, social work education and occupational social work. ORCID: 0000-0002-6873-1040

xxvii

Contributors

Laura Racovita is Professor of Social Work and Dean of the School of Social Work, Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, TN, USA. Her research areas of interest include non-profit management, social work ethics, program development and evaluation, culturally competent online and hybrid education, trauma, crisis intervention and emergency response. ORCID: 00000002-7710-1147 Esther Raya Diez is Professor of Social Work and Social Services, University of La Rioja (Universidad de La Rioja), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain. Her research interests include social policy, social inclusion, tools for intervention, social indicators and human rights, and digital social work. ORCID: 0000-0002-8688-5676 Frederic G. Reamer is a Professor, School of Social Work, Rhode Island College, Providence, USA. His research areas of interest include social welfare policy, social work research and evaluation, human behaviour, criminal justice, professional and social work ethics. ORCID: 0000-0001-6324-7623 Adéla Recmanová graduated with a PhD from the Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava. Czech Republic. Her specific research interests include the process of digitisation of social work as well as community work. Melanie Sage, PhD, MSW, is a User Experience Researcher with expertise in technology equity, fairness and digital resilience. She focuses her work on improving technology for marginalised and historically underserved communities. ORCID: 0000-0002-3385-9650 César Sánchez-Álvarez is an Assistant Professor, Department of Psycology and Sociology, Faculty of Social and Labor Sciences, University of Zaragoza, Spain. His areas of research expertise are related to Social Economy and Public Policy, Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, Poverty and Development Studies, Social Work, Conflict and Socioeconomic Development, Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship. His current work focuses on the application of social and solidarity economy to rural and urban development policies, social innovation and communitarian entrepreneurship in fragile ecosystems. His research agenda aims to produce evidence for public policy decisions and local participation. ORCID: 0000-0001-8274-6217 Mara Sanfelici is Assistant Professor at the University of Milan Bicocca, Italy. Currently, her main research topics are parenting in the context of poverty and low income, social work in personal and collective crises and the use of digital media for social work macro practice. ORCID: 0000-0001-6588-5338 Ayako Sasaki is an Associate Professor, Graduate School of Global and Transdisciplinary Studies, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Chiba University, Japan. Her research interests include transnational social work, migration and gender. xxviii

Contributors

Jonathan Singer is a Professor at Loyola University Chicago’s School of Social Work. He is the Co-Lead for the Social Work Grand Challenge, “Harness Technology for Social Good,” Past-President of the American Association of Suicidology, and Founder and Host of the award-winning Social Work Podcast. ORCID: 0000-0002-7941-5529 Silvia Vázquez González is a former Professor at the Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, Mexico and is currently working in a freelance capacity. Her research interests include social development, vulnerability and social integration, social work and health, regional development in urban and rural contexts, youth work and social intervention. Alena Vysloužilová graduated with her PhD from the Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Her specific research interests include the social and legal protection of children in families affected by poverty. Mieko Yoshihama is a Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Her research interests include gender-based violence; community organising and participatory action research; arts-based research and practice; social determinants of health and social/environmental justice; disaster migration and immigration. ORCID: 0000-0002-6256-2071

xxix

INTRODUCTION Digital Social Work – Reshaping Social Work Practice in the 21st Century Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

Digital Social Work: An Introduction Digital social work takes the digital environment as an object of analysis, evaluation and social intervention. It is shaped as a field of research and social intervention itself, focused on the digital. It is becoming a transversal specialization, in a context in which the public administration has been digitized and interactions with users (from filling out a questionnaire to requesting help) are mostly done electronically. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this digitization process. Both users and professionals are demanding specific training in digital skills. Also, the processes of social inclusion and exclusion are also reproduced and accelerated in the digital sphere (López, Suh, and Zelenev 2023). From the editors’ point of view, the digital and the physical are part of the same reality in which human beings live. We are makers of things, of technology, and our technologies allow us to live and realize our projects while shaping our trajectories. In this sense, social work before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic has paid special attention to digitization processes (Pink, Ferguson, and Kelly 2022). The chapters that make up this handbook aim precisely to provide relevant information on the various characteristics of digital social work, the areas of action, the methodologies that are applied and the good practices that are already part of this specific field of specialization within social work. As in any field of professional and academic specialization, maturity is reached when there are university-level education and training programmes, professional standards, research to support evidence-based practice, journals and handbooks, and associations and congresses that specialize in the specific subject matter of each field of knowledge. Digital social work can be defined as the use of new information and communication technologies in the field of Social Work and Social Services. It includes online research, patient

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-1

1

Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

treatment (individual treatment, group and community dynamics), education and training of social workers, and design, implementation and monitoring of social services programs. (López Peláez 2015, 43) In digital social work, strategies for user access, user participation, user needs assessment, and design of intervention dynamics and empowerment of users and social workers are established (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018). The editors of this handbook have been working for years in the field of technology and social work, with special attention to digitization processes. However, it should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digital transformation process in which we are immersed, accelerating virtualization, online work and the incorporation of new technologies (López Peláez et al. 2021). The international conferences organized in 2020 and 2021 by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW), the three major international social work and social welfare organizations, have been delivered online. Universities, including online bachelors and masters-level degrees in social work, have augmented their online education delivery with many courses now incorporating fully online or blended formats. The COVID-19-related confinement has brought about a change in social intervention methodologies, enhancing the use of information and communication technologies and digital social networks. In addition, public administrations have accelerated their transition to electronic administration. In this context, our project, a rigorous handbook of digital social work, is more urgent than ever. From its origins, social work has been closely linked to technology both in responding to processes of exclusion related to technology – for example, those generated by industrialization and emigration in Chicago at the beginning of the 20th century, addressed by the work of Jane Addams at Hull House – and in using technology to favour social inclusion processes – for example, in social work with groups, using telephones for group dynamics to allow people with mobility difficulties to participate. The professional practice of social workers, and the very nature of social work, has been transformed by technology, as noted by NASW et al. (2017) in their report entitled Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice. In a broad sense, the professional practice of social workers has always been linked to technology. It is not possible to strengthen the social inclusion of citizens, nor to address their demands and problems, without taking into account the technological context. In this sense, since the first decades of the 20th century, in the educational field technological innovations have been incorporated to favour the learning process (Shorkey and Uebel 2014), and in the field of professional intervention, for example, in group dynamics, for decades special attention has been paid to the incorporation of technologies to enable group dynamics when group members were located at a distance in isolated environments (Meier 2004). The debate on technology and society, technology and the welfare state, and technology and welfare professions such as social work is an interdisciplinary debate, in which different perspectives coexist, from cybernetics to the analysis of social 2

Introduction

networks, including decolonial or constructivist approaches. Specifically in the field of social work, ethical issues and technology have always been of special interest (Reamer 1986), linked to privacy, social inclusion, sustainability and climate change. Ethical concerns are also a core part of digital social work as an area of specialization (Reamer 2013; Steiner 2021). Given that the object of social work is the person in situation – located in a specific context and at a specific time, considering the multiple dimensions of the social – one of the challenges for social work in the 21st century is how to respond to the effects of digitalization. And this, in an already digitized environment, in which both public administrations and companies or citizens, in their working and leisure lives, are immersed in social networks, either as users, or as intensive consumers of information and communication technologies (ICT). Social work has to respond to the challenges and problems that arise, including the exclusion processes generated by ICTs – for example, the recurring case of the so-called digital divide – going through the characteristics of social networks and the interaction models they generate (Davies 2019), to the requirements to be able to integrate in a digitized environment; all this creates a set of complex challenges. This is not new. Since the control of fire, technologies have always played a key role in the shaping and survival of societies. Technologies and artefacts shape us as we manufacture and produce them; incorporating unforeseen effects while giving rise to winning and losing collectives. Digital social work refers to social work that takes place in the digital environment. Individuals, groups and communities interact, develop their activities, experience needs and suffer different forms of social exclusion linked to access to the digital, the use and behaviour in the digital environment, and the requirements and skills needed to function in this environment (including the relationship with institutions, immersed in a strong process of digitization, which forces communication with them almost exclusively through the digital environment). Digital social work ranges from intervention projects, to the design of public policies, the reorganization of interactions between the administration and users in the field of social services or the evaluation of the programmes that are carried out, incorporating the analysis of users’ opinions and designing intervention strategies in social networks, including the metaverse (López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar Tablada-Massó 2018; Mathiyazhagan et al. 2022). The comparative analysis of good practices and the evaluation of digital intervention projects has led to the proposal of different models of digital intervention. In this sense, six phases can be differentiated in digital social work projects (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2021). First, the so-called ‘active listening’ (analysing and monitoring behaviour in social networks, investigating the discourse and demands of citizens, and the characteristics of their interaction patterns). Secondly, participation in the definition of problems and the design of solutions (through the creation of an online interaction environment open to the participation of users, professionals and interested persons, in which the resources available online, the different units of the public administration or private company involved and the objectives of the project are addressed from a cooperative perspective that integrates 3

Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

co-design or creative design based on the participation of all the actors). Thirdly, the design of intervention strategies consistent with the problems defined through the participation of all the actors involved. Fourthly, the development or use of specific online applications, from games to WhatsApp groups, to develop the planned activities. Fifthly, the evaluation of the intervention carried out, with special attention to the digital competencies of users and professionals, to the training programmes to be carried out to overcome the problems detected and to the monitoring of the activities carried out. Finally, proposals for improvement, transfers of the results achieved and of the methodology used, and the dissemination of good practices, thereby reinforcing the confidence of users and professionals in the methodology used. The digital competencies of users of social services, and of social workers, have become key competencies for social work in the 21st century. In the educational field, strengthening digital competencies is already a priority in the curricula of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in social work (López Peláez, Erro-Garcés, and Gómez-Ciriano 2020). In the professional field, we already have a relevant trajectory of comparative analysis (Di Rosa et al. 2018) in good practices in digital social work, ranging from the design and implementation of a single digital social history for citizens, to specific applications for social intervention with groups at risk of social exclusion (Castillo de Mesa and Méndez Domínguez 2021). The accelerated digitalization caused by the confinement produced by the COVID-19 pandemic has forced a reconversion of the professional practice of social work, accelerating its digital transformation (López Peláez et al. 2020; Mishna et al. 2021), and it has highlighted the importance of reducing the digital divide in access and use among the population.

Handbook Structure and Overview This handbook contains 40 chapters, authored individually or in teams by over 70 contributors located in and across 17 countries. The handbook’s structure is organized into six parts, each with a specific theme. Chapter 1 (this introductory chapter) prefaces these six parts introducing issues which are explored in more detail throughout the handbook.

Part 1: Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society Part 1 examines how social work is evolving within an increasingly digitalized societal context. The first chapter in this part is Chapter 2, titled ‘Digital Social Work: The Opportunity of Digitalisation. A Meta-Analysis’, in which Antonio López Peláez et al. critically examine how digital social work is expanding and developing across many social work fields of practice. Chapter 3 titled ‘Social Work: Information and Communication Technologies – Development and Innovation’ by Jorge M. L. Ferreira considers the implications for social work related to the ongoing transition to digitalized social work interventions and practices. In particular, Ferreira stresses the importance of developing inclusive and sustainable practices in this emerging context. 4

Introduction

In Chapter 4, titled ‘PhotoVoice in the Time of Digital Social Work’, Eduardo Marques et al demonstrate the potential of technology as a participatory medium through which individuals and communities can creatively address issues of importance in their lives. In this chapter, the authors share insights from their work using the PhotoVoice methodology, a participatory tool for self/community advocacy and empowerment. In Chapter 5, entitled ‘Networked Relationships: Relationship-Based Social Work Practice in the Digital Age’, Gloria Kirwan explores how relationship-based practice, a signature feature of the social work profession, can be sustained and enhanced in the digital era. The potential for social workers to utilize technologies to support the development, sustainability and mobilization of communities is the focus of Chapter 6, entitled ‘Technology Tools for Convivial Communities’, written by Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne. This chapter highlights how new technologies can support and sustain possibilities for networked communities, new public digital spaces and other forms of community-related connections. In Chapter 7, titled ‘Collective Social Work and Social Movements in the Digital Age’, Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez set out the possibilities that technology offers for collective action and the potential of fostering what they describe as localglobal connections between local initiatives and global social movements.

Part 2: Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society Part 2 opens with Chapter 8 entitled ‘Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work: A Second Order Approach’ by Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime MarcuelloServós in which they propose the adoption of a sociocybernetics lens through which to conceptualize digital social work as a practice framework, and they explore the usefulness of this lens as an interpretive model. In Chapter 9, titled ‘Big Social Data and Social Networking Sites: Opportunities for Social Work Research and Practice’, Joaquín Castillo de Mesa details how new methods of investigation and analysis are needed in the social work repertoire in order to understand and interpret the new technology-based activities and landscapes in which social workers are now operating. Alfonso Chaves-Montero in Chapter 10, titled ‘Analysis of Citizen Interactions on twitter about Social Services and COVID-19’, presents his use of a social network analysis methodology to analyse social media commentary regarding social service provision during the COVID-19 emergency. In Chapter 11, titled ‘Viral Artifacts: Social Work Responses to COVID-19 Through YouTube as Archive’, Tara La Rose uses the social media environment, specifically YouTube, as the source of data for her exploration of social work responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Chaper 12, entitled ‘Superdiversity and Digital Social Work’, Pablo Álvarez‐Pérez brings together the topics of superdiversity theory and digital social work as the focus of discussion on the important benefits new technologies can offer for research and direct service provision. In Chapter 13, titled ‘Social Work Research: Digitising the Critical Incident Technique for 21st Century Using Audio Diaries’, Niamh Flanagan presents her innovative research with social workers in which audio diaries facilitated ‘real world’ data capture as part of a digitized Critical Incident Technique study. In Chapter 14, 5

Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

titled ‘Digital Social Group Work: Evolution, State of the Art and a Renewed Research Agenda’, Andrés Arias Astray et al. critically consider the origins, evolution, current practice and future of digital social work with groups.

Part 3: Digital Social Work in Practice Part 3 presents the chapters that illuminate digital social work practice with specific populations or using specific methods. This part is large and we have grouped the chapters into two subparts, with chapters in Part 3.1 addressing responses to specific service-user populations and Part 3.2 focusing on digital social work methods.

Part 3.1: Digital Social Work with Client Groups Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly open this part with Chapter 15 titled ‘Assistive Technologies, Robotics and Gerontological Social Work Practice’, in which they discuss augmented resources to support healthy ageing and the needs of ageing populations. In Chapter 16, titled ‘Digital Technology in Statutory Children’s Services’, Thomas Mackrill identifies the complexities of developing useful digital tools that social workers can employ in statutory children’s services. Chapter 17 is co-authored by Soňa Kalenda et al. and titled ‘The Digitization of Social Work with Vulnerable Children and Older People in the Czech Republic: A Challenge for the Future’. This chapter addresses the implications of the digital divide for different groups as witnessed through the accounts of social workers who participated in their research. In Chapter 18, ‘Digital Social Work and Disability Services’, Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles et al. discuss how digital technology offers many possibilities in the field of social work and disability, and they examine the potential for social workers to use gamification, in aiding the delivery of innovative strategies and interventions. Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner are the authors of Chapter 19, titled ‘The Use of Facebook in Social Work Practice with Families: Safeguarding or Surveillance?’ Drawing on ethnographic research carried out by the authors with child protection social workers in England, this chapter provides a close-up illustration of the technology and social mediarelated challenges that social workers are encountering in frontline practice. Their chapter captures the ethical complexities related to the use of new technologies in day-to-day practice and they discuss the need for agency policies and professional practice codes that help social workers navigate the dilemmas that can arise within their work. In Chapter 20, titled ‘Technology and Children: A Role for Social Work?’, Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin provides a rigorous analysis of how social work cannot ignore the increasingly digitized reality of children’s lives, and the work that lies ahead to ensure that innovation in digital practices with children can roll out within safe and effective parameters.

Part 3.2: Digital Social Work Methods Chapter 21 is titled ‘Digital Storytelling in Social Work’ in which Chitat Chan explicates digital storytelling as a narrative practice incorporating digital media, including audio and visual digital elements. In Chapter 22, titled ‘The Interface 6

Introduction

between Technology and Domestic Violence and Abuse: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Work Practice’, Stephanie Holt et al. set out the contrasting challenges and opportunities that digital technology presents in situations of domestic violence, ranging from digital communication technologies as a support tool through which to connect with victims, contrasted with digital technologies as a means of monitoring and control used by perpetrators. Chapter 23 by Joaquín Castillo de Mesa, titled ‘The Acceleration of the Implementation of Tele-Social Work as a Complementary Intervention Formula: Teleworking, Remote Assistance and Online Home Visiting’, addresses the practice of Tele-Social Work, a form of digital social work widely practiced during the COVID-19 confinement. Ayako Sasaki and Kana Matsuo in Chapter 24, ‘Technology Bridges Community Social Work and Older People Care in Japan’, illuminate how digital technology is proving effective in addressing the care needs of the ageing Japanese population. In Chapter 25, Andrés Aparicio Alonso and Paula Miranda Sánchez explore examples of digitally based practices, both in the arena of service delivery during the COVID-19 confinement and also within the virtual social work classroom. This chapter, titled ‘Social Innovation and Technology for Social Work: A Training and Implementation Experience in Santiago de Chile’, addresses the possibilities, challenges and occasionally the surprises of using digital technologies in various social work arenas, and stresses the importance of design involvement by the end users of digital social work services. In Chapter 26, ‘The Pandemic of Undesired Loneliness: New Strategies from Digital Social Work’, Rafael Acebes Valentín et al. conceptualize a role for digital practices within a collaborative, person-centred, social work future. Looking into the future, but in a different context, Chapter 27, ‘Social Work Education and Digitalisation: The Classroom in Transition’, invites contemplation of the evolving nature of social work education. Julie Byrne presents a vision for an enhanced social work education landscape, where the intersection of social work pedagogy combined with new technologies is realized to its maximum potential. Continuing with the education theme, Roshini Pillay in Chapter 28, titled ‘Reflections on Emergency Remote Online Teaching and Learning Group Work Education during COVID-19: South Africa’, recounts the educator’s insights and reflections on the design considerations for authentic e-learning gained from the author’s experience of delivering group work classes in the virtual classroom during the recent pandemic.

Part 4: The Ethics of Digital Social Work Part 4 addresses the pressing ethical issues that confront social workers as their work becomes more and more digitized. Frederic G. Reamer opens this part with Chapter 29, titled ‘Information and Communications Technology in Social Work: Ethical and Risk Management Issues’, in which he examines the changing ethical landscape arising from emerging digital practices. The work already underway within the profession to address these ethical developments is highlighted alongside issues that will require further consideration. Chapter 30 by Beth Coulthard, titled ‘Privacy and ‘Big Data’ in Social Work Research: A Risk-based Approach’, sets out 7

Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

the ethical and legal issues arising in research which utilizes ‘big data’ narrative datasets. In Chapter 31, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Social Work: Contributions to an Ethical AI at the Service of People’, Esther Raya Diez examines the now extensive reach of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies into everyday life. She considers the benefits that can flow from AI (e.g., assistive robots) alongside the ethical challenges that encircle its continuing expansion into society, with particular consideration of its potential within social work contexts. Chapter 32 by Allan Barsky, titled ‘Ethics and Technology in Emergency Situations’, highlights the benefits that new technologies provide for social workers who are working in emergency situations, such as pandemics or natural disasters. Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne draw Part 4 of the handbook to a close with Chapter 33, titled ‘Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age: Surveillance, Privacy and Professional Boundaries in Social Work Practice’. In this chapter, they discuss the issue of digital surveillance in social work contexts with reference to theories of powerlessness and resistance.

Part 5: Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions: Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases The chapters in Part 5 provide important insights into the scale and impact of digital social work in many different regions of the world, starting with Chapter 34 titled ‘Using Technologies as Allies in Social Work: The Chilean Experience of Reconectando’. In this chapter, Jorge Farah Ojeda and Sofía Cillero Fuenzalida report on a large-scale social work programme in Chile where social workers used digital technologies as a medium through which to continue service delivery during the COVID-19 emergency. In Chapter 35 entitled ‘Integrating Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies: A Comparative Example between USA and Spain’, Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al. report on a two-country comparative analysis of current perceptions on the use of digital technologies in social work. They highlight the need for ongoing consolidation of digital technologies in many social work fields, ranging from service delivery to education provision. In Chapter 36, ‘Participatory Evaluation in Social Organisations Dealing with Emergency Situations: A Digital Social Work Perspective’, Ángel De-Juanas et al. report and discuss selected findings from a research project carried out with the main non-profit organizations in Spain working in emergency situations regarding the effectiveness of digital tools in service evaluations. Chapter 37 is titled ‘Digital Social Work in Ordinary and Extraordinary Times: The Italian Experience’. In this chapter, Roberta Teresa di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici highlight the positive contribution of digital technologies in responses by social workers to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Italian context, highlighting areas for further development in terms of digital technology skills development, resources and infrastructure. Writing on the integration of technology into a large-scale programme to support families in Colombia, Chapter 38, titled ‘Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme: Conditional Cash Transfer in Colombia’, by César Sánchez Álvarez, illustrates the increasing integration of digital technologies into this programme. 8

Introduction

His analysis reveals many ways in which social workers are utilizing digital technologies as a means to connect and provide information and support to target populations in ways not previously possible.

Part 6: Digital Social Work: Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations In Part 6, we look to the future of digital social work, contemplating the path ahead and the work still to be done by the profession to engage with the technological potential of the digital turn. Chapter 39 by Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer, titled ‘Harness Technology for Social Good: A Grand Challenge for Social Work’, opens this part. This chapter discusses the goals and outputs to date of the Harness Technology for Social Good network, part of the Grand Challenges for Social Work initiative which works to highlight how social work can incorporate technologies for the benefit of the communities it serves. In Chapter 40, ‘Digital Social Work: Support at Your Fingertips’, Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera appraise the increasing range of digital and mobile health applications now available and consider how social work can help direct the use of these technologies for the benefit of the populations they work to support. In Chapter 41, ‘Digital People Production in Social Work’, Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed draws on theories of commensuration and people-production to analyse how service users are represented and constructed within digitalized social work practices. Chapter 42 by the editors, Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan, draws this handbook to a close by reflecting on the key issues now facing the development of digital social work and which have been highlighted throughout this handbook. This publication involved a truly global effort on the part of over 70 contributors who took time from busy schedules, including during the COVID-19 emergency period, to share their work, perspectives and reflections. We wish to thank all the authors for their patience and perseverance as they worked with us and assisted the effort to produce this volume of work, which is significant not only in terms of its size but especially in terms of its reach and range of content. We also wish to thank the publishers and staff in Routledge who provided us with the opportunity to bring this publication from an idea to reality, and we express our gratitude for their help and support throughout the process.

References Castillo de Mesa, J., and P. Méndez Domínguez. (eds.). 2021. Hacia la disrupción digital del Trabajo Social. Cizur Menor, Spain: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. Davies, W. 2019. Nervous States. Democracy and the Decline of Reason. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Di Rosa, R. T., G. Musso, M. Dellavalle, and G. Gucciardo. 2018. “Social work online: A recognition of experiences and practices in Italy.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 889–901. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1469473. López Peláez, A. 2015. Teoría del Trabajo Social con Grupos, 2nd ed. Madrid: Universitas.

9

Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan López Peláez, A., A. Erro-Garcés, and E. J. Gómez-Ciriano. 2020. “Young people, social workers and social work education: The role of digital skills.” Social Work Education 39(6): 825–842. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1795110. López Peláez, A., A. Erro-Garcés, F. J. Pinilla García, and D. Kiriakou. 2021. “Working in the 21st century. The coronavirus crisis: A driver of digitalisation, teleworking, and innovation, with unintended social consequences.” Information 12: 377. doi: 10.3390/ info12090377. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018. “e-Social work and digital society: Re-conceptualizing approaches, practices and technologies.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello Servós. 2021. “Digital intervention, COVID19 and critical realism: Towards a science of digital social work.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare XLVIII(3): 10–28. López Peláez, A., C. Marcuello Servós, J. Castillo de Mesa, and P. Almaguer-Kalixto. 2020. “The more you know, the less you fear. Reflexive social work practices in times of COVID-19.” International Social Work 63(6): 746–752. doi: 10.1177/0020872820959365. López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “e-Social work: Building a new field of specialization in social work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256. López Peláez, A., S. M. Suh, and S. Zelenev. (eds.). 2023. Digital Transformation and Social Well-Being. Promoting an Inclusive Society. London: Routledge. Mathiyazhagan, S., M. Salam, H. A. Willis, and D. U. Patton. 2022. “Social work in metaverse: Addressing tech policy gaps for racial and mental health equity”. Internet Policy Review. https://policyreview.info/articles/news/social-work-metaverse-addressing-techpolicy-gaps-racial-and-mental-health-equity/1619. Meier, A. 2004. “Technology-Mediated Groups.” In Handbook of Social Work with Groups, edited by C. D. Garvin, L. M. Gutierrez, and M. J. Galinsky, 479–503. New York: The Gilford Press. Mishna, F., E. Milne, M. Bogo, and L. F. Pereira. 2021. “Responding to COVID-19: New trends in social workers’ use of information and communication technology”. Clinical Social Work Journal 49: 484–494. doi: 10.1007/s10615-020-00780-x. NASW, ASWB, CSWE, and CSWA. 2017. Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice. New York: National Association of Social Workers. Pink, S., H. Ferguson, and L. Kelly. 2022. “Digital social work: Conceptualising a hybrid anticipatory practice.” Qualitative Social Work 21(2): 413–430. Reamer, F. G. 1986. “The use of modern technology in social work: Ethical dilemmas.” Social Work 31(6): 469–472. Reamer, F. G. 2013. “Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges.” Social Work 58(2): 163–172. doi: 10.1093/sw/swt003. Shorkey, C. T., and M. Uebel. 2014 “History and development of instructional technology and media in social work education.” Journal of Social Work Education 50(2): 247–261. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2014.885248. Steiner, O. 2021. “Social work in the digital era: Theoretical, ethical and practical considerations.” British Journal of Social Work 51(8): 3358–3374. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa160.

10

PART 1

Reframing Social Work in a Digital Society

2 DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK The Opportunity of Digitalisation. A Meta-Analysis Antonio López-Peláez, Amaya Erro-Garcés, and Raquel Pérez García

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the processes of digital transformation in both the public and private sectors. Particularly, public services are being redesigned using digital procedures to provide personalised e-government services and to foster participation and interaction supported by technology. In this changing context, new opportunities are arising in the field of social work since geographical boundaries can now be overcome using technological resources. As a result, professional social work practice is being redefined, thus obliging researchers to rethink the role social workers play in addressing the vulnerability of an increasingly ethnically diverse society and their contribution to the creation of a better and, above all, more equitable society. Although the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has occurred at a slower pace in social work than in other sectors such as business or marketing (Zorn, Flanagan, and Shoham 2011), daily ICT usage by both social services users and professionals has increased during the pandemic (López Peláez, Erro-Garcés, and Gómez-Ciriano 2020). Specifically, e-social work has served to ‘enhance the role of social workers confronted with social emergencies and situations of pandemic in what is today a digital society’ (López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó 2018, 751). Digital social work, also known as e-social work, can be defined as the use of ICTs in the field of social work and social services (Raya Diez 2018) and is intricately linked to e-inclusion. According to López Peláez and Díaz (2015), e-social work is social work that uses ICTs within a techno-social sphere, while López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós (2018) consider e-social work to be a new social work frontier that includes online research, therapy (individual, group and community dynamics), the education of social workers and the monitoring of social service programmes.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-3

13

Antonio López-Peláez et al.

Digital social work takes the digital environment as an object of analysis, evaluation and social intervention. It is shaped as a field of research and social intervention itself, focused on the digital. Also, it is becoming a transversal specialisation, in a context in which the public administration has been digitised and interactions with users (from filling out a questionnaire to requesting help) are mostly carried out electronically. In short, digital social work can be defined as the use of new information and communication technologies in the field of social work and social services. It includes online research, patient treatment (individual treatment, group and community dynamics), education and training of social workers, and design, implementation and monitoring of social services programs. (López Peláez 2015, 43) Using meta-analysis methods (Lundahl and Yaffe 2007; Ramsey and Montgomery 2014), this chapter provides an overview of the application of technology in the field of social work and examines the situation of digital social work or e-social work today. To this end, this chapter expands on and revises the analysis of López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018) through a review of key publications in the field from 2006 to 2020.

Methodology Digital social work, or e-social work, has emerged as a relevant research area in the last decade, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. As López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018) highlighted, digital social work or e-social work has gained increasing relevance since it provides an opportunity to enhance the role of social workers faced with social emergencies and situations of pandemic in what today is a digital society. Moreover, the authors pointed to the need to conceptualise the nature of e-social work in order to facilitate digitalisation and better understand the place of technology in social work practice. Continuing with this theme, this chapter aims to give an overview of the application of e- social work in recent years and the effect of the pandemic on social workers. To achieve these objectives, a meta-analysis research technique was used (Lundahl and Yaffe 2007; Ramsey and Montgomery 2014) to examine articles related to ICTs in social work. A total of 108 articles published in 52 journals during the 2006–2020 period were selected, which are included in the chapter references. The articles were retrieved from the Academica-e, ASSIA, Citation Index, Dialnet, ISOC, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Services Abstracts and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criteria were (a) English or Spanish articles published from 2006 to 2020; (b) articles addressing the use of ICTs in social work; and (c) articles on the topic of e-social work. The initial search aimed to find all articles which specifically included the term ‘technology’ in their abstracts or keywords and articles that included ICT-related terms such as ‘technology’, ‘digital’, ‘Internet’, ‘online’, ‘web’, ‘virtual’ or ‘social media’ in their titles. The exclusion criteria assumed that if none of these terms appeared in any of these fields of an article, it was likely that ICTs in 14

Digital Social Work

social work did not occupy a core position in the article and the publication could therefore be excluded. To ensure an unbiased search, the PRISMA checklist was used (Moher 2009). The search was conducted in January 2021. The studies were coded by reading the abstracts and full texts of the papers. RefWorks software was used to codify and work with the papers, whereas VOSviewer software was used to perform a mapping analysis. In addition, a manual search of papers published in the selected journals from 2006 to the end of 2020 was performed. Specifically, publications from the First International Digital Social Work Conference of 2020 (López Peláez, Marcuello-Servós and Castillo de Mesa, 2020) were included manually.

Coding In line with López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018), the coding procedure was based on research methods and type of ICT used in the research. Type of ICT was categorised based on a heuristic framework that included the logical steps in the social work field: research, education, practice and theory. ICT media were also considered (West and Heath 2011) and the research methods used in the studies were analysed (Alvira Martin 1983). According to our data, 76% of the selected publications can be classified as qualitative research, 18% as quantitative research and 6% as mixed research (Table 2.1).

Bibliometric Study To assess the research, bibliometric aspects were included to provide an idea of the quality of the study and identify the reliability of the sources and the countries where e-social work is a salient topic (Franklin and Tripodi 2009; Martínez et al. 2015; Chan 2018). Hence, the selected publications were examined to determine the year of publication, the country of the author or authors, the journal where the articles were published and the journal’s impact rating.

Papers by Year The evolution of the publications over time shows a growing interest in the topic of e-social work. Concretely, most of the retrieved papers were published from 2013 to Table 2.1 Publications by type of research (N = 108) Research approach (qualitative, quantitative, mixed)

Number of publications

Percentage

Mixed Qualitative Quantitative Total

19 82 7 108

18% 76% 6% 100%

15

Antonio López-Peláez et al.

Figure 2.1

Evolution of publications on digital social work or e-social work for the period 2006–2020 by percentage (N = 108)

2020 (85 papers), with the largest number published in 2016 (19% of the total). Moreover, the number of publications increased significantly in 2020, thus reflecting the effect of the pandemic on e-social work (Figure 2.1).

Papers by Country in the Period 2006–2020 Table 2.2 shows the selected papers by country in the analysed period (2006–2020). As in López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018), the largest number of articles were published in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. Together, these two countries accounted for 63% of all publications, whereas in 2018 they accounted for 75%, thus suggesting that the field has expanded to other countries (e.g. Spain). As outlined by López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018), the EU literature on e-social work is less prevalent, as it accounts for only 35% of all publications. The predominance of the United States and the United Kingdom is not unexpected given that most high-impact social work journals are published in these two countries and in English, as occurs in other scientific fields and in the Web of Science.

Papers by Journal, Google Scholar Citations and JCR 2019 Ranking As shown in Table 2.3, 45 of the papers were published in six JCR journals. It should also be noted that most papers were published in two of the most longstanding journals: Journal of Social Work Education (13 articles) and The British Journal of Social Work (8 articles). The most cited paper in Google Scholar is ‘Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the “social” to the “informational”?’ (278 citations; Parton 2008), followed by the article ‘Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and 16

Digital Social Work Table 2.2 Papers by country Country

Percentage

No. of papers

Australia

5%

5

Canada

6%

6

China

4%

4

Germany

2%

2

Hong Kong

1%

1

India

1%

1

Israel

1%

1

Korea

1%

1

Lithuania

1%

1

Netherlands

2%

2

Norway

1%

1

Russia

1%

1

Spain

13%

14

United Kingdom

16%

18

United States

47%

50

Total

100%

108

Total

100%

108

Table 2.3 Publications by journal Journal title

Publications

Journal of Social Work Education British Journal of Social Work Journal of Technology in Human Services Social Work in Health Care SAGE OPEN Social Work

13 8 7 6 6 5

risk-management challenges’ (80 citations; Reamer 2015). The first paper examines how ICTs are potentially transforming the form and nature of knowledge in social work, whereas the second paper explores ethical challenges related to the digital environment. The remaining papers deal mostly with topics such as specific tools or sets of tools in e-social work, namely, uses of the Internet, e-mails, blogs and social media; the ethical challenges of social work; issues related to confidentiality and privacy, as well as new ethical risks and how they can be addressed in online settings. 17

Antonio López-Peláez et al. Table 2.4 Most cited publications Title

Authors

Google scholar citations

Impact factor (quartile)

Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: from the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? Clinical social work in a digital environment: ethical and riskmanagement challenges Online comunication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: a systematic narrative review Liquid social work: welfare interventions as mobile practices Social work in a digital age: ethical and risk management challenges Social work informatics: a new specialty

Parton, N.

278

Q2

Reamer, F. G.

80

Q3

Best, P. et al.

79

Q3

Harry, F.

79

Q2

Reamer, F. G.

78

Q1

Parker-Oliver, D. and Demiris, G. Parrott, L. and Madoc-Jones, I.

66

Q1

65

Q4

Steyaert, J. and Gould, N. Franklin, C. et al.

62

Q2

56

Q1

Mishna, F. et al.

51

Q3

Reclaiming information and communication technologies for empowering social work practice Social work and the changing face of the digital divide A meta-analysis of published school social work practice studies It just crept in: the digital age and implications for social work practice

Table 2.4 shows the most cited publications from 2006 to 2020. To analyse the main relationships among the most cited publications, mapping techniques were used. Specifically, the VOSviewer algorithm was used to identify the main terms in the titles and abstracts of the selected publications. Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the results of this clustering analysis. As can be observed in Figure 2.2, two clusters were identified: ‘challenges’ and ‘digital divide’ linked by the term ‘use’, indicating that digitalisation in social work is a challenge and can lead to digital exclusion and division.

Figure 2.2

Knowledge clusters of most cited publications (I)

18

Digital Social Work

Figure 2.3

Knowledge clusters of most cited publications (II)

Figure 2.3 shows the cluster related to ‘challenges’ and includes terms related to this emerging discipline (i.e. ‘demiris social work informatics’, ‘discipline’) and the technologies involved in this digital transformation (e.g. ‘Internet’, ‘interactive video’). Figure 2.4 shows the cluster for ‘digital divide’. As can be seen, this cluster also includes the terms ‘social exclusion’ and ‘digital exclusion’, thus highlighting the risks inherent in the incorporation of digital tools, which should be addressed in order to benefit from the ‘digital opportunity’ of e-social work. In the following sections, we discuss in greater detail the most significant results of our analysis.

Results The process of digitalisation is changing our day-to-day life and transforming social work services. Digital social exclusion, digital procedures to deliver social services, the use of big data to ensure personalised services or the role of social media to communicate are all features of social work today (Marcuello-Servós 2010; Degryse 2016). 19

Antonio López-Peláez et al.

Figure 2.4

Knowledge clusters of most cited publications (III)

In what follows, we present the main results obtained from the analysis of the publications in the field of e-social work between 2006 and 2020. The results can be grouped into four areas or themes: the role of the pandemic, digital transformation in the field of social work, the path from e-social work to e-social workers and the dark side of e-social work.

The Role of the Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic has sped up the digital transformation of public service delivery (Agostino, Arnaboldi, and Lema 2020). In particular, COVID-19 has accelerated changes in the provision of social services, whereas digital technology has enabled their continuity. This unforeseen emergency has affected essential public services and digital procedures that facilitate attending to social needs. The pandemic has also led to a huge wave of compassion through online platforms regarding the recruitment and deployment of volunteers (Trautwein et al. 2020). Given the globalisation of the current digital transformation, the main question that arises is whether these online services will be maintained beyond the crisis. As López Peláez, Marcuello-Servós, and Castillo de Mesa (2020) point out, both the pandemic and digitalisation are global phenomena. It is, therefore, pertinent to inquire into the continuity of these changing realities around the world and the 20

Digital Social Work

evolution of digitalisation in different countries, as the lockdown has impacted each country differently and may have also affected the ability to access services remotely and build online relationships with people. Lastly, the pandemic has underlined the importance of online communication and the dissemination of information (López Peláez, Erro-Garcés, and GómezCiriano 2020). As these authors suggest, one of the priorities of digital social work is the dissemination of results in the digital environment. In short, the pandemic has fostered the digitalisation of social services and like COVID-19, the digital transformation of social services is global. Nevertheless, differences in lockdown measures across countries may also have led to differences in the pace of digitalisation across countries.

The Digital Transformation of Social Work As mentioned in the ‘Methodology’ section, in line with West and Heath (2011), we classify ICT media into three groups: generic, device and applications. This classification was also used in the meta-analysis by López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018) on the use of ICTs in social work. In the publications reviewed by López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó (2018), the authors found low percentages of papers addressing more recent technologies (i.e. gaming, big data, VoIp, storytelling). Three years later, the analysis presented here indicates that the use of these technologies has increased. In this regard, Hofstra and de Schipper (2018) showed that big data contributes to the growing field of online analysis and allows enriched and innovative use of data to test hypotheses in a novel way. They affirmed that social scientists increasingly use big social media data to elucidate long-standing, substantive research questions in the field of social science. However, they concluded that a key challenge of analysing such data is the reduced level of individual detail captured in this format compared to highly detailed survey data collected by traditional means. However, social media facilitates the dissemination of information but also facilitates the spread of unfounded rumours (He et al. 2019). Problems related to misinformation and fake news have become even more evident during the pandemic. For example, Pulido et al. (2020) analysed a sample of 1,000 tweets posted during the lockdown and concluded that falsehoods are shared far more often than evidence-based information. In this regard, scientists play a key role in differentiating true from false information, and technology is the best channel to disseminate this information. To quote an example of best practices for disseminating scientific information in social work and the use of ICTs for this purpose, López Peláez, Marcuello-Servós, and Castillo de Mesa (2020) designed a series of innovative web seminars. The seminars addressed both the subjects and the procedures involved in social work with the aim of sharing information and best practices to counter disinformation campaigns on social media. Moreover, due to the constantly changing situation, social workers are required to assess and diagnose problems and conduct professional interventions in a different 21

Antonio López-Peláez et al.

way. In this regard, digital procedures can serve to maintain social services while ensuring compliance with health restrictions. Consequently, the ability and opportunity to access, adapt and create new knowledge using ICTs has become a key aspect of social work research and practice and, in fact, a growing field in social work, e-social work, is expected to meet and address these challenges.

From Digital Social Work to Digital Social Workers Digital social work, or e-social work, requires qualified professionals who are trained in both social work and the use of new technologies. The DigComp 2.0 project, and particularly the DigComp at Work section of this project, defines the digital competences required of professions that use ICTs (Vuorikari et al. 2016; Centeno 2020). Like the specific digital competences demanded of educators and health professionals, digital competencies also need to be identified for e-social workers. Moreover, there is a real opportunity for social workers to develop a professional career specialism based on the use of ICTs (Aase and Timimi 2013). In short, social work practitioners are immersed in a process of digital transformation from social to e-social workers where technological tools can be used to enhance communication and create new dynamics in the field. In this sense, social networks, videoconferences, big data and artificial intelligence can help social workers to achieve a new and better future. As such, these skills should form part of the social work curriculum.

The Dark Side of Digital Social Work The dark side of digital social work or e-social work is closely linked to the ethical implications of digital social work. Three main issues can be identified in this regard: equitable access to technology, the dehumanisation factor and data protection. Firstly, there is a risk of social exclusion associated with access to technology and the digital skills needed to benefit from digital social services (Chang et al. 2004). Secondly, ICTs contribute to the anonymisation of service providers and foment the depersonalisation of social services (López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó 2018). Technical problems also constitute a limitation for using these services. Moreover, the information obtained or provided in social interventions is of a very sensitive nature and, therefore, confidential but if not properly managed it can be mis-used for fraudulent purposes. To address this issue and offer reliable online services, data protection and cybersecurity systems are essential. Most studies recommend that caution be taken when implementing and using ICTs in social work practice because current budget cuts could result in new technical barriers for social services users. In addition, there is a need for professionals who are specifically trained in the handling and use of ICTs (Arriazu and FernándezPacheco 2013). Most of these problems are linked to ethical considerations. According to Reamer (2013), the introduction of diverse digital, online and other forms of 22

Digital Social Work

electronic social services has created a wide range of complex ethical issues. To overcome these challenges, he recommends the use of codes of conduct as standards to guide behaviour (i.e. the NASW Code of Ethics).

Conclusions As highlighted in the First International Conference on Digital Social Work (2020), digital social work or e-social work has progressed from a specialisation to become a fundamental element of our discipline and profession. This chapter supports this affirmation. The application of digital tools in social work services aims to transform and innovate our field of knowledge and has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In our opinion, and as the results of our research have shown, this digital transformation has led to the development of a new area of online specialisation and a new type of social work professional: the e-social worker. It is important that public sector entities assess the opportunities afforded by digitalisation in their relationship with citizens and promote the acquisition of digital competences among social workers. In particular, it is the task of local administrations and social service agencies to ensure the correct application of ICTs in social services, while further research should examine the level of digitalisation of social services structures locally in order to detect areas in need of improvement and best practices that have already been implemented which could be extended. Additionally, users’ digital skills (particularly first-time users of social services who registered as of 2020 during the pandemic) should be studied to evaluate the real possibilities of digitalising their relationship with local social services providers and to ensure that they benefit from them. Finally, to facilitate monitoring, it is essential that information including single social histories, assessments, digital social reports and other digital records are managed properly. Such tools are related to the application of big data to social services and create the possibility of benefitting from the full potential of artificial intelligence. To conclude, both digital competences and social work knowledge are needed to succeed in this rapidly changing context. Indeed, the online dimension cannot be viewed as being remote and removed from offline life, and technology should, therefore, be considered a necessary tool to support social practice. In this sense, it would be interesting to continue this analysis and include papers published after 2020 to further determine the effect of the pandemic and ICTs on social work during the lockdown.

References Aase, L., and F. Timimi. 2013. “Health care social media: Engagement and health care in the digital era.” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 56(3): 471–476. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31 829d6058. Agostino, D., M. Arnaboldi, and M. D. Lema. 2020. “New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery.” Public Money & Management, 1–4. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1764206.

23

Antonio López-Peláez et al. Alvira Martin, F. 1983. “Perspectiva cualitativa-perspectiva cuantitativa en la metodología sociológica.” Reis 22(22): 53–75. doi: 10.2307/40182982. Arriazu, R., and J. L. Fernández-Pacheco. 2013. “Internet en el ámbito del Trabajo Social: Formas emergentes de participación e intervención socio-comunitario.” Cuadernos de Trabajo Social 26(1): 149–158. doi: 10.5209/rev_CUTS.2013.v26.n1.41665. Centeno, C. 2020. DigComp at Work Implementation Guide (No. JRC120645). UE (Seville Site): Joint Research Centre. Chan, C. 2018. “ICT-supported social work interventions with youth: A critical review.” Journal of Social Work 18(4): 468–488. doi: 10.1177/1468017316651997. Chang, B. L., S. Bakken, S. S. Brown, and T. K. Houston. 2004. “Bridging the digital divide: Reaching vulnerable populations.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11(6): 448–457. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1535. Degryse, C. 2016. Digitalisation of the Economy and Its Impact on Labour Markets. Brussels: ETUI. Franklin, C., and S. Tripodi. 2009. “A meta-analysis of published school social work practice studies.” Research on Social Work Practice 19(6): 667–677. doi: 10.1177/1049731508330224. He, L., H. Yang, X. Xiong, and K. Lai. 2019. “Online rumor transmission among younger and older adults.” SAGE Open 9(3), 215824401987627. doi: 10.1177/2158244019876273 Hofstra, B., and N. C. de Schipper. 2018. “Predicting ethnicity with first names in online social media networks.” Big Data & Society 5(1), 205395171876114. doi: 10.1177/2053951 718761141. López Peláez, A. 2015. Teoría del Trabajo Social con Grupos. 2nd ed. Madrid: Universitas. López Peláez, A., A. Erro-Garcés, and E. J. Gómez-Ciriano. 2020. “Young people, social workers and social work education: The role of digital skills.” Social Work Education 39(6): 825–842. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1795110. López Peláez, A., and H. L. Díaz. 2015. “Social work challenges in the 21 Century: Citizenship, technology and e-social work.” In Social Work Challenges in the XXI Century: Perspectives from the USA, edited by A. López Peláez, 29–54, Pamplona: Thomson-Reuters Aranzadi. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018. “E-social work and digital society: Reconceptualizing approaches, practices and technologies.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475. López Peláez, A., C. Marcuello-Servós, and J. Castillo de Mesa. 2020. I Congreso Internacional en Trabajo Social Digital. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7C3f16yWs&list=PL5nu99sbf1yxOEqR7Xx3UhhVb4urLgCmd López Peláez, A., C. Marcuello-Servós, J. Castillo de Mesa, and P. Almaguer Kalixto. 2020. “The more you know, the less you fear: Reflexive social work practices in times of COVID-19.” International Social Work 63(6): 746–752. doi: 10.1177/0020872820959365. López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “E-social work: Building a new field of specialization in social work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256. Lopez-Sintas, J., G. Lamberti, and J. Sukphan. 2020. “The social structuring of the digital gap in a developing country. the impact of computer and internet access opportunities on internet use in Thailand.” Technology in Society 63. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101433. Lundahl, B., and J. Yaffe. 2007. “Use of meta-analysis in social work and allied disciplines.” Journal of Social Service Research 33(3): 1–11. doi: 10.1300/J079v33n03_01. Marcuello-Servós, C. 2010. (11–17 July 2010 Sociology on the Move). “Digital generations, soft societies?” Session: Understanding cyberspace and the Internet: Sociocybernetics on the Move Part, 1. XVII World Congress of Sociology. Martínez, M. A., M. Herrera, E. Contreras, A. Ruíz, and E. Herrera-Viedma. 2015. “Characterizing highly cited papers in social work through H-Classics.” Scientometrics 102(2): 1713–1729. Mishna, F., M. Bogo, J. Root, J. L. Sawyer, and M. Khoury-Kassabri. 2012. ““It just crept in”: The digital age and implications for social work practice.” Clinical Social Work Journal 40(3): 277–286. doi: 10.1007/s10615-012-0383-4.

24

Digital Social Work Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman. 2009. “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.” PLoS Medicine 6: e1000097. Open Medicine: A Peer-Reviewed, Independent, Open-Access Journal 3. e123-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. Parker-Oliver, D., and G. Demiris. 2006. “Social work informatics: A new specialty.” Social Work 51(2): 127–134. doi: 10.1093/sw/51.2.127. Parrott, L., and I. Madoc-Jones. 2008. “Reclaiming information and communication technologies for empowering social work practice.” Journal of Social Work 8(2): 181–197. doi: 10.1177%2F1468017307084739. Parton, N. 2008. “Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’?” British Journal of Social Work 38(2): 253–269. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl337. Pulido, C. M., B. Villarejo-Carballido, G. Redondo-Sama, and A. Gómez. 2020. “COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information.” International Sociology 35(4): 377–392. doi: 10.1177%2F0268580920914755. Ramsey, A. T., and K. Montgomery. 2014. “Technology-based interventions in social work practice: A systematic review of mental health interventions.” Social Work in Health Care 53(9): 883–899. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2014.925531. Raya Diez, E. 2018. “e-Inclusion and e-social work: New technologies at the service of social intervention.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 916–929. doi: 10.1080/13691457. 2018.1469472. Reamer, F. G. 2013. “Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges.” Social Work 58 (2): 163–172. doi: 10.1093/sw/swt003. Reamer, F. G. 2015. “Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and riskmanagement challenges.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43(2): 120–132. doi: 10.1007/s10615014-0495-0. Trautwein, S., F. Liberatore, J. Lindenmeier, and G. von Schnurbein. 2020. “Satisfaction with informal volunteering during the COVID-19 crisis: An empirical study considering a Swiss online volunteering platform.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49(6): 1142–1151. doi: 10.1177/0899764020964595. Vuorikari, R., Y. Punie, S. C. Gomez, and G. Van Den Brande. 2016. DigComp 2.0: The digital competence framework for citizens. Update phase 1: The conceptual reference model (No. JRC101254). Joint Research Centre (Seville site). West, D., and D. Heath. 2011. “Theoretical pathways to the future: Globalization, ICT and social work theory and practice.” Journal of Social Work 11(2): 209–221. doi: 10.1177%2F14 68017310386835. Youn, E. 2007. “The relationship between technology content in a masters of social work curriculum and technology use in social work practice: A qualitative research study.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 25(1–2): 45–58. doi: 10.1300/J017v25n01_03. Zorn, T. E., A. J. Flanagin, and M. D. Shoham. 2011. “Institutional and noninstitutional influences on information and communication technology adoption and use among nonprofit organizations.” Human Communication Research 37(1): 1–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958. 2010.01387.x.

25

3 SOCIAL WORK Information and Communication Technologies – Development and Innovation Jorge M. L. Ferreira

Introduction We live in the information society era, which brings with it the need for all people, professions and social services to acquire new digital knowledge and skills so that they can develop new ways of making an impact on social protection and welfare responses with the aim of improving people’s quality of life. During the period of COVID-19, the world faced a health and social crisis, but also a change in social organisation in the daily life of society and in working practices. Great difficulties in the associated social sector were witnessed, where low levels of knowledge and mastery of digital skills made it difficult for services and professionals to adapt quickly and ethically to the emergency context. Social work, both as a discipline of knowledge and as a profession, has been supported by higher education since the beginning of the 20th century (in 1935 in Portugal). In the 1980s, this area of training and knowledge was recognised by the public university system and consequently diplomas (bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees) were awarded. Thus, from 2000 (21st century) onwards, it ceased to be only a profession of application of knowledge (professional/technical intervention) and became an area that produces knowledge and expertise for public policies in the field of social welfare. Rodrigues (2012, 9) defines a profession as follows: …. A profession exists when an organised professional group acquires the power to determine who is qualified to exercise a type of activity, preventing others from doing so, as well as the power to control the criteria for assessing the quality of professional practice .…

26

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-4

ICTs & Innovation in Social Work

In contemporary society, the profession of social work faces new challenges, in particular, the digitalisation in practice that is taking place as part of the wider digital transformation of society. Ideally, this digitalisation of social work will be based on knowledge resulting from empirical research. In this context, this chapter considers some of the key implications for social work relating to digitalisation in practice intervention and its evolution towards what is often referred to as digital social work.

Conceptual Dimensions of Social Work: Digital Social Work The conceptual and epistemological issues of social work (Ferreira 2011) continue to be the subject of scientific reflection and debate as part of a constant search to affirm the theoretical and practical contribution of this area of knowledge to society’s transition to a model centred on people and improving social well-being. The 21st century has marked the emergence of a renewed and reconfigured profession in a research-action process. It promotes informed practice with scientific autonomy and constitutes a field of action within the framework of the social sciences. Rodrigues (2012, 14) suggests: The quality of service requires a scientific control of training and an ethical control of professional practice, which are ensured by the collective of peers, since only peers, through associations that bring together all members, can be guarantors of the quality of training and the value of professional services. The author advocates the need for a close relationship between academia, politics and the professions in order to ensure a fluid dialogue between all stakeholders. Currently, social workers have the following competencies: “diagnosis, relationship, communication, intervention, research and evaluation”, and at the intervention level, “know-how, know-how-to-be, respect, self-determination, non-judgement (empowerment), preparation of social diagnosis” (Ferreira 2011, 208) and knowledge of the community or neighbourhood where social workers work (Reamer 2019). The complexity of the social situations in which the social worker is called to intervene in contemporary society requires a theoretical and methodological basis based on qualitative/quantitative, participative and proactive working tools, with the centrality of social intervention being placed in the domain of intersubjectivity (De La Fuente Robles and Martín Cano 2019). Regarding the technical competences of social workers, we highlight the strategic use of a set of operational instruments of social policies in intervention (technical and digital tools), carrying out an evaluation, planning and social response and effectively reconciling a response to the problem in the institutional context in which it occurs, in the framework of social policies and the social rights of the beneficiary of the action, within the framework of the digital society. In the context of social cohesion, the social worker is responsible for intervening in the construction of social protection systems that are socially transformative, reducing inequalities and enhancing social justice. 27

Jorge M. L. Ferreira

In terms of the competencies of social workers, we highlight the following skills and abilities: •

• • • •

Working in partnership with individuals, families, groups, organisations and communities in terms of their needs, interests and constraints, co-constructing physical and digital networks. Planning, implementing, evaluating and (re)programming professional practice. Being able to support people and encourage their shared citizenship and coresponsibility. Being able to intervene in situations of emergency, crisis and social risk. Being able to administer and manage organisations and social services, especially the use of supervision theory and techniques.

In the current context of increasing globalisation, educating for social work aims to prepare professionals who are capable of activating necessary changes in the organisation of the state and society, with the central objective of reinforcing active and participatory social citizenship. The aim of education is to produce graduates who will be equipped to engage with critical capacity for reflection, who can make an impact on the social responsibility of organisations and provide competent and quality responses to the challenges of contemporary society marked by social globalisation. Social work should aim to promote social inclusion in order to improve the quality of life of all people, including the most vulnerable citizens who live in precarious living situations and who may have few or no resources, by providing them with security and the means to meet their immediate and continuing needs. Social work should also aim to strengthen solidarity between people, promote people’s personal and social skills to care for others, commit people to respect the rights of others and strengthen solidarity within the family, community and society (Reamer 2019). Social work, as an area of knowledge, promotes the development of cross-cutting and interdisciplinary practices based on the social protection system; it can bring about changes in the economy, democracy and the reduction of inequalities. Social work intervenes in processes of change to improve society and social relations, with the ultimate goal of social integration and harmonisation of relations between people. New technologies and digital instruments are auxiliary supports for the implementation of social workers’ activities in today’s society (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018). Combining these supports with the theoretical and scientific knowledge of social work provides social workers with the possibility of creating new methods for the identification of social problems; for enhanced social evaluation; for collecting and recording the information gathered during the intervention process through databases of records of practices; and for analysis of intervention results that can contribute to the evaluation of the change produced and the constraints which occurred in the action process. The new political organisation of the welfare state, in the context of the digital transition, “digital human rights”, is integrated into the macro theory of social work 28

ICTs & Innovation in Social Work

in contemporary society. It is fundamental for the promotion of protectionist, inclusive and emancipatory practices among the general population and among specific groups characterised by social, economic and cultural vulnerability. Drawing on Del Fresno García (2015), López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós (2018, 802) make the point that “social work is being transformed and developing new digital-based intervention strategies”, which are producing changes in contemporary social work practices and approaches. They go on to reflect how, within these changes, “New processes of inequality and exclusion are emerging in digital social networks on the Internet, while old problems are being redefined (from paedophilia to harassment)” (Lopéz Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018, 802).

Adaptability of Professional Practices to Teleworking Telework has gained strength with the COVID-19 pandemic. Faria (2009) defined “…, the provision of work under legal subordination of the worker to an employer, in a place not determined by the latter, through the use of information and communication technologies” (Article 165 of the Labour Code). In the context of the pandemic, new legislative decrees changed and relaxed a number of regulations through exceptional measures for COVID-19. Telework in most services became mandatory for companies with 50 or more employees located in territories where the epidemiological situation was of very high incidence and for companies located in high-risk areas, regardless of the number of employees. Article 168 of the Labour Code defines that the company must provide the necessary work and communication equipment for telework. According to the Portuguese Labour Code, originally only female workers who were victims of domestic violence or with children up to three years old had the legal right to exercise their activity under a telework regime. With the advent of COVID-19, the following situations were also covered as a right: •

The employee with a child up to three years of age has the right to work in a telework regime, when this is compatible with the activity carried out and the employer has the resources and means to do so, and can be extended up to eight years of age in the following situations: •

•

In cases where both parents meet the conditions to exercise the activity in a telework regime, provided that it is exercised by both parents in successive periods of equal duration within a maximum reference period of 12 months. Single-parent families or situations where only one parent can prove that they meet the conditions for telework.

A study was conducted by the CLISSIS research team (Cardoso, Vilar and Casquilho-Martins 2020). It addressed social workers during the pandemic period through the application of an online questionnaire in the period between 17 April and 7 May 2020, with a sample characterised as “snowball” (non-probabilistic).

29

Jorge M. L. Ferreira

A total of 395 participations were collected, with 388 responses being validated from social workers who exercised their professional activity in Portugal during this period. The study concludes that 27% of the respondents combined different modalities of work, either in the face-to-face domain or at a distance. Of participants, 50.3% used the telework modality with 23.4% combining this modality with face-to-face activities. With regard to face-to-face activities, most social workers said they were more involved in these, with almost half of the respondents (49.5%) continuing to maintain direct face-to-face contact with citizens, even during the pandemic period. New digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence systems, 5G technology, cloud and proximity computing and the Internet of Things, are all fundamental supports for professional practice (Boonen 2008). As such, the digital transition should be assumed as a catalyst for the ongoing industrial and societal transformation in order to facilitate the achievement of long-term carbon neutrality goals, in line with the European Green Pact guidelines and the government’s strategic challenge related to climate change response.

Telework Social Work Practices When we talk about digital transition in the social area, we have to consider: training and digital inclusion of people as central elements, through digital education programmes and actions; vocational training and re-qualification, for example, of unemployed people; inclusion and digital literacy; entrepreneurship and promotion of employment initiatives; and empowerment of citizens with the necessary skills for a digital society model and social mobility, as well as for the digital labour market, promoting the elimination of social inequality between women and men. All this is based on the commitment to social investment through the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge to the economy and, consequently, with benefits for the people. The next generation of qualification policies and certification of skills must assume as central an inclusive investment that respects people’s life cycle that promotes access to education and lifelong learning and that favours the creation of conditions for free generalised access to the Internet, as a way to update knowledge and skills and for self-training. To have professional practices supported by a digital model, we need to apply technologies transversally at the different levels of primary and secondary education, providing new generations with the digital skills necessary for their full personal and professional fulfilment, as well as access to equipment and quality digital educational resources and their coverage by teachers, trainers and researchers. However, it is also necessary to retrain adult audiences with digital skills in order to regenerate a more equitable and collaborative social model of work. We also highlight the Simplex 2019 programme, with the designation “Digital Identity”, using the mobile digital key (CMD),1 allowing citizens, nationals or foreigners not residing in the country to use Portuguese public services in their online version; digital innovation hubs that function as a one-stop shop helping 30

ICTs & Innovation in Social Work

SMEs to adopt digital technologies promoting innovation and the digital transition of their business processes, with a view to their competitiveness, e.g. the new digital supermarkets;2 and processes that are associated with social work practices of “corporate social work”, “social and cultural entrepreneurship” and “community intervention”. There is a diversity of digital accesses that every citizen is obliged to use in their daily life, namely, mobile health digital key (health portal3), digital signatures, the finance portal4 and enrolment in different study cycles and other services of public life. Going back to the data from the study carried out by the CLISSIS research team in the period between 17 April and 7 May 2020, we can see that face-to-face activities in direct contact with citizens have the greatest weight in the intervention fields of ageing (49.2%), social action, families and communities (21.85%) and health (19.4%). However, in the fields of education and housing, respondents are not carrying out face-to-face work in direct contact with citizens and their activity is mainly carried out through telework, with 88.9% and 75%, respectively. Telework is also more significant in the fields of disability and rehabilitation (57.4%); social action, families and communities (50%); and domestic violence (50%). The results imply that social work has adopted methodological strategies appropriate to each field of intervention: face-to-face in situations of greater social fragility and online in situations of more general social response. The main conclusion of this study is based on the responsiveness of social workers to citizens’ needs, as well as the promotion of the challenge to develop mixed (hybrid) methodologies that integrate face-to-face contact and digital contact through the application of information and communication technologies. Thus, contact with people can be facilitated and collaborative platforms are valued, guided by the network and partnership model. Social service assumes a basic role in this area as a facilitator of citizens’ access to identified public services, as ways for the state to better serve citizens and promote their rights. The evolution towards a more inclusive and democratic digital society requires an improvement in the relationship, access and response of services to the citizen through assertive forms of communicational accessibility, providing all, and in particular the most vulnerable, especially people with disabilities, with the opportunities created by new digital technologies. This whole process should be contextualised in the dimension of territoriality, i.e. the central, the local and the regional (Table 3.1; De La Fuente Robles and Martín Cano 2019).

Collaborative Approaches and Social Intervention Plans We are experiencing a paradigm shift towards integrated, participatory approaches and shared social responsibility. A model of society based on human rights and social rights, or rather a society characterised by relational and digital active social citizenship. This new model in transition today requires that the welfare state demands the co-construction of a policy of income distribution and a policy of public investment in social facilities and essentially an investment in a real policy of valuing the person in the social construction of a new world. 31

Jorge M. L. Ferreira Table 3.1 Digital tools in social intervention Common dimensions of citizens’ everyday life

Specialised technical dimension

•

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

Digital portal for access to services (Google Maps (mobility); scheduling of COVID vaccines) Mobile digital key (access to health; finance) Online purchase of tickets (transport; culture, shows) Bank management (various) Education/qualifications Digital communication (Netflix, digital press, others) Mobile phones and their synergies (supporting digital literacy gains) Differentiated information search on digital platforms Job search Online ordering from supermarkets Order meals at the restaurant to be delivered at home Digital Social Security (pension simulation, consultation of the period of contributions, others) Census 2021

• • • • • •

• •

Digital referencing Software to support the rehabilitation of socially disadvantaged people Educational platforms Telecare (trim-trim “telephone service” and elderly people) Social support and physical fitness (exercise) programmes Nutrition Social monitoring at a distance Submission of applications for external funding for both intervention and research projects Technical records in digital files Others

Source: Own preparation.

Physical and digital networks constitute a real potential in promoting citizen participation and autonomy in public life. Networking develops methodologies and working tools that reinforce the relevance of local knowledge flows for innovation and that highlight the socio-spatial factors that interfere in these flows. The socio-spatial dimension is understood as local networks, as flows that aggregate strategic knowledge associated with specific organisational and territorial contexts, transmitted and developed through interactions produced by the relationship of proximity. Professional interventions should ensure that the environment is inclusive, in the sense that it can fully respect vulnerable people’s rights, accessibility, participation and free choice with the dignity of full citizenship. This is a model of collaboration and participation with the target groups covered by the social protection system so that social intervention methods are co-created as steps in the transition to a sustainable and inclusive digital society. The potentialities of welfare models based on ecology (Bronfenbrenner 1987, 1996), environmental justice, the circular and solidarity economy, sustainable policies of community and/ or territorial nature are considered, inviting us to implement integrated approaches supported by qualitative methods, particularly in action research. 32

ICTs & Innovation in Social Work

This whole process is supported by principles of design, intervention, research and evaluation guided by network models (physical and digital) and by active partnerships between the various actors who contribute to this inclusive social transition and promotion of human dignity. To be effective and ensure the safeguarding of people’s human rights, we need collaborative and participatory methodologies based on a social dialogue and built on a global dimension, framed in contexts of cultural, social, economic and political diversity. The digital switchover process has to create constructive synergies with traditional procedures, which are based on participatory and interactive approaches, considering people as socially and culturally recognised members of their communities through their own activity, and the recognition of their life experience as ontological competences, i.e. a real-life field of context that expands the understanding of the interconnection with social welfare and inclusion.

Contemporary Challenges to Social Work in an Age of Uncertainty: From Face-to-Face Intervention to Digital Intervention The digital transition of contemporary society is one of the essential instruments for a development strategy for nations, in alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and European Union policies for the period of 2021–2027, in the framework of the Social Cohesion Policy. In this line of social analysis, the construction of a digital society can be seen as an opportunity to innovate and to adapt the functioning and organisation of political powers, orienting them towards a greater focus on the citizen, as well as reinventing a new economic model that promotes greater equality in society and favours innovation and knowledge, with citizen participation. The main areas of focus of the digital transition process5 are the digital empowerment of people, the digital transformation of companies and the digitalisation of public services. This is a complex process to implement in contexts of high levels of diversity in population, resources and digital literacy, taking as an example the differences and accessibility to the common good between urban and rural areas. It requires coordination, monitoring and follow-up by all sectors of society and professions, as well as by the ordinary citizen integrated in a community.

Conclusion In the social context of the 21st century, social work should promote a qualified practice based on the centrality of knowledge, the development of skills and capacities, the valorisation of civil society synergies and the profitability of social, ecological and environmental resources based on human rights. This contrasts with the professional practice currently observed in the centrality of policies, with the satisfaction of basic needs, state and institutional identification and economic- and financial-based responses highlighted by the principle of solidarity. Contemporary social work must contribute to sustainable development, and it is essential to interact with a new model of social transition based on the principle of 33

Jorge M. L. Ferreira

human life, which can only develop in inherent interdependence with the environmental context, the ecological whole and the regenerative economy. Social work should apply transdisciplinary knowledge and research on social transitions, sustainability policies and practices in the community framework as a challenge for the social inclusion of every citizen as, regardless of their living situation, “no one can be left behind” (Rocha and Ferreira 2016).

Acknowledgements This chapter draws on the results of the CLISSIS study. The members of the research team are as follows: Cardoso, Júlia (researcher), Vilar, Duarte (researcher), Casquilho Martins, Inês (researcher) – CLISSIS (July 2020). Report on the changes in the practice of the social worker in the context of COVID-19.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5

https://www.autenticacao.gov.pt/a-chave-movel-digital https://www.continente.pt/ https://www.sns.gov.pt/ https://www.portaldasfinancas.gov.pt/at/html/index.html Official Gazette, 1st Series. No. 78, p. 6 (21 April 2020). Approves the Action Plan for Digital Transition. Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 30/2020. Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Portugal.

References Boonen, E. M. 2008. “The many faces of telework.” Economics and Management Journal 2(4): 106–127. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1987. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Castellana translation. Barcelona. Ed. Paidós. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1996. The Ecology of Human Development: Natural Experiences and Planning. Porto Alegre: Edificio Artes Médicas. Cardoso, J., D. Vilar, and I. Casquilho-Martins. July 2020. “Study report. Desafios ao Serviço Social no contexto da COVID-19.” Clissis - Centro Lusíada de Investigação em Serviço Social e Intervenção Social. Portugal. De la Fuente Robles, Y. M., and M. C. Martín Cano. 2019. “E-social work and at-risk populations: Technology and robotics in social intervention with elders. The case of Spain.” European Journal of Social Work 22(4): 623–633. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1423550. Del Fresno García, M. 2015. “Connecting the disconnected: Social work and social network analysis. A methodological approach to identify peer network leaders.” Arbor 191(771): a209. doi: 10.3989/arbor.2015.771n1011. Faria, L. J. 2009. “New public administration: The process of innovation in Brazilian federal public administration seen through the experience of the “Innovation in Federal Public Management 77 Competition.” In Anais do Encontro da Associação Nacional de pós-graduação e pesquisa em administração 33. São Paulo: Anpad. Ferreira, J. 2011. “Contributions to the debate on epistemology in social work.” Trabajo Social Global 2(3): 67–78. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018. “e-Social work and digital society: Reconceptualizing approaches, practices and technologies.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475.

34

ICTs & Innovation in Social Work Reamer, F. G. 2019. “Social work education in a digital world. Technological standards for education and practice.” Journal of Social Work Education 55(3): 420–432. Rocha, H., and J. Ferreira. 2016. “An ecosocial model for the sustainability of vulnerable communities.” In Ecosocial Transition of Societies - The Contribution of Social Work and Social Policy, edited by A-L. Matthies and K. Närhi. Routledge. Rodrigues, M. L. 2012. “Professions - lessons and essays. Book collection: Manuais Universitários Ciências Sociais e Humanas.” In Sociology. Coimbra, Portugal: Edições Almedina.

35

4 PHOTOVOICE IN THE TIME OF DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK Eduardo Marques, José Luis Fernández-Pacheco Sáez, and Mieko Yoshihama

Introduction Society today faces an invisible but powerful transformation triggered by digital technology that challenges the bases of our society, altering how we think, communicate, and make sense of the world. While digital technology has enabled communication and participation among previously isolated and marginalized segments of society, it has also contributed to widening social, cultural, and financial capital gaps. In this chapter, we discuss the application of PhotoVoice methodology (Wang and Burris 1994, 1997) to a digital context. Because it was originally developed as a participatory tool for community assessment and policy advocacy to improve population health during the 1990s, its application to the digital world presents many challenges while also offering exciting opportunities. This chapter first presents the theoretical, philosophical, and epistemological orientations of PhotoVoice and ethical issues. We then discuss the application of PhotoVoice in social work in the digital age. Drawing on our own experience and the work of others, we examine the possibilities and challenges of PhotoVoice in the digital age.

PhotoVoice Methodology Theoretical, Philosophical, and Epistemological Orientations PhotoVoice methodology was initially developed by US-based public health researchers during the 1990s as a participatory tool for assessing a community’s needs and assets and advocating for change in policies and systems (Wang and Burris 1994, 1997). PhotoVoice is rooted in the theoretical and epistemological traditions of empowerment and emancipatory education, feminist theory, and documentary photography (Wang and Burris 1994, 1997). Predicated on Freire’s (1970) education for critical

36

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-5

PhotoVoice and Digital Social Work

consciousness (conscientizaçã o), PhotoVoice places individuals and communities affected by the social issue under investigation at the center of discovery and analysis. Grounded in feminist theories, PhotoVoice recognizes women (and other marginalized groups) as authorities and legitimate creators of knowledge (Maguire 1987). PhotoVoice is also a form of citizen documentary photography aimed at recording and analyzing community and social issues and advocating for change. Consistent with feminist and Freirian theoretical and epistemological traditions, PhotoVoice rejects the idea of a value-free “objective” knowledge. By handing a camera to the very people affected by the social issue under investigation and creating space for participants to reflect on and narrate their experiences, PhotoVoice promotes participatory, collective, and reflexive knowledge production. Through dialectic discussions, participants connect their personal experiences to sociopolitical structures and processes, critically examine the challenges they and their communities face—their root causes, contributing factors, and consequences—and formulate necessary steps to improve the community’s condition. This type of knowledge creation breaks the monopoly of knowledge creation by experts (Hall 1977). Such collectively produced knowledge motivates members to take action to improve the conditions in which they live. As such, PhotoVoice exemplifies the three prongs of participatory action research: social investigation and knowledge creation; education and capacity building; and social action for change. Originating in the field of public health, PhotoVoice has since been used in a wide range of fields as a participatory method of examining social issues, exposing injustice, and promoting action to improve social conditions (Castleden, Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht First Nation 2008; Rhodes et al. 2008; Beh, Bruyere, and Lolosoli 2013; Desyllas 2014; Bananuka and John 2015; Bell 2015; also see Hergenrather et al. 2009; Catalani and Minkler 2010 for reviews). PhotoVoice methodology is flexible; projects can adopt procedures suitable for project goals, participant characteristics, and sociocultural and political contexts (Castleden et al. 2008; Higgins 2014; Yoshihama and Yunomae 2018; Yoshihama 2021). At its core, PhotoVoice involves ongoing photo-taking and a series of group meetings to discuss the issues that are central to the project’s goals and objectives. Repeatedly, participants take photographs of individual and community conditions, and bring the photographs and discuss their experiences and observations in a small group setting. Through ongoing reflection and dialectic discussions, participants create “voices” (i.e., short written texts) that accompany selected photographs. Their photographs and voices are disseminated in various ways. Many community-based projects organize exhibits to create space for community members, policymakers, and others to learn about and discuss the social problem that the project set out to address. With the advent of digital technology, projects increasingly make use of digital formats for dissemination, as discussed below.

Ethical Issues Ethical issues involved in PhotoVoice have been widely discussed (Wang and Redwood-Jones 2001; Teti et al. 2012; Evans-Agnew and Rosemberg 2016; 37

Eduardo Marques et al.

Creighton et al. 2018). For example, Rosemberg and Evans-Agnew (2020) identify the following four ethical benchmarks: • • • •

clear verbal and written consents among all parties involved (researcher, participant, photographer, and person being photographed); clearly defined research question, processes, protocol, and dissemination plan; ongoing self-reflection among all parties involved, especially the researcher; and overall assurance that the way we engage with the communities “honors their wisdom and expertise” (citing Liebenberg 2018, 1).

Additionally, it is critical to include transparency and diligence to keep participants informed of any changes and, more importantly, engage them in brainstorming and developing the research question, processes, protocol, and dissemination plans. Ethical issues about photo-taking have become even more critical with the advancement of digital technologies, further discussed below. The protection of participants is of paramount importance. This involves both photographers (those participating in the PhotoVoice project) and people appearing in the photographs and includes informed consent, the right to safety and privacy. As Teti (2019) argues, we need to be flexible in adapting ethical protections to the different situations we face in PhotoVoice processes; however, basic ethical benchmarks must be adhered to in every process, as many authors have pointed out (Wang and Redwood-Jones 2001; Evans-Agnew et al. 2014; Sanon et al. 2014; Liebenberg 2018; Rosemberg and Evans-Agnew 2020). A discussion about ethics is indispensable in every PhotoVoice project from the planning to the implementation phase, including staff and member training, phototaking, and dissemination of photographs and voices (Wang and Burris 1997; Yoshihama 2021). As Wang and Burris articulate, some ethical questions must be reflected and responded to even before starting the process or taking any pictures. These questions seek to address what is the acceptable way to approach someone to take their picture, if it is necessary to let them know they will appear in a photograph, and what the implications of taking a specific picture are. In addition to anonymity and confidentiality, participants must know that PhotoVoice is an open process and that they can choose to leave at any time without any negative consequences. Notably, some researchers have argued that the task of elaborating or implementing a code of ethics could present some barriers and prevent creativity (Hallowell et al. 2005; Pitt 2014). However, respecting and protecting the rights of participants and facilitating conditions to ensure their safety and well-being are of utmost importance in any project, the more so in PhotoVoice projects, which seek to empower vulnerable and marginalized individuals and communities. Clearly and openly communicating these basic ethical principles to participants and recognizing and addressing any unforeseen issues if they arise will create the environment of trust that the process requires. In an ongoing PhotoVoice project with disaster-affected women in Japan (Yoshihama and Yunomae 2018), despite researchers’ concern that the lengthy written consent form 38

PhotoVoice and Digital Social Work

required by the Institutional Review Board would be a turn-off for participants, many welcomed the researchers’ efforts to explain in writing participants’ rights and the measures taken to protect their safety and well-being. This is a good reminder that the purpose of the consent process is not merely to obtain written or verbal consent, but it is a critical process whereby researchers communicate their respect for the rights of participants and commitment to protect them. Consent to participate must be repeatedly revisited on an ongoing basis throughout the project’s duration. The well-being of participants is essential. Photo-taking and group discussions can elicit strong reactions; thus, processes for containment, debriefing, and closure need to be included in the project design. It is also essential to clarify the project goals and limitations. While PhotoVoice is a participatory tool that drives and promotes action and social change, researchers and practitioners have repeatedly warned against (inadvertently) raising false hopes among participants (Johnston 2016). For example, “they should never be led to believe that their circumstances will be dramatically or immediately changed by being involved” (PhotoVoice n.d.). The advent of digital technologies has created new ways of participating and disseminating visual artifacts and images, which has heightened ethical issues, as discussed below.

Applications to Social Work As a participatory action research method, PhotoVoice offers multiple possibilities for social work practice and research. Incorporating a visual method (i.e., photography), PhotoVoice goes beyond conventional text-based ways of communicating and documenting, enabling the participation of those who have been conventionally excluded from participation. Wang and Burris’s work (1994, 1997) with women with limited literacy in a rural Chinese village is a case in point. PhotoVoice also transcends language barriers, such as when researchers do not speak the language spoken by participants. In addition to Wang and colleagues’ work, our own projects speak to this strength of PhotoVoice, allowing critical examination of issues facing research participants despite language barriers: a project among refugee women in an urban metropolitan area in the USA (Yoshihama and Carr 2002) and a project in Azores (Portugal) with homeless individuals, many of whom were deported from the USA (Marques 2021; Marques et al. 2022). PhotoVoice involves facilitated group discussions. A series of questions called SHOWeD— What do you See here? What is really Happening here? How does this relate to Our lives? Why does this problem, concern, or strength exist? What can we Do about it? (Wang 1999, 188) —are widely used to facilitate critical analysis of what is captured by the participants’ photographs. While some projects are highly structured (e.g., adhering to SHOWeD questions), many projects use a semistructured format to tailor questions to the topics of discussion and the conditions and needs of group members. Skillfully facilitated group meetings can foster team building among the group and community members and the development of social and emotional capacities. Importantly, PhotoVoice, through photo-taking and repeated dialogic discussions, fosters critical consciousness (Carlson, Engebretson, 39

Eduardo Marques et al.

and Chamberlain 2006; Yoshihama and Yunomae 2018; Marques 2021). Capitalizing on the many strengths of PhotoVoice, this method has been used in social work practice, and research encompasses a wide range of issue areas and population groups across the globe in diverse locations, regions, and countries, especially in projects aimed at empowering those who have been marginalized (Yoshihama and Carr 2002; Desyllas 2014; Lightfoot et al. 2017; Yoshihama and Yunomae 2018; Yoshihama 2019; Marques 2021). PhotoVoice has also been used in social work education (Peabody 2013; Mulder 2014; Mulder and Dull 2014).

PhotoVoice in the Digital Age Challenges and Opportunities Information and communications technology has emerged as a significant driver of change in the world. A new generation of smartphones brings together limitless ways of communication and the availability of thousands of apps that affect the way we live and the relationship between society, culture, and technology. In this chapter, we have used the term digital as defined by Dawson (2020, 1): “an umbrella term to describe research methods that use computer-based products and solutions (or electronic technologies) for data collection and analysis.” The digital world opens up a wide range of new possibilities for PhotoVoice, from using digital cameras and cellphones as tools for self-expression, documentation, and critical reflection to using digital platforms to disseminate photographs and voices widely and creatively. However, except for using a camera, PhotoVoice is a relatively low-tech method, relying heavily on reflexive discussions in small groups and collective analyses and action. There is a tension between these lowtech yet high-human-contact features of PhotoVoice and the fast-paced, widereaching advantages of digital technology. This tension signals new and exciting possibilities for PhotoVoice by incorporating digital tools and processes to enhance its impact locally and globally.

New Technologies: Digital Photography and Platforms The spread of digital technologies has expanded the diversity of instruments used in social work intervention and research. Reamer (2013, 163) aptly remarked, “Today’s social work services include a much wider range of digital and electronic options, including a large number of tools for the delivery of services to clients.” Various methodologies and approaches have been adapted to the digital world, for example, data visualization, digital ethnography, digital storytelling, mobile diaries, and online focus groups (Dawson 2020). Similar digital application of PhotoVoice is possible. As photography constitutes the core of PhotoVoice, the recent rapid transition from analogic photography to digital photography, coupled with the mass availability of smartphones that incorporate a camera, now allows many people to have access to photography. Schankweiler and colleagues (2019, 1) explain that “New technologies have enabled 40

PhotoVoice and Digital Social Work

individuals to record, upload, and share images directly via mobile devices, which make[s] nearly everyone a potential witness at any given time.” Digital photography is a versatile and accessible form of creative expression and offers opportunities for participation, citizenship, community identity development, and truly meaningful inclusion that few other art forms achieve (Fernández-Pacheco Sáez et al. 2022). Digital photography enables people to share their perspectives and experience or create a space for communication and discussion in a way that is instantly engaging and accessible to everybody. Moreover, because the technological advances in digital photography allow for improving the quality of a photograph (e.g., adjusting contrast, color), participants can focus more on ideas, problems, and strengths and less on the technical aspects of photography. In addition to digital photography, the increased availability of social network media and digital platforms enriches PhotoVoice projects. According to Olsson (2014, 207), “The new media environment, built on the ‘web 2.0’ logic, offers new and hitherto unseen participatory possibilities and as such it can become a participatory architecture for citizens.” This participatory element of PhotoVoice can increase its impact because social media provide interactive, updated platforms for active social participation, which has transformed the way of sending and receiving information. While noting concerns about the risks of technologies, McNutt (2018) believes that new technologies complement traditional methods and aid the effort to bring about social change, making it more productive and successful. Social media such as Instagram, Twitch, Tik-Tok, Flicker, Facebook, and Twitter are some of the leading platforms that allow people with a smartphone to contribute to the production of images; they get copied, shared, and re-used for years on the net (Creighton et al. 2018).

Benefits and Challenges of Digital PhotoVoice In addition to their technological benefits, digital photography and platforms can facilitate relationship building. Reamer (2013, 165) claims that the use of digital media makes social workers more accessible and humanizes practitioner-client relationships; as such, digital media can assist in providing social support. Chen (2012), in his book 50 Digital Team-Building Games, enumerates meeting openers, icebreakers, and group activities that make use of social media, smartphones, GPS, tablets, and so forth. Photography is used in several exercises, such as “Photo Booth—iPad 2 or Photo-Based Networking,” “GooseChase—Cell Phone Photo Scavenger Hunt,” and “Digital Slideshow—Picture Your Success.” These activities can be incorporated into digital PhotoVoice. “The cellphone’s intelligibility and multi-functionality allow us to talk, text, take a video, take pictures, access the internet, etc., and affordability have[has] also helped establish the device’s centrality in our lives” (MacEntee, Burkholder, and SchwabCartas 2016, 2). Cellphones also change behaviors and relationships. Cellphones became an extension of the body and were conceptualized as a handheld prosthesis that extends and improves an individual’s sight and hearing (Pertierra and Odin, cited in MacEntee et al. 2016). People’s familiarity with and use of cellphones varies, 41

Eduardo Marques et al.

and not everybody has the facility to use a cellphone camera to document problems or issues. Nonetheless, we cannot deny that the cellphone is a powerful instrument of participation and empowerment. Thanks to digital media technologies, developing a PhotoVoice project seems more accessible than before, especially in the Global North. However, the situation is quite different in developing countries and the Global South, where electricity is still a mirage, leaving many areas without wireless networks. In such contexts, we need to prioritize the traditional ways of working with analog photography. In our recent project with homeless individuals in Azores, Portugal, participants did not have a smartphone or a digital camera, and thus we chose to provide them with disposable cameras (Marques 2021; Marques et al. 2022). Not only was it challenging to find a retailer that carried disposable cameras in this digital age, but the ones we purchased had also been on shelves for many years. Even though the expiration date had not passed, we found out that the film had decayed; when we had the film developed, there were smudges and scratches, and the color contrast was compromised in many of the images. In addition, it was challenging to find an accessible store that could develop film and render print photographs. As social workers in the digital age, we must be conscious and conscientious about both equalizing and marginalizing the potential of “new wonderful digital technology.” A recent project using PhotoVoice with high school students in Extremadura, Spain, during the Covid-19 pandemic presented another challenge but also enabled youth to express themselves through photography and discussion. National and regional lockdowns and social distancing requirements undoubtedly accelerated the need to digitize PhotoVoice projects. In this project, participants engaged in synchronous digital community-building events to inspire more social and political online interaction and activism even when face-to-face contact was not possible. We also used a digital platform to share photographs, and a physical picture exhibition is being prepared.

Final Reflections and Directions to Digital Research and Intervention Since the beginning of modernity, media have transformed the scale on which we act as social beings. Several compelling ethical issues are emerging as social workers make increasing use of a wide range of digital and other electronic technology (Reamer 2013). Clearly, there is a need for ethical procedures so that everything that is done is understood and has the agreement of all participants, but the exposure of people and their voices carries risks even in democratic countries. Uploaded images and texts become visible to an unspecified number of people and remain so almost indefinitely. While there are ways to restrict access, that would result in limited exposure and dissemination of important information through photographs and voices. Weighing the benefits of wide dissemination and the risks of over(and unwanted) exposure presents a difficult dilemma. The application of PhotoVoice methodology offers exciting and enriching opportunities for social work, especially in the fast-evolving digital age. However, unlike other disciplines such as sociology and anthropology, where visual inquiry 42

PhotoVoice and Digital Social Work

and methodologies have been recognized by a myriad of authors (see Banks 2001; Grau 2002; Schnettler and Raab 2008; Serrano 2008; Latz 2017, among others) and ethical guidelines have been established (Papademas 2009), social work lags in this regard. This was one of our motivations to write this chapter: to promote PhotoVoice as a social work research and practice methodology and encourage lively discussions on the ethics of using PhotoVoice in social work. Taking reflection and practice into account, all in all, we consider that digital PhotoVoice enables us to overcome certain barriers (e.g., physical space, distance, language) and contributes to a new path of digital research and intervention in social work. It also enlarges traditional PhotoVoice methodology, as well as complementing other kinds of virtual interventions in Social Work 2.0. in the assessment and promotion of community participation when face-to-face encounters are a challenge.

References Bananuka, T., and V. M. John. 2015. “Picturing community development work in Uganda: Fostering dialogue through Photovoice.” Community Development Journal 50: 196–212. Banks, M. 2001. Visual methods in social research. London: Sage Publications. Beh, A., B. L. Bruyere, and S. Lolosoli. 2013. “Legitimizing local perspectives in conservation through community-based research: A Photovoice study in Samburu, Kenya.” Society and Natural Resources 26: 1390–1406. Bell, S. E. 2015. “Bridging activism and the academy: Exposing environmental injustices through the feminist ethnographic method of Photovoice.” Human Ecology Review 21: 27–58. Carlson, E. D., J. Engebretson, and R. M. Chamberlain. 2006. “Photovoice as a social process of critical consciousness.” Qualitative Health Research 16: 836–852. Castleden, H., T. Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht First Nation. 2008. “Modifying Photovoice for community-based participatory Indigenous research.” Social Science & Medicine 66 (6): 1393–1405. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030. Catalani, C., and M. Minkler. 2010. “Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health.” Health Education & Behavior 37(3): 424–451. doi: 10.1177/10901981 09342084. Chen, J. 2012. 50 digital team-building games: Fast, fun meeting openers, group activities and adventures using social media, smart phones, GPS, tablets, and more. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Creighton, G., J. L. Oliffe, O. Ferlatte, J. Bottorff, A. Broom, and E. K. Jenkins. 2018. “Photovoice ethics: Critical reflections from men’s mental health research.” Qualitative Health Research 28(3): 446–455. doi: 10.1177/1049732317729137. Dawson, C. 2020. A-Z of digital research methods. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Desyllas, M. C. 2014. “Using photovoice with sex workers: The power of art, agency and resistance.” Qualitative Social Work 13(4):477–501. doi: 10.1177/1473325013496596. Evans-Agnew, R., M. A. Sanon, and D. Boutain. 2014. “Critical research methodologies and social justice issues: A methodological example using photovoice.” In Philosophies and practices of emancipatory nursing: Social justice as praxis, edited by P. N. Kagan, M. C. Smith, and P. L. Chinn. New York: Routledge. Evans-Agnew, R. A., and M-A. S. Rosemberg. 2016. “Questioning Photovoice research: Whose voice?” Qualitative Health Research 26(8): 1019–1030. doi: 10.1177/1049732315 624223. Fernández-Pacheco Sáez, J. L., I. Rasskin-Gutman, E. Marques, and M. Yoshihama. 2022. “(Digital) PhotoVoice in community development and the construction of collective

43

Eduardo Marques et al. identity: Promoting critical and participative citizens through education.” Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives (REALIA) 28: 77–92. https://ojs.uv.es/index. php/realia/article/view/21795 Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Grau, R. 2002. Antropología visual. Barcelona: Ediciones Beltierra. Hall, B. L. 1977. Creating knowledge: Breaking the monopoly: Research methods, participation and development. Toronto: International Council for Adult Education. Hallowell, L., J. Lawton, and S. Gregory. 2005. Reflections on research: The realities of doing research in the social sciences. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Hergenrather, K. C., S. D. Rhodes, C. A. Cowan, G. Bardhoshi, and S. Pula. 2009. “Photovoice as community-based participatory research: A qualitative review.” American Journal of Health Behavior 33(6): 686–698. Higgins, M. 2014. “Rebraiding Photovoice: Methodological métissage at the cultural interface.” Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 43(2): 208–217. Johnston, G. 2016. “Champions for social change: Photovoice ethics in practice and ‘false hopes’ for policy and social change.” Global Public Health 11(5-6): 799–811. doi: 10.1080/ 17441692.2016.1170176. Latz, A. O. 2017. Photovoice research in education and beyond: A practical guide from theory to exhibition. New York: Routledge. Liebenberg, L. 2018. “Thinking critically about Photovoice: Achieving empowerment and social change.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17(1): 1–9. doi: 10.1177/16094 06918757631. Lightfoot, A. F., K. Thatcher, F. M. Simán, E. Eng, Y. Merino, T. Thomas, T. CoyneBeasley, and M. V. Chapman. 2017. ““What I wish my doctor knew about my life”: Using Photovoice with immigrant Latino adolescents to explore barriers to healthcare.” Qualitative Social Work 18(1): 60–80. doi: 10.1177/1473325017704034. MacEntee, K., C. Burkholder, and J. Schwab-Cartas. 2016. What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating mobile phone technology into participatory visual research and activism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Maguire, P. 1987. Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: Center for International Education, School of Education, University of Massachusetts. Marques, E. 2021. “A cidadania através da fotografia: a utilização do photovoice na promoção dos Direitos Humanos de pessoas em situação de sem abrigo.” Revista Inclusiones 8 (Especial/Enero–Marzo): 421–434. Marques, E., M. Yoshihama, A. Patrão, and J. L. Fernández-Pacheco Sáez. 2022. “PhotoVoice exposing multiple, intersectional marginalizations in a ‘foreign homeland.’” Paper presented at the CombART 2022 – International Conference on Arts, Activism and Citizenship, Porto, Portugal. https://combart.eventqualia.net/en/2022/home/ McNutt, J. G. ed. 2018. Technology, activism, and social justice in a digital age. New York: Oxford University Press. Mulder, C. 2014. “Unraveling students’ experiences with religion and spirituality in the classroom using a Photovoice method: Implications for MSW programs.” Social Work and Christianity 41(1): 16–44. Mulder, C., and A. Dull. 2014. “Facilitating self-reflection: The integration of Photovoice in graduate social work education.” Social Work Education 33(8): 1017–1036. doi: 10.1080/ 02615479.2014.937416. Olsson, T. 2014. “The architecture of participation” for citizens or consumers. In Critique, social media and the information society, edited by C. Fuchs and S. Marisol, 203–235. New York: Routledge. Papademas, D. 2009. “IVSA code of research ethics and guidelines.” Visual Studies 24 (3): 250–257. doi: 10.1080/14725860903309187. Peabody, C. G. 2013. “Using Photovoice as a tool to engage social work students in social justice.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 33(3): 251–265. doi: 10.1080/08841233.2013. 795922.

44

PhotoVoice and Digital Social Work PhotoVoice. n.d. Statement of ethical practice. https://photovoice.org/about-us/photovoicestatement-of-ethical-practice/ (Accessed June 20, 2021). Pitt, P. 2014. “‘The project cannot be approved in its current form’: Feminist visual research meets the Human Research Ethics Committee.” Australian Education Research 41: 311–325. Reamer, F. G. 2013. “Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk-management challenges.” Social Work 58 (2): 163–172. 10.1093/sw/swt003. Rhodes, S. D., K. C. Hergenrather, A. M. Wilkin, and C. Jolly. 2008. “Visions and voices: Indigent persons living with HIV in the southern United States use Photovoice to create knowledge, develop partnerships, and take action.” Health Promotion Practice 9 (2): 159–169. doi: 10.1177/1524839906293829. Rosemberg, M. A., and R. Evans-Agnew. 2020. “Ethics in Photovoice: A response to Teti.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19. doi: 10.1177/1609406920922734. Sanon, M. A., R. Evans-Agnew, and D. Boutain. 2014. “An exploration of social justice intent in photovoice research studies from 2008 to 2013.” Nursing Inquiry 21 (3): 212–226. Schankweiler, K., V. Straub, and T. Wendl. 2019. “Image testimonies: Witnessing in times of social media.” In Image testimonies: Witnessing in times of social media, edited by K. Schankweiler, V. Straub, and T. Wendl, 1–13. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Schnettler, B., and J. Raab. 2008. “Interpretative visual analysis. Developments, state of the art and pending problems.” Forum Qualitative Research 9 (3). 10.17169/fqs-9.3.1149. Serrano, A. 2008. “El análisis de materiales visuales en la investigación social: el caso de la publicidad.” In Estrategias y prácticas cualitativas de investigación social, edited by A. Gordo and A. Serrano. Madrid: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Teti, M. 2019. “The murky ethics of visual qualitative methods: Picturing a clear path forward.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18. doi: 10.1177/1609406919884810. Teti, M., C. Murray, L., Johnson, and D. Binson. 2012. “Photovoice as a community based participatory research method among women living with HIV/AIDS: Ethical opportunities and challenges.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7: 34–43. Wang, C. 1999. “Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health.” Journal of Women’s Health 8: 185–192. Wang, C., and M. A. Burris. 1994. “Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation.” Health Education & Behavior 21: 171–186. Wang, C., and M. A. Burris. 1997. “Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment.” Health Education & Behavior 24: 369–387. Wang, C. C., and Y. A. Redwood-Jones. 2001. “Photovoice ethics: Best practices from the Flint photovoice project.” Health Education & Behavior 28(5): 560–572. doi: 10.1177/10901 9810102800504. Yoshihama, M. 2019. “PhotoVoice Project: A participatory research and action in postdisaster Japan.” In Art in social work practice: Theory and practice—International perspectives, edited by E. Huss and E. Bos, 57–67. London & New York: Routledge. Yoshihama, M. 2021. “Visualizing drivers of gender health disparities: Ongoing participatory action research following the 2011 disaster in Japan.” Social Science & Medicine 283: 114133. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114133. Yoshihama, M., and E. S. Carr. 2002. “Community participation reconsidered: Feminist participatory action research with Hmong women.” Journal of Community Practice 10(4): 85–103. Yoshihama, M., and T. Yunomae. 2018. “Participatory investigation of the Great East Japan Disaster: PhotoVoice from women affected by the calamity”. Social Work 63(3): 234–243. doi: 10.1093/sw/swy018.

45

5 NETWORKED RELATIONSHIPS Relationship-Based Social Work Practice in the Digital Era Gloria Kirwan

Introduction The digitalization of society has not only spread widely but, particularly in the last decade, it has spread deep. In information and communication technologies (ICTs), the innovations in synchronous and asynchronous methods of communication have transformed how humans connect with each other and how they source information. Driven by rapid innovations, the materialities and functionalities of different communication technologies have changed, and are changing and these developments will continue to influence how we, as humans, relate to each other and to our environment. New ICT innovations appear on a frequent basis, many of them designed to overcome geographical and temporal barriers of communication and connection, opening up new interaction capabilities that are then adopted and absorbed in different ways into the lives of people across the world. Social work, as a profession and a practice, is not watching these changes in society from afar; similar to many other sectors, groups or professions, it is immersed in, and influenced by, the technological transformation of the world. In this era of ‘instant’ between-people communication and networking, this chapter presses pause to invite a brief but important moment of reflection on how the intersection between technology and social work is shaping the relational dimensions of practice. How will relationship-based practice (Trevithick 2003; Ruch, Turney, and Ward 2010), one of social work’s signature features, change and adapt as the world moves into an increasingly digitalized future? Drawing on commentary and research reported in the wider literature, this chapter contemplates how social work performativity, particularly regarding its relational dimensions, is adapting to, or being adapted by, the materiality and functionality of new communication technologies. The purpose of this chapter is to draw these

46

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-6

Networked Relationships

concepts together into a tentative discussion of the digitalization of social work and its implications for relationship-based practice.

Relationship-Based Practice in the Digital Age The importance in social work practice of attending to the relationship between the social worker and the service user (Ruch, Turney, and Ward 2010) continues to retain its paramountcy across the profession. There are many dimensions to relationship-based practice, which includes the work which social workers carry out to create a context of relational safety for the service users with whom they work. Drawing on the relationship-based literature, Blakemore et al. (2022) present a succinct but comprehensive overview of the reasons why the social worker-service user relationship occupies an important position within social work practice. This includes recognition of the value of building relationships with service users based on trust, respect, understanding and honesty and which then provide a supportive foundation for all of the worker-service user interactions that follow. As Blakemore et al. (2022) point out, it is through the relationship-based exchanges that the service user’s history and present situation is heard, honoured and respected via empathic listening and the authentic use of self on the part of the social worker. Research studies and professional reports are increasingly addressing how relationship-based practice is working within the increasingly context of practice. The concern that the use of digital technologies would quash or prevent the ability of social workers to develop helpful relationships with service users seems now overly pessimistic in light of positive observations, such as that by Nordesjö, Scaramuzzino, and Ulmestig (2022), who identified a technological optimism within the profession. The wider evidence base currently available on the application of different technologies in social work practice is in a nascent stage, but already the emerging evidence is revealing a more nuanced, tapestry-like picture, which contains some encouraging signs which indicate that the virtual dimension of digital technologies may be experienced by some service users as less emotionally intense making it easier for them to discuss personal issues in their contacts with professional services (Chan and Ngai 2019; Sanders 2019). MacDonald et al. (2022) highlight what they refer to as ‘virtual proximity’, whereby technology provides a means for relationships to be sustained, but in a way which does not require in-person contact. This virutally-close but physically distant quality of electronic communication offers relational opportunities which may be difficult to achieve when physical, in-person contact is not possible for a variety of reasons.

Social Work Practice and the Digital In this light, developments in technology present ‘the space of the possible’ in terms of what social work may decide to use technology for (Kirwan 2019, 123). It is becoming increasingly clear that enhanced methods of information dissemination, communication and big data research open up new ways for social workers to connect with and support the communities they serve. Any doubts about the utility 47

Gloria Kirwan

of digital technology in social work practice, including the ever-expanding assemblage of ICTs, were firmly closed off by the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic when the rapid deployment of many different technologies was enacted by social workers across the world in their efforts to reach out to client groups distanced from services by the lockdown and other measures that featured in the public health response to the pandemic in many countries (López Peláez et al. 2021; Mishna et al. 2021). Mishna and Zuberi (2021) highlight research with service users which confirms that service users valued these efforts by social workers to use technology in order to minimise disruption for service users during the pandemic period. The pivot to the digital in the pandemic context was sometimes smooth in social work practice but not universally straightforward due to varying levels of unpreparedness in different contexts (Walter-McCabe 2020), arising in part because of issues such as lack of access for social workers or service users to specific technologies (hardware and software); lack of skills on the part of the social worker; prohibitive cost implications of equipping social workers or service users with the necessary digital devices; lack of training; the time pressure of switching to digital technologies within the pandemic emergency timeframe; and concerns among social workers regarding the management of ethical issues, such as confidentiality, when using technologies of various types. The complexity of need among specific service user groups, especially those hardest hit by COVID-19 itself, was a further complicating factor in how social workers coped with the emergency context and it likely also played a part in deciding what technologies social workers used in different practice contexts (Ashcroft et al. 2022). The debate about the applicability or utility of technology in social work practice has broadened significantly to include a focus on how technology can support, enhance and innovate practice, and how the practice of social work will change in response to its increasing digitization. These are big questions, beyond the scope of this chapter to fully address, but here a focus is placed on the intersection of relationship-based practice and technology as performed and enacted in the exchanges between social workers and service users. There had been for some time pre-COVID-19, of course, sections of the profession already developing professional knowledge and competences regarding the integration of new technologies into social work, and the issue of how to ‘harness technology for social good’ was already listed as one of the Grand Challenges for Social Work (Berzin and Coulton 2018). However, prior to the extensive roll-out of digital technologies in social work arising from the onset of the pandemic, the practice of digital social work had not featured strongly in the social work curriculum, it was not a domain of ethical practice addressed routinely in codes of ethics (although this had been changing even before COVID-19), and in terms of skills and knowledge it was not an area in which social workers generally perceived themselves to possess high levels of competence (Somerville and Brady 2019). The arrival of the pandemic fast-forwarded the integration of digital technologies into social work practice, and in that process it revealed how, under the right conditions, social workers could effectively integrate certain technologies into their practices in order to support, even enhance, the delivery of effective and efficient social work responses to those in need of its services. 48

Networked Relationships

This integration of ICTs into social work practice is gaining increased attention as a point of discussion within the social work literature, where, among many topics, the benefits it can offer to developing and sustaining relationality (connecting relationally) and relationship-based practice with service users, as well as some potential limitations, are being identified.

Benefits In terms of benefits, social workers are reporting how the incorporation of ICTs into social work practices provides possibilities for different forms of communication with service users, which help social workers to keep a channel of communication open with service users even in the most severe types of emergencies or lockdowns. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of digital technologies provided social workers in many parts of the world with a means of maintaining connections with service users despite the various forms of confinements that were put in place (López Peláez et al. 2021). Similar advantages were reported by social work educators, who were able to minimise disruption to social work qualifying courses by implementing a rapid pivot to the digital classroom (McFadden et al. 2020). Beyond simply keeping a channel of communication open, and not necessarily located only within COVID-19-related contexts, a growing set of research studies has been demonstrating how communication via digital technologies can aid rapport building and trust between social workers and service users, thus helping social workers comprehensively understand the situation of the service user whilst also enabling service users to engage more fully with supportive and/or therapeutic services. Research reports have shown how the lower emotional intensity of virtual contact (synchronous or asynchronous), compared to in-person contact, may actually, in some circumstances, enhance the experience of the service user and the quality of the interpersonal communication, thus aiding the service user to feel sufficiently comfortable to discuss personal issues or engage with social workers in a range of contexts (Denby et al. 2016; Chan and Nagai 2019; Sanders 2019; Simpson 2020). For example, Simpson (2017) has pointed to the benefits of using mobile technologies with young people, many of whom routinely use this form of communication in their social lives (Somerville and Brady 2019). MacDonald et al. (2022) highlight the concept of ‘virtual proximity’ which technologies can offer in certain social work contexts (their research focus is contact for children in adoption contexts) and how the functionalities of digital technologies may help override reallife barriers to in-person contact when these arise, thus supporting relationships to endure and develop across distance and time. Similarly, some commentators have discussed how new technologies, such as closed Facebook groups, can be used to stimulate positive dynamics of group or community cohesion and mutuality (Shevellar, 2017; Brown and Dustman 2019; Castillo de Mesa et al. 2019; La Mendola 2019). Byrne and Kirwan (2019, 228–229) highlight the importance, albeit counter-intuitive in nature, of research findings which indicate that asynchronous contact may actually help some service user populations to engage with social work services in specific contexts, noting the apparent 49

Gloria Kirwan

paradox (looked at from a pre-digital era perspective) in situations where social workers successfully build relationships with service users, even in a situation where the service user may not be proximate or visible to the social worker, where exchanges are conducted asynchronously and possibly without sound (for example, posts or emails) and where the social worker does not have proximate access to audio-visual clues (tone of voice or the physical expression of emotion) from the service user. Across a range of studies, benefits (often depending on context) of technologyfacilitated communication between social workers and service users, which are relevant to the establishment of a context conducive to relationship-building, can be summarised to include, easier or more convenient ways of contacting each other, easier scheduling and lower no-show rates at scheduled meetings (online or inperson), flexibility in how ongoing contact can be organised and achieved, better accessibility for service users to social workers, and quicker responses by social workers to requests for assistance from service users (Breyette and Hill 2015; Copson et al. 2022). In terms of social work research, the availability of big data and digitized research methods provide new research possibilities to deepen knowledge and understanding of the lived realities and experiences of service users (Parker-Oliver and Demiris 2006; Birk 2017; Geldof and Driessens 2017; Castillo de Mesa et al. 2019; ChavesMontero et al. 2021; Kirwan 2022), thus helping social workers to provide services where they are needed and in the way service users want to receive them.

Limitations Limitations to the use of ICTs in social work have also been identified. The ‘alwayson’ nature of digital communication needs to be robustly managed to ensure that social workers are not overwhelmed by too many communications to which they cannot respond in the form of texts, emails, and digital messaging, either during their working hours or in their out-of-work time (Finn 2006; Mishna et al. 2012). Based on their research, Ryan and Garrett (2018, 41) conjure the image of social workers ‘drowning in a sea of emails’ and this captures the consequences of communication overload when there is no digital gate in place. Byrne and Kirwan (2019) reported mixed views among new social work graduates concerning the pros and cons of using electronic communications with service users, such as emails, for anything more than administrative tasks such as arranging appointments. Some viewed it as acceptable to discuss more personal issues with service users via electronic communications, while others frowned on such practices. This underscores the effort involved in working with digital technologies – it can take time to plan and implement strategies that facilitate communications with service users, and in a way which preserves appropriate boundaries and creates clear expectations about reasonable response times, the parameters of content that are acceptable on which platforms and what to do if any problems arise, such as data breaches. 50

Networked Relationships

MacDonald et al. (2022) and Mackrill and Ebsen (2018) have similarly drawn attention to the effort required on the part of workers to acquire the requisite skills to manage the technological, ethical and emotional dimensions of digital communication with service users, noting the intensity of emotions that can attach to virtual communication, similar to that in the real world. Therefore, time efficiency may be a benefit of digital technology, but if it involves working with emotionally-laden human situations, stress and overload can happen quickly for a worker if the volume of work, and its intensity, is not actively planned and managed (Copson et al. 2022). The high-charged emotions that are sometimes encountered by social workers in their work do not evaporate when communication is mediated through digital technologies. While, in some contexts, the virtual space helps diffuse emotional triggering, Nordesjö, Scaramuzzino, and Ulmestig (2022) also warn of downsides to technology use when service users perceive they are being communicated with in a controlling or depersonalised manner. Finn (2006) identified the phenomena of threatening or harassing emails being sent to social workers and more recent research (BASW NI 2018) reported examples of threats and intimidation being delivered to social workers via emails and text messages. Garrett (2005) raises the possibility that the practice of social work is in danger of being fitted to the technology, rather than vice versa. Social workers need to be sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled regarding the technology they use in order to avoid their work being predominantly technician-led or shaped only by managerial considerations which may not place the needs of service user populations, or the importance of relationship-based practice, at the centre of their considerations. In this light, it is vital that social workers increase their knowledge and understanding regarding how ICTs work, in order to identify how features of technology can either support or impede positive relationship-based practice. The next section considers two features of ICTs which are proposed as relevant to the use of digital technology in relationship-based social work practice. This is not an exhaustive list, but instead a beginning exploration of some dimensions of ICTs that may influence the intersection between technology and relationship-based practice in social work.

Dimensions of Digitalization and Relationship-Based Practice: Materiality and Functionality Drawing on the issues raised in earlier sections of this chapter, it is suggested that two dimensions of technology, materiality and functionality, are of relevance to any discussion on how the intersection between digital technologies and relationshipbased social work practice is mediated. In this chapter, materiality is used to describe the tangible, objective properties of digital objects, for example, the dimensions and materials (look and feel) of devices, or digital interfaces. Robey, Anderson, and Raymond (2013) expand what this can mean by suggesting that materiality can also refer to less physically tangible but nonetheless distinct properties of technologies, such as the materiality 51

Gloria Kirwan

of a database, a network, a computer language and so on. Thinking in this way about the materiality of technologies used in social work leads to consideration about how social workers are deciding what types of technologies to use, how easily they can be incorporated into the routine of daily practice in terms of their physical properties (for example, portability), strengths and weaknesses of design issues, and how easily can they be used (where this applies) from the perspective of the service user. This could include design aspects such as security features – do they exist, are they installed? Social work theory is concerned with environments and systems. It is suggested here that increased attention needs to be paid by social workers to the digitalized, techno-spatial environment in which social work is increasingly practised. These issues speak to the materiality of the technologies that social workers use and if these are not adequate, then the techno-spatial environment may not be conducive to safe and successful relationship-based practice. Functionality is also an important concept in the present discussion because it represents the capacities (what they can do) of the technologies that social workers are using. From this perspective, the operational functionality of different technologies can be important for social workers to understand, as different tools can either broaden or constrict the ways in which they are useful in social work practice. This includes understanding how the specific functionalities of different technologies will help or hinder communication and relationship building between the worker and the service user. As Sapey (1997) pointed out some time ago, decisions regarding the functionalities of technology and how those functionalities are deployed in practice, are not simply administrative decisions, nor should they be left solely to technicians. In his view, design thinking and decisions regarding how technology operates in social work contexts comes within the professional decision-making realm of the social worker, because these decisions have implications for practice. At the intersection of relationship-based practice and digital functionality and materiality, we see the importance of choosing technologies wisely and using them appropriately. For Orlikowski (2010), cited in Robey, Anderson, and Raymond (2013), digital technologies and devices become part of the interactions in which they are deployed. She uses the term socio-materiality to illuminate what she views as the false dualism of viewing individuals and objects as separate entities in contexts where they interact. Instead, she suggests that they cannot be viewed as separate and distinct because it is their interaction together that produces the event or experience. In this light, the type of technology that a social worker uses, the parameters of its capabilities, how it influences the content and process of interactions between the social worker and the service user, all become important factors in how the scene is set for relationshipbuilding (or the opposite) between both parties. This points to a need for social workers to understand how different technologies operate (at least in basic terms), to draw on research evidence regarding how different technologies influence reactions and interactions between social workers and service users, and from an empowerment perspective, what technologies do service users say they find useful, accessible, or comfortable to engage with (for an interesting example, see van de Luitgaarden and van der Tier 2018). 52

Networked Relationships

Discussion Social work is at the start of what is likely to be a long-term engagement with ICTs. At this juncture, there appear to be grounds for social workers to view technology as a medium of many possibilities which will assist them to develop and deliver targeted, effective services in ways that service users find comfortable to engage with and, ideally, which service users have been involved in designing (Nordesjö, Scaramuzzino, and Ulmestig 2022). Indeed, a central decision for social work, and one which will strongly influence whether digital technology will help or hinder the relational base of social work, is how social workers will assert their influence on future design of digital tools, including an insistence that service users must inform such development to ensure that technologies used in practice contexts facilitate positive service user engagement with the services they want to access. This includes considerations regarding how the materiality and functionality elements of design (of devices, interfaces, software and so on) are experienced by both the social worker and the service user. Paying attention to the ways in which different technologies either support or obstruct relationshipbased practice is part of a bigger picture for social workers where they are aiming through their work to support the empowerment of individuals and the communities they serve (Parrott and Madoc-Jones 2008). Therefore, at a fundamental level, social workers need to consider how the materiality and functionality of different technologies which they use in their work will impact on the nature of their interactions with service users, and the success or not of their ability to work in a relationship-based way in the context of increasingly digitized communications and exchanges.

Conclusions Encouragingly, recent research is indicating that the relational dimensions of practice remain as important as ever for practising social workers (Turner 2016; Byrne and Kirwan 2019; Copson et al. 2022; MacDonald et al. 2022; Nordesjö, Scaramuzzino, and Ulmestig 2022). This chapter has considered technological materiality and functionality and how these intersect with the practice of relationship-based social work, in the context of the rapid digitalization of social work. While the digital era is full of potential to enhance social work relationality, there is a danger that social workers will be underrepresented at the design stage of social work digital processes and interventions. In addition, there is the possibility that negative aspects of the digitalization of social work practice are yet to be discovered. Therefore, to deliver on the full potential value of digital technologies, social workers need to understand the relevance of the materiality and functionality of the various technologies that exist within their practice (and be helped in this understanding by education, ethical guidance and empirical research) so that they can make best use of these technologies for communicating, interacting and relating to the individuals and communities they serve.

53

Gloria Kirwan

References Ashcroft, R., D. Sur, A. Greenblatt, and P. Donahue. 2022. “The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers at the frontline: A survey of Canadian social workers.” British Journal of Social Work 52(3): 1724–1746. BASW NI. 2018. Insult and Injury: Exploring the Impacts of Intimidation, Threats and Violence against Social Workers. British Association of Social Workers. https://www.basw.co.uk/ system/files/resources/insult-injury-social-workers.pdf. Berzin, S. C., and C. J. Coulton. 2018. “Harness technology for social good.” In Grand Challenges for Social Work and Society, edited by R. Fong, J. Lubben, and R. P. Barth, 161–180. London: Oxford University Press. Birk, R. H. 2017. “The materiality and materials of social work: On socio-material theories and social work research.” In Social Work and Research in Advanced Welfare States, edited by K. Hogsbro and I. F. Shaw, 104–116. Routledge. Blakemore, T., E. Randall, L. Rak, and F. Cocuzzoli. 2022. “Deep listening and relationality: Cross-cultural reflections on practice with young women who use violence.” Australian Social Work 75(3): 304–316. Breyette, S. K., and Hill, K. 2015. “The impact of electronic communication and social media on child welfare practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 33(4): 283–303. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2015.1101408. Brown, M. E., and P. A. Dustman. 2019. “Identifying a project’s greatest ‘hits’: Meaningful use of Facebook in an underserved community’s development and mobilisation effort.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 185–200. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaption and achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. Castillo de Mesa, J., L. Gómez Jacinto, A. López Peláez, and M. Palma García. 2019. “Building relationships on social networking sites from a social work approach.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 201–216. Chan, C., and S. S. Ngai. 2019. “Utilizing social media for social work: Insights from clients in online youth services.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 157–172. Chaves-Montero, A., F. Relinque-Medina, M. Á. Fernández-Borrero, and O. VázquezAguado. 2021. “Twitter, social services and Covid-19: Analysis of interactions between political parties and citizens.” Sustainability 13(4): 2187. Copson, R., A. M. Murphy, L. Cook, E. Neil, and P. Sorensen. 2022. “Relationship-based practice and digital technology in child and family social work: Learning from practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Developmental Child Welfare 4(1): 3–19. Denby, R. W., E. Gomez, and K. A. Alford. 2016. “Promoting well-being through relationship building: The role of smartphone technology in foster care.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 34(2): 182–208. Finn, J. 2006. “An exploratory study of email use by direct service social workers.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 24(4): 1–20. Garrett, P. M. 2005. “Social work’s ‘electronic turn’: Notes on the deployment of information and communication technologies in social work with children and families.” Critical Social Policy 25(4): 529–533. Geldof, D., and K. Driessens. 2017. “Social work and research in contexts of superdiversity.” In Social Work and Research in Advanced Welfare States, edited by K. Hogsbro and I. F. Shaw, 31–46. Routledge. Kirwan, G. 2019. “Editorial: Networked relationships in the digital age – messages for social work.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 123–126. Kirwan, G. 2022. “Superdiversity re-imagined: Applying superdiversity theory to research beyond migration studies.” Current Sociology 70(2): 193–209.

54

Networked Relationships LaMendola. W. 2019. “Social work, social technologies, and sustainable community development.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 37(2–3): 79–92. López Peláez, A., A. Erro-Garcés, F. J. Pinilla García, and D. Kiriakou. 2021. “Working in the 21st century. The coronavirus crisis: A driver of digitalisation, teleworking, and innovation, with unintended consequences.” Information 12: 377–387. MacDonald, M., A. C. Wright, A. Taylor-Beswick, K. Gillespie, and S. Collings. 2022. “Digital relationality, rights, resilience: Conceptualising a digital social ecology for children’s birth family relationships when in care or adopted.” British Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcac140. Mackrill, T., and F. Ebsen. 2018. “Key misconceptions when assessing digital technology for municipal social work.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 942–953. McFadden, P., E. Russ, P. Blakeman, G. Kirwin, J. Anand, S. Lähteinen, G. A. Baugerud, and P. Tham. 2020. “COVID-19 impact on social work admissions and education in seven international universities.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1154–1163. Mishna, F., M. Bogo, J. Root, J. L. Sawyer, and M. Khoury-Kassabri. 2012. ““It just crept in”: The digital age and implications for social work practice.” Clinical Social Work 40(3): 277–286. Mishna, F., E. Milne, M. Bogo, and L. F. Pereira. 2021. “Responding to COVID-19: New trends in social workers’ use of information and communication technology.” Clinical Social Work 49(4): 484–494. Mishna, F., and S. Zuberi. 2021. “Social work agents in digital environments.” In Social Work in Digital Societies, edited by D. Alonso González, A. Arias Astray, and A. Alonso Puelles, 131–137. Madrid, Spain: McGraw Hill. Nordesjö, K., G. Scaramuzzino, and R. Ulmestig. 2022. “The social worker-client relationship in the digital era: A configurative literature review.” European Journal of Social Work 25(2): 303–315. Orlikowski, W. J. 2010. “The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 125–141. Parker-Oliver, D., and G. Demiris. 2006. “Social work informatics: A new specialty.” Social Work 51(2): 127–134. Parrott, L., and I. Madoc-Jones. 2008. “Reclaiming Information and communication technologies for empowering social work practice.” Journal of Social Work 8(2): 181–197. Robey, D., C. Anderson, and B. Raymond. 2013. “Information technology, materiality, and organizational change: A professional odyssey.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14(7): 1. Ruch, G., D. Turney, and A. Ward. (eds.) 2010. Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley. Ryan, D., and P. M. Garrett. 2018. “Social work ‘logged on’: Contemporary dilemmas in an evolving ‘techno-habitat’.” European Journal of Social Work 21(1): 32–44. Sanders, J. E. 2019. “Phenomenology and intersubjectivity: Considerations for webcamfacilitated psychotherapy.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 173–184. Sapey, B. 1997. “Social work tomorrow: Towards a critical understanding of technology in social work.” British Journal of Social Work 27(6): 803–814. Shevellar, L. 2017. “E-technology and community participation: Exploring the ethical implications for community-based social workers.” Australian Social Work 70(2): 160–171. Simpson, J. E. 2017. “Staying in touch in the digital era: New social work practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(1): 86–98. Simpson, J. E. 2020. ‘Twenty-first century contact: The use of mobile communication devices and the internet by young people in care.” Adoption and Fostering 44(1): 6–19. Somerville, L., and E. Brady. 2019. “Young people and social networking sites: Exploring the views and training opportunities of CAMHS social workers in Ireland.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 141–155.

55

Gloria Kirwan Trevithick, P. 2003. “Effective relationship-based practice: A theoretical exploration.” Journal of Social Work Practice 17(2): 163–176. Turner, D. 2016. “‘Only connect’: Unifying the social in social work and social media.” Journal of Social Work Practice 30(3): 313–327. van de Luitgaarden, G., and M. van der Tier. 2018. “Establishing working relationships in online social work.” Journal of Social Work 18(3): 307–325. Walter-McCabe, H. A. 2020. “Coronavirus pandemic calls for an immediate social work response.” Social Work in Public Health 35(3): 69–72.

56

6 TECHNOLOGY TOOLS FOR CONVIVIAL COMMUNITIES Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne

Introduction This chapter discusses the use of technology by social workers and community workers to support community development, community sustainability and community mobilization. Since technologies for community work are inevitably networked technologies, we set the scene by using a theoretical overview of the promises and pitfalls of the contemporary Internet drawing on the work of the philosopher of technology, Andrew Feenberg (2019). This overview is followed by some contemporary examples of technology use by community workers and data justice activists. We conclude with a discussion of the key issues for technology use in community work practice.

The Many Layered Internet The idea that the Internet includes multiple, contested and sometimes conflicting features is of the moment (Chien 2021) and, most notably, has been analyzed by the Canadian philosopher of technology Andrew Feenberg. Feenberg (2019) views the Internet as a singular technology, one that is “neither a tool nor a machine, but a network” (p. 229) with layers of functionality. He describes four different approaches to understanding the diversity of the Internet, each of which coexists, albeit with tensions and strains between them, as the Internet evolves and is differently regulated over time and from place to place. He contends that the Internet can be understood variously as a network of systems; a series of virtual worlds rich in shared meaning in which people communicate and act; a dynamic, developmental process co-constructed by the interaction between systems and worlds; and a new mode of governance in technologically advanced societies. In relation to the Internet as a series of systems, Feenberg (2019) describes how these systems coexist as “assemblages of features, functions, and usages” (p. 231) that

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-7

57

Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne

can be categorized into three broad models: the consumption model facilitating commerce and distributing entertainment; the community model functioning to serve social life, democratic debate, and community mobilization; and the cyberpolitical model used by state and quasi-state actors for the purposes of disseminating propaganda and manipulating public opinion. In the present context, our interest is in the community model. The models suffers from the dominance of particular technological actors – especially the “Big Four” of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google (Johnson 2020) – and the network affordances they provide that make their systems attractive to end users. For example, Facebook presents as a neutral platform for communities to be built but exploits the data those communities provide in the service of corporate interests and profit-making (Cinnamon 2017; Zuboff 2019). The fact that these models are presently entangled does not mean we should consider any of them wholly subservient to the other, or as Feenberg (2019) puts it, “The fact that Facebook profits from users’ communications does not detract from the social function those communications fulfil” (p. 232). Also, there are fundamental differences in the models. In the consumption and cyber-political models, human use and interaction are objectified. The community model is different in the sense that it is based on subjective use and interaction. Fundamental relational capacities provide the basis for Feenberg’s community model, supporting what LaMendola and Krysik (2012) have called a condition of interactional agency. That is to say that communications between and among human and non-human agents are directed to the potential to create relationships, new relational structures and new communities. New Public (2021) has identified four building blocks for new and more democratic public digital spaces, “A flourishing digital public space should be welcoming and safe for diverse publics, help us understand and make sense of the world, connect people near and far across divides and hierarchies, and enable us to act together.” While Feenberg (2019) is acutely aware of the dangerous drift toward surveillance and manipulation, he maintains that the development of the Internet is still unfolding and that the underlying design of the Internet permits islands of open, democratic, self-organized forms of resistance. The next section highlights two current domains of struggle, before going on to offer examples of community projects that practice in these spaces.

The Commons and Data Justice as Forms of Resistance There are two ideas, two focal points around which resistance to both overweening state surveillance and the commercial commodification of data is coalescing: these are the ideas of the commons and that of data justice. The former represents an aspiration to build public spaces and shared resources that are non-exploitative in nature; the latter is a call to resist database and algorithmic discrimination and the oppression of marginalized groups by powerful state and commercial actors (Eubanks 2018; Redden 2018a). Perhaps the clearest explication of the implication of the commons in the digital domain has been presented by Bauwens, Kostakis, and Pazaitis (2019). In the Commons Manifesto (Bauwens, Kostakis, and Pazaitis 2019), 58

Technology Tools for Convivial Communities

the authors unify an older idea of the commons with more recent ideas about digital peer-to-peer (P2P) communication and networking, “P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it” (p. 1). In addition, the concept of digital justice is motivating an emerging global movement that has set out to reconcile principles of social justice with the realities of datafication (Taylor 2017; Dencik et al. 2019). In part, it challenges the unaccountable access to and use of data and algorithms by elites and political entities (Redden 2018b). The movement insists on making data visible and subject to community accountability, on control over engagement with technology, and on the inclusion of the excluded and the marginalized in datafied decision-making. The Detroit Digital Justice Coalition has developed a set of principles that capture the political intent of this movement (Detroit Digital Justice Coalition 2021). We titled this chapter technology tools for convivial communities as a nod in the direction of the Austrian rebel priest, social critic, and philosopher Ivan Illich. Illich is most famous for his radical arguments against compulsory school education presented in the text Deschooling Society (Illich 1970). But here we refer to Tools for Conviviality (Illich 1973), his broader critique of industrial society and its accelerating technologies where he warned against the danger of the industrial mode of production, and an emerging modernity that allowed technological tools to become ends in themselves, causing harm to people and the environment. He argued instead for a society where sustainable technologies contributed to environmental justice, human agency, and freedom. His vision of a convivial society resonates well with what Nussbaum and Sen (1993) later termed human flourishing – the overall aim of human development. These values are embedded in the examples we will discuss later. The examples we explore include the Allied Media Project (AMP) and two of its spin-off projects: Our Data Bodies and the Design Justice Network. Finally, we review the work on Indigenous Data Sovereignty developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) and its regional members. Each of these projects exemplifies the convivial use of technology for human flourishing and each one acts to promote social justice and community wellbeing.

The AMP The AMP is located in Detroit, Michigan, the USA. The origin and intersections of AMP with data justice activism and with relational social work approaches to the problems of everyday life is highlighted. The example illustrates the fuel that combining data activism with social justice and social service values can provide to energize an ever-expanding network of projects and initiatives. Since 2007, over 150 collaborative data projects have been organized and sponsored by Allied Media Projects (2022). Across the projects, participants are focused on the reclamation of personal data and narratives, health and wellness, and collective organizing strategies for anti-surveillance, digital privacy, and safe and connected communities. The work of AMP is strongly reminiscent of one of the founding movements of social work: the Community Organization Movement. Over a century ago, at the end of the 59

Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne

First World War, William Norton addressed the National Conference on Social Welfare and remarked that the aim of the movement was to gather people: … with their different approaches and conflicting personalities together into a single community-wide co-operative society, with the purposes of creating a feeling of comradeship among them … of strengthening them all, of planning new ventures in the light of the organized information held by all, of swinging them in a solid front in one attack after another upon the pressing and urgent needs of the hours. (Norton 1919, 667) AMP aspires to achieve the same goals in a datafied environment. AMP is codirected by Nadine Marshall, a social work graduate, whose social work ties include Wayne State University School of Social Work in Detroit, a school that has been involved with AMP and their projects. The introduction to the main plenary of the Allied Media Conference this year echoed the thought of the early founders of US social work, Mary Richmond (1898) and Jane Addams (1910). Titled “Care for the future,” the introduction stated that: We keep each other alive. Through mutual aid, through mothering, through the essential work of low-wage care providers and the care work of disabled kin for each other, Black and Brown communities have been honing the expertise to carry our world through the crisis of this pandemic to a future rooted in care. (Allied Media Conference 2020) AMP has a mission to “make media for liberation” (Allied Media Conference 2020) and its work directly contributes to the commons (Lovink and Rossiter 2018; Bauwens, Kostakis, and Pazaitis 2019). The thread that binds data commons projects is that they are shared resources that do not exploit users or mine data to sell. In practice, they support network development and provide open access to networked digital data and to the individuals who participate in the network. The Detroit Digital Justice Coalition principles of access, participation, common ownership, and healthy communities (Detroit Digital Justice Coalition 2021) are common across AMP projects. For social work, it is important to understand that these data justice approaches are creating new social practices for care, equality, and convivial life. There are many AMP projects of interest to social work, but here we will briefly review two significant examples: Our Data Bodies and the Design Justice Network.

Our Data Bodies The Our Data Bodies (ODB) project has focused on developing practical materials to use in marginalized neighborhoods on the intersection of human rights and social justice with current forms of data collection, use, and access. The cities now represented on the ODB team are Charlotte, Detroit, and Los Angeles (the London School of Economics is also a partner organization). The team works with neighborhood groups with social support networks and with community organizations. 60

Technology Tools for Convivial Communities

Their workshops and activities raise community awareness of how algorithms, surveillance, and different data systems impact minority and vulnerable populations, fair housing, public assistance, and community development. Among project work relevant examples include interviews with J. Khadijah Abdurahman titled Predictive Analytics, Child Welfare, and Storytelling’s Power (Reynolds 2020a, 2020b). The Digital Defense Playbook (Lewis et al. 2018) – an open access resource – contains awareness raising activities, tools, tip sheets, and reflection pieces to help people and organizations understand and address the impact of data-based technologies on social justice work. The work involved activists with social work backgrounds, such as Tamika Lewis and Shakira Clarke. Significant contributions were made by key activists Tawana Petty (2018) and Virginia Eubanks (2018). An example of an activity contained in the Playbook is Mapping your Data Self. As the person uses a pictograph (Figure 6.1) to map their data self, there is a clear correspondence between this activity and leading the participant through social work person-inenvironment considerations, recognizing that the social environment is now thoroughly permeated with data.

The Design Justice Network Technologies are often presented as neutral artifacts, as objects designed to make our lives safer and more convenient, and our work more efficient and rational. However, over 40 years ago, the sociologist of technology Langdon Winner (1980) argued convincingly that technical artifacts or technologies are not neutral, that they have politics. He drew attention to three features of technological innovations: the inherent biases built into technology designs that frame social problems in particular ways; the unequal access to decision-making about technology design and implementation; and that technologies may be compatible with particular social systems and values that benefit societal elites. Recently, there have been calls for more participatory technology design processes echoing the slogan advocated by disability rights activists in the 1990s of “Nothing about us without us” (Costanza-Chock 2020) and the principles of anti-oppressive social work practice (Smyth and Dimond 2014). The Design Justice Network began with a conversation at the Allied Media Conference in 2015 and is now an international community of people and organizations working collectively to include oppressed groups in design processes, “Design justice rethinks design processes, centers people who are normally marginalized by design, and uses collaborative, creative practices to address the deepest challenges our communities face” (Design Justice Network 2018). The Design Justice Network contrasts its aims with those of individuals and organizations who set out to use technology for social impact or social good because those initiatives were philanthropic and: … tended to operate from a charity model that was driven by those who wanted to ‘do good’ rather than those most affected by (and often, already organizing around) the issue. As a result, the need to address root causes was not made a priority. (Barnett et al. 2020, 6) 61

Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne

Figure 6.1

Mapping your data self (Reprinted from p. 62 of Lewis et al. (2018). Released under CC by 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

62

Technology Tools for Convivial Communities

At the heart of the work of the Design Justice Network are ten design principles (Design Justice Network 2018) aimed at keeping people who are normally marginalized by design at the center of the process. Each one of these principles resonates strongly with the core values of social work and of social justice. Any community worker or social worker involved in a technology related project could use them to advocate for stronger user involvement and co-design practices. For example, Principle 1 states that “We use design to sustain, heal, and empower our communities, as well as to seek liberation from exploitative and oppressive systems”; and Principle 10 indicates that “Before seeking new design solutions, we look for what is already working at the community level. We honor and uplift traditional, indigenous, and local knowledge and practices.” The network operates through local nodes and nodes currently exist in 12 cities in the USA, Canada, Singapore, and Scotland. Nodes are community-based and volunteer-driven groups who engage in a number of technology design-related activities: sharing personal experiences around the design justice principles; providing feedback on projects using the design justice principles; organizing around local issues using the design justice principles; and amplifying the voices and practices of marginalized designers (Barnett et al. 2020).

Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principle 10 of the Design Justice Network, noted earlier, refers to “honoring and uplifting traditional, indigenous practices.” This is another critical area for data justice activism that is being pursued by several advocacy groups working on Indigenous data rights (Walter et al. 2020). The GIDA is a movement formed following a workshop held on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and Indigenous data sovereignty in 2019 at the International Institute for the Sociology of Law, Oñati, Spain. The workshop brought together participants from seven nation states with the purpose of providing, “… a forum for international Indigenous Data Sovereignty scholars and practitioners to collaboratively advance the legal principles underlying collective and individual data rights in the context of UNDRIP” (GIDA 2022). One outcome of the workshop was the recognition that the international focus on privacy rights and personal data protection was insufficient for Indigenous Peoples. GIDA recognized that the proliferation of data on all people have particular implications for Indigenous Peoples and their right to self-determination: Indigenous data, which include data collected by governments and institutions about Indigenous Peoples and their territories, are intrinsic to Indigenous Peoples’ capacity and capability to realise their human rights and responsibilities to all of creation. (Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group 2019) One instance of the issues for Indigenous Peoples, highlighted by GIDA, is the global movement toward open data and open science encapsulated in the FAIR 63

Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne

principles: the FAIR principles are internationally agreed guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse of digital assets (Wilkinson et al. 2016). While these principles seem positive and progressive to many nonIndigenous scholars, they raise serious issues about the ownership of Indigenous People’s data and so GIDA has complemented them with their CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group 2019). The CARE principles are a helpful reminder that the desire of progressive community activists and social workers to build the digital commons and promote open access to data, must be tempered by paying CAREfull attention to the data rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Conclusion The ability to support human communication for relational purposes has emerged as a primary capacity of the Internet. The relationship between technological change and changes in organizational practices has long been recognized (Ganesh and Stohl 2013, 2014). This is coupled with what Bauman (2000) identified as a liquidity in culture, a revolution in sociality in five major spheres: namely, emancipation, individuality, time/space, and community. In terms of community practice, the technologies support possibilities of organized networks that were unimaginable in the recent past. The communities that are being formed are what Deleuze and Guattari (1987) named “rhizomatic” forms of culture – networks that set out roots and shoots everywhere. The organizational dynamics of the AMP, who number more than 150 initiatives, illustrates what Ganesh and Stohl (2021) call “fluid hybridity,” a set of dynamics that can be applied to include human service organizations. The use of design justice principles in community practice has becomes an imperative and we have set out examples of those practices such as those suggested by the New Public (2021). In this chapter, we focused on community themes with the recognition that the fluidity of human relationships in emergent datafied societies has generated both new possibilities for social justice and new challenges to community practice. These can be realized in manners that serve socially just and convivial purposes. This is not to underestimate the governmental and commercial forces directed toward the control and manipulation of all types of human agency, but to point out the balance of counterveiling power that can be generated by community workers and data justice activists. We have given only a few examples of those possibilities in terms of how they can inform social work community practice. Those examples are illustrative of the observations of Feenberg (2019), and others, that communities of shared meaning that support communication and action can multiply as the processes of interaction, the rhizomatic connections, between communities of organized networks intersect. The principles we have highlighted support the social work person in environment perspective and the continuing validity of that approach to an examination of your “data body” and participation in rhizomatic social justice efforts. The peer-topeer approach, combined with “commoning,” is very much in the community 64

Technology Tools for Convivial Communities

practice tradition established by Mary Richmond and the Charity Organization Movement. Here we have provided substance to the hope of early Internet users and their imaginary of local, emancipatory networks that are, in New Public (2021) terms, welcoming, safe, sensible, connective, and that take action to generate convivial communities. The implementation of such community practice principles needs to be understood as part of a relational whole that can create a stakeholder, commons-based ecosystem of new capacities (Ho and Chuang 2019; Grear and Bollier 2020). Such collaboration has been described as a social work method for some decades (Graham and Barter 1999) and has now been enriched by the capacity of datafication such as represented in the Digital Defense Playbook. In summary, community social work now requires “data justice activism” where data are produced, collected, shared, used, and organized according to the principles of data justice and committed to the emergence of capable convivial communities.

References Addams, J. 1910. Twenty Years at Hull House. New York: The MacMillan Company. Allied Media Conference. 2020. “Care for the future.” Proceedings of the 21st Allied Media Conference. Detroit, MA: Allied Media Conference. Allied Media Projects. 2022. “About the sponsored projects program.” https://alliedmedia. org/about-the-sponsored-projects-program Barnett, V., L. Carter, S. Costanza-Chock, R. Hayes, G. Malivel, R. Michelson, W. Taylor, and M. Wagoner. 2020. “Design justice: Local nodes.” Design Justice Zines 2020. https:// designjustice.org/zines Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Oxford, England: Polity Press. Bauwens, M., V. Kostakis, and A. Pazaitis. 2019. Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto. London, UK: University of Westminster Press. Chien, A. A. 2021. “Computing’s divided future.” Communications of the ACM 64(1): 5. Cinnamon, J. 2017. “Social injustice in surveillance capitalism.” Surveillance and Society 15(5): 609–625. doi: 10.24908/ss.v15i5.6433. Costanza-Chock, S. 2020. Design Justice: Community Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Boston: The MIT Press. Deleuze, G., and F., Guattari (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Trans. by B. Massumi). London and New York: Continuum. Dencik, L., A. Hintz, J. Redden, and E. O. Treré. 2019. “Exploring data justice: Conceptions, applications and directions.” Information Communication and Society 22(7): 873–881. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606268. Design Justice Network. 2018. “Design justice network principles.” 2018. https://designjustice. org/read-the-principles Detroit Digital Justice Coalition. 2021. “Principles.” http://detroitdjc.org/principles/. Eubanks, V. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Feenberg, A. 2019. “The Internet as network, world, co-construction, and mode of governance.” Information Society 35(4): 229–243. Ganesh, S., and C. Stohl. 2013. “From Wall Street to Wellington: Protests in an era of digital ubiquity.” Communication Monographs 80(4): 425–451. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2013.828156. Ganesh, S., and C. Stohl. 2014. “Community organizing, social movements, and collective action.” In Sage Handbook of Organizational Communication, edited by D. K. Mumby and L. L. Putnam, 3rd ed., 743–765. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

65

Walter LaMendola and Neil Ballantyne Ganesh, S., and C. Stohl. 2021. “Fluid hybridity: Organizational form and formlessness in the digital age.” In Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Communication in Society, edited by L. Lievrouw and B. Loader, 268–280. London, UK: Routledge. GIDA. 2022. “Founding of GIDA: The Global Indigenous Data Allliance.” https://www. gida-global.org/whoweare Graham, J. R., and K. Barter. 1999. “Collaboration: A social work practice method.” Families in Society 80(1): 6–13. Grear, A., and D. Bollier, eds. 2020. The Great Awakening: New Modes of Life amidst Capitalist Ruins. Punctum Books. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/42480/ 0285.1.00.pdf. Ho, C., and T. Chuang. 2019. “Governance of communal data sharing.” In Good Data, edited by A. Daly, S. K. Devitt, and M. Mann. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. Illich, I. 1970. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row. Illich, I. 1973. Tools for Conviviality. New York: Marion Boyars. Johnson, M. W. 2020. “Do the U.S.’s big four tech companies have a vision for the future?” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/07/do-the-u-s-s-big-four-tech-companieshave-a-vision-for-the-future LaMendola, W., and J. Krysik. 2012. “Ethic and value considerations in the design of interactional agency.” Information, Communication & Society 16(7): 1061–1071. Lewis, T., S. Peña Gangadharan, M. Saba, and T. Petty. 2018. Digital Defense Playbook: Community Power Tools for Reclaiming Data. Detroit. https://www.odbproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/ODB_DDP_HighRes_Single.pdf. Lovink, G., and N. Rossiter. 2018. Organization after Social Media. Colchester: Minor Compositions. https://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ organizationaftersocialmedia-web.pdf. New Public. 2021. “Building better digital public spaces.” 2021. https://newpublic.org/signals. Norton, W. J. 1919. “Community organization.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work 46th Annual Session, 665–669. Atlantic City, NJ: National Conference of Social Work. Nussbaum, M., and A. Sen. eds. 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford University Press. Petty, T. 2018. Towards Humanity: Shifting the Culture of Anti-Racism Organizing. Detroit, MI: Petty Propolis. Redden, J. 2018a. “The harm that data do: Paying attention to how algorithmic systems impact marginalized people worldwide is key to a just and equitable future.” Scientific American, November 2018. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-harm-that-data-do. Redden, J. 2018b. “Democratic governance in an age of datafication: Lessons from mapping government discourses and practices.” Big Data and Society 5(2): 1–13. doi: 10.1177/2053 951718809145. Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group. September 2019. “CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/CARE%20Principles%20 for%20Indigenous%20Data%20Governance_FINAL_Sept%2006%202019.pdf. Reynolds, K. 25 May 2020a. “J. Khadijah Abdurahman: Predictive analytics, child welfare, and storytelling’s power (part 1 of 2).” Our Data Bodies Blog. Reynolds, K. 25 May 2020b. “J. Khadijah Abdurahman: Predictive analytics, child welfare, and storytelling’s power (part 2 of 2).” Our Data Bodies Blog. Richmond, M. 1898. “The need for a training school in applied philatrophy.” In Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 24th Annual Session, Totonto, Ontario, 7–14 July, edited by I. C. Barrows, 181–188. Boston, MA: George Ellis. Smyth, T., and J. Dimond. 2014. “Anti-oppressive design.” Interactions 21(6): 68–71. doi: 10.1145/2668969. Taylor, L. 2017. “What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally.” Big Data & Society 4(2): 1–14.

66

Technology Tools for Convivial Communities Walter, M., T. Kukutai, S. Russo Carol, and D. Rodriguez-Lonebear, eds. 2020. Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy. London, UK: Routledge. Wilkinson, M. D., M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, et al. 2016. “Comment: The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship.” Scientific Data 3: 1–9. Winner, L. 1980. “Do artifacts have politics?” Daedalus 109(1): 121–136. Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London, UK: Profile Books.

67

7 COLLECTIVE SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez

Introduction Recently, the International Council on Social Welfare and the International Association of Schools of Social Work, together with the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) announced a framework for their actions titled, 2020 to 2030 Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development: “Co-building Inclusive Social Transformation” (IFSW 2020). Thus, through its representative organisations, social work is committing itself to working in the next decade on co-designing and co-building prosperous communities and societies by encouraging the active participation of subjects in order to achieve inclusive social transformation. The first theme of this roadmap is Ubuntu: Strengthening Social Solidarity and Global Connectedness, a commitment inspired by the South African expression Ubuntu: “I am because we are”. This philosophy highlights an individual’s perspective on his or her own environment and the inescapable interconnection between individuals and the wider society. The slogan breathes new life into social work’s collective dimension, placing communities and social movements at the heart of the process leading towards the goals of the ten years to come. The framework of the 2020 to 2030 Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development is the outcome of an exercise in which numerous social work organisations (be they professional, educational or political in nature) have taken part. The results have been brought to us in the year of COVID-19 (although the process of defining the framework began two years earlier) and the pandemic undoubtedly leads us to redefine the meaning of its objectives. Indeed, our current global crisis is deepening inequalities while also accentuating the importance of connections between peoples. In this chapter, we reflect on the roadmap advanced by the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development, as well as the ethos of our times. To do this, we first describe a number of theoretical benchmarks allowing us to understand

68

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-8

Collective Social Work and Social Movements

the configuration of the field of social work intervention itself. Secondly, we explore social movements and the key role they can play in collective interest social interventions. Finally, we address the opportunities and challenges of digitalisation regarding the development of collective action and social work with communities.

Intervention with Communities: Co-building Inclusive Transformation The overarching theme of the 2020 to 2030 Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development is as follows: “Co-building inclusive social transformation” (IFSW 2020). It thus recognises the need to build inclusive social transformation processes with people, communities, social movements and administrations at the local, national, regional and global levels. The first theme of the decade (2020–2022) is titled: “Ubuntu: Strengthening Social Solidarity and Global Connectedness” (IFSW 2020). In this way, the Global Agenda’s roadmap emphasises the collective dimension of social intervention, and the potential for social work to contribute to creating, reinforcing and organising connections, working from the perspective of law and the guarantee of rights.

Connections and Rights: The Foundations of Social Work On the one hand, social work seeks to promote the rights recognised by a political community, either regarding the distribution of resources or their—participatory— creation. This includes exercising the entitlements to which these rights give access and that are legitimately claimable. On the other hand, social work is concerned with the creation or reconstruction of social ties between individuals, the individual with the community and the community with society. In this field, the political action of individuals and social movements is the object of social work intervention (De Robertis 2006). More specifically, social work addresses material and symbolic aspects that contribute to the social reproduction of individuals and communities (Aquín 2003; Herrera-Gutiérrez, Corona, and Delgado 2016). In this sense, the community sphere of social work is based on the impossibility of solving certain needs individually (Aquín 2003) so that people must cooperate to produce public or community goods and services. Thus, in the collective dimension of reproductive processes, which involves the struggle for rights and provisions, whether material (housing, infrastructure, services, etc.) or symbolic (participation, training, empowerment, etc.), social work operates by strengthening social organisations of different types and degrees of formalisation (Pastor Seller 2015a). Concretely, this would be about working to improve the collective capacities of social organisations, that is, linking actors, connecting communities and strengthening solidarities (Aquín 2003; Herrera-Gutiérrez, Corona, and Delgado 2016), in line with what the IFSW (2020) proposes for this decade. However, we must remember that the COVID-19 pandemic, and its social consequences, deepens the difficulty of citizens to access goods and services of the 69

Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez

Welfare State (FOESSA 2020, 2021). Such a situation adds to an aggravation of the inequalities already caused by the multidimensional 2008 crisis (Pastor Seller, Verde, and Lima 2019). This context of deprivation and fragmentation has been an important driver of collective action, giving rise to the creation of innovative experiences, such as tele-care, digital social work with groups that emphasise the community dimension of care. The latter is an indication that citizens are willing to cooperate to collectivise the processes of reproduction. To summarise, social work, together with groups and communities, fosters inclusive transformations that are both material and symbolic in nature (changes in social relations and the collective conscience), which, in short, are the product of the collective action of individuals who cooperate within the social territories in which they exist (Ferguson and Lavalette 2006; Ferguson 2007; HerreraGutierrez and Delgado-Niebla 2019). A good example of these processes of social intervention with social movements is the work with urban movements or neighbourhood platforms, the social intervention developed with indigenous movements or, more recently, the linking of the discipline with feminist and LGBTQ movements.

Social Movements as Activists of Solidarity: Connecting Actors Locally with a Global Outlook Social work, as a profession, promotes social change by seeking collective wellbeing under ethical-political responsibility and through the defence, promotion and protection of human rights, which guarantees the construction of a society with equity. Consequently, social work intervention facilitates and promotes the creation and consolidation of social movements that act at the community level. We understand social movements as agents of influence and persuasion that challenge dominant discourses, and to do this they engage in collective action aimed at promoting changes within a society (Turner and Killiiam 1972). According to Tarrow (1998), they represent collective actions by people who share common goals and solidarity; this implies “recognising” a community of interest leading to the coordination of collective political action. In this way, deep-rooted feelings of solidarity and community identity encourage people to cooperate in order to achieve a collective good. Nevertheless, while the evidence shows that a collective good to achieve (housing, habitat improvement, education, health, community infrastructure, etc.) or even a collective evil to avoid (job destruction, loss of rights, public service privatisations, etc.) is necessary for collective action, they are not sufficient to explain its emergence (Tremblay et al. 2017). Therefore, the question is: which factors foster (or inhibit) collective action? The social sciences have been very interested in answering this question. Though no consensus has been reached, the discipline has shed light on the possible factors driving the willingness of social actors to cooperate in collective action: some authors point to incentives (Olson 1965); others to beliefs (Hardin 1982); or emotions (Petersen 2002) or opportunities (Tarrow 1998) and resources (McCarthy and Zald 1977). 70

Collective Social Work and Social Movements

Thus, different political actors are involved in this process of co-constructing inclusive transformation, for example, social movements, which are collective actors with whom social work with communities intervenes (Thompson 2002; Murdach 2009; Manzanera-Ruiz and Lizárraga 2017; Westoby, Lathouras, and Shevellar 2019). For social work, it is important to understand the factors that promote collective action, and social movement studies make useful contributions in this regard. Thus, for classical social work, the emphasis is on the structural factors that trigger “extreme” behaviour, i.e., the collective evils that are to be avoided (Smelser 1962). Some exponents, such as Tarrow (1998), Tilly (1984) and McAdam (1982), adopt an essentially structuralist approach: social movements arise when the context creates opportunities, either in terms of political openness or a flow of resources that bring down organisational costs. In this way, as pointed out by Zald (1996) and Jenkins (1994) among others, the concept of “political entrepreneurship” or community leaders, has an essential and empowering role to initiate collective actions and protest campaigns. This approach also emphasises the importance of how the symbolic construction of reality also plays a major part, that is, the creation of cognitive frameworks that allow evaluating and mobilising action (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996). Finally, from the perspective of identity, the cultural element is key to explaining the emergence of collective action, mainly the relational factors and the construction of the “Us” (and the others) as explained by Melucci (1995). What is the relevance of the aforementioned theories for social work with communities? These contributions, from different disciplines, support reflection on the phenomena of collective action and social mobilisation, involving the reappraisal of social intervention with communities and populations as a means of securing collective resources (Herrera-Gutierrez and Pastor Seller 2018). It is a matter of reflecting on the procedural dimension of intervention, emphasising either the possibilities of promoting collective action, or the strategies to strengthen it, based on studies focusing on the support factors. Specifically, they provide a “roadmap” for social work with communities by outlining the tasks to be carried out by the practitioner to promote social movements in the community: (a) analytically building collective needs, (b) promoting collective diagnoses, (c) identifying and facilitating leadership, (d) connecting resources and actors, (e) facilitating framing processes, (f) identifying the structure of political opportunities for the community, (g) reinforcing formal and informal networks and (h) building or reinforcing collective identities (Herrera-Gutierrez and Pastor Seller 2018). However, the COVID-19 health crisis has led to a retreat into the neighbourhood as a result of the measures taken to contain the pandemic, which has led to the emergence of innovative responses to the notion of care from a collective perspective. We have been able to observe the emergence of new rationales of collective action and organisational networks that channel care at the community level. Examples of this are the support networks for purchases for vulnerable populations, coordination to promote collective leisure, community canteens and neighbourhood campaigns to promote access to virtual classes for vulnerable students. All this has an impact on subjectivities as well as on the notion of citizenship (Pastor Seller 2015b, 2017). 71

Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez

We can regard citizenship as being shaped through two pillars: on the one hand, the pillar of rights and, on the other hand, the pillar of participation and belonging to a social community—i.e., having a leading role in building the societal public sphere, the development of a collective identity and, broadly speaking, the very contours of democracy based on work in collective areas. Social work contributes precisely to these areas and collective subjects by promoting social transformation, by strengthening solidarity, reconnecting groups and experiences at the local level, while adopting a global conscience: “I am because we are”. That said, while digitalisation, which is embedded in our new context, represents a risk for big sections of society, it is also an opportunity for global connection.

The New Context and Digitalisation: A Divide and an Opportunity No analysis of developments, which have taken place since the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic in March 2020, can obviate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s daily lives and social reproduction processes; its consequences represent one of today’s greatest global threats, characterised by emergencies and uncertainty. The pandemic is showing that COVID-19 creates poverty but it also reveals the weaknesses of social protection systems (health, education, social services, income guarantee, housing and training for employment) and it exposes the catastrophic consequences of austerity policies, the privatisation of public services, the inadequacies of the public administration, of both institutional and professional interventions, and the policies in place to tackle the current situation (Barrera-Algarin et al. 2020). Social work had already been supporting professional initiatives in digital resources in various areas and spheres of intervention, such as gerontology (Mois and Fortuna 2020), clinical and therapeutic social work (Mattison 2012; Reamer 2015), community development through networking (Kirwan 2018), virtual communities (Adedoyin 2016) and the development of research methods (Miller Scarnato 2019). Similarly, in the field of education and teaching, social work has extensive experience in social and technological innovation (Goldingay, Epstein, and Taylor 2018; López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada 2018; Castillo de Mesa et al. 2020; López Peláez, Erro-Garcés, and Gómez-Ciriano 2020; Turner 2020). More recently, some writers have reflected on the moral dimensions and ethical conflicts related to this technological revolution (Reamer 2013; Boddy and Dominelli 2017; Young, McLeod, and Brady 2018; Byrne, Kirwan, and Mc Guckin 2019). Nonetheless, since the spread of COVID-19, social services, projects, social practices generally, and community practices in particular, have undergone substantial transformations in the face of mobility and social contact restrictions arising from the health crisis. Institutions, organisations, social movements and community practices have modified their methodology of action, as well as their forms, procedures, content and purposes (López Peláez et al. 2020). In this complex and dynamic “chaos”, we are witnessing the emergence of new initiatives that aim to respond to social, economic and health emergencies, making intensive use of new 72

Collective Social Work and Social Movements

digital technologies. In terms of forms, the digitisation of services, projects and practices has shared the common denominator of facilitating the access, use and enjoyment of citizens through “online” processes (Byrne and Kirwan 2019; Nissen 2020; Papouli, Chatzifotiou, and Tsairidis 2020). With regard to content, the pandemic and its effects have disrupted the objectives of community intervention and mobilisation. But how has compulsory social distancing, on the one hand, and the new dynamics of hyper-connection to ICTs on the other, affected the development of collective action? In this sense, some of the theoretical perspectives we outlined earlier in this chapter may provide an answer. Since the 1970s, contributions arising from the theory of resource mobilisation (McCarthy and Zald 1977; Gamson 1975) identify variations in the availability and flows of resources that social movements have access to as explanatory factors influencing the emergence of collective action. In particular, increasing the resources available to a community and reducing the costs of co-operating in collective action, makes it easier for this form of cooperation to occur. Resources are basically understood as economic, relational, informational, organisational components; micro-mobilisation networks, however, are particularly noteworthy, that is to say relationships of trust and organisational frameworks that allow subjects to access, compare, analyse the factors that support the “causes”, and to assess whether they exceed the established mobilisation threshold (Granovetter 1978). In light of this perspective, the new reality that we are living in poses a threat because it reduces social contacts, direct attention, access to services, etc., and we know that the “digital divide” deepens the vulnerability of certain groups without digital skills; but at the same time, it exponentially expands the resources for those who have been left on the digital “shore”. More specifically, the normalisation of ICTs in the daily lives of individuals reduces distances but also reduces coordination costs, accelerates information flows, facilitates contacts and expands networks by favouring the achievement of the mobilisation thresholds. In short, for those on the “digital side of life”, collective action has found new channels that could facilitate its production or even promote it. However, the opportunities on the “analogue side” have been reduced, deepening the processes of social exclusion that affect individuals, but also groups and communities in a differentiated way (Prada 2020; Pastor Seller 2021). This gap hinders the full inclusion of population groups, and social work must act, taking advantage of the opportunities of digital channels and technologies but, at the same time, reducing the risk that groups with difficulties in accessing e-social services fall into.

Conclusions In this chapter, we reflected on the challenges of “co-building inclusive social transformation”—a call addressed to us by the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development—in a context marked by the consequences of the pandemic, in which virtual scenarios and digital tools are playing an unprecedented role. The latter may either foster local-global connections between citizen initiatives and social movements, or, on the contrary, deepen a digital divide which we have already been 73

Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez

drawing attention to. It also accelerates the social exclusion of groups that have difficulty in accessing the information society and ICT, whether in material terms or symbolically. This situation has occurred mainly in the field of education, where some families have been able to accompany the online teaching of children while others have not had the means or skills necessary to “bring school closer to home”. These difficulties have also been observed in social services and social initiative organisations; therefore, social work professionals have promoted actions to reduce digital divides by promoting digital volunteering, digital pedagogy actions and individualised accompaniment for groups with special needs (populations with functional digital illiteracy traits). In this context of uncertainty, new community support initiatives undertaken by citizens at the individual level, non-organised groups (self-help), social organisations, educational bodies and schools, as well as local institutions at all levels are being promoted. Initiatives that are “entangled” in patchworks of self-help and cooperation networks are seeking to provide innovative responses to situations of “new” emergencies and difficulties that are emerging in today’s community ecosystems. Experiences that “mutate”, as do the realities subordinated to the virus, in order to offer “solutions” to social and health emergencies, as well as to its chronicity and constant spread. We sought here to classify and reflect on these innovative responses. The new normal is here to stay. It represents a challenge for policies but also for social work in the pursuit to guarantee that this post-pandemic reality includes us all. To this end, the discipline must generate theory on new phenomena and new subjects/objects of social intervention, such as virtual communities. It must also focus on methodologies that make it possible to work with groups and communities in virtual scenarios, going deeper into e-social work tools.

References Adedoyin, A. C. A. 2016. “Deploying virtual communities of practice as a digital tool in social work: A rapid review and critique of the literature.” Social Work Education 35(3): 357–370. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2016.1154660. Aquín, N. 2003. “El Trabajo Social Comunitario en las actuales condiciones: Fortalecer la ciudadanía.” In Ensayos sobre ciudadanía: reflexiones desde el Trabajo Social, edited by N. Aquin, N. Britos, and C. González, 113–201. Buenos Aires: Espacio Editorial. Barrera-Algarin, E., F. Estepa, J. L. Sarasola-Sanchez, and A. Vallejo-Andrada. 2020. “Covid-19, neoliberalismo y sistemas sanitarios en 30 países de Europa: Repercusiones en el número de fallecidos.” Revista Española de Salud Publica 94, e202010140. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/ biblioPublic/publicaciones/recursos_propios/resp/revista_cdrom/VOL94/ORIGINALES/RS94C_202010140.pdf. Boddy, J., and L. Dominelli. 2017. “Social media and social work: The challenges of a new ethical space.” Australian Social Work 70(2): 172–184. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2016. 1224907. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2019.1604499. Byrne, J., G. Kirwan, and C. Mc Guckin. 2019. “Social media surveillance in social work: Practice realities and ethical implications.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 37(2-3): 142–158. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2019.1584598.

74

Collective Social Work and Social Movements Castillo de Mesa, J., L. Gómez-Jacinto, A. López Pelaéz, and A. Erro-Garcés. 2020. “Social networking sites and youth transition: The use of Facebook and personal well-being of social work young graduates.” Frontiers of Psycholology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00230. De Robertis, C. 2006. Fundamentos del Trabajo Social. Valencia: Nau Llibres. Ferguson, I. 2007. “Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalization.” British Journal of Social Work 37(3): 387–403. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcm016. Ferguson, I., and M. Lavalette. 2006. “Globalization and global justice: Towards a social work of resistance.” International Social Work 49(3): 309–318. doi: 10.1177/0020872806063401. Fundación Fomento de los estudios sociales y sociología aplicada. 2020. Distancia social y derecho al cuidado (Publicación Análisis y Perspectiva 2020). Madrid: Fundación FOESSA. https://caritas-web.s3.amazonaws.com/main-files/uploads/2020/06/C%C3%81RITASanalisis-y-persectivas-digital-00000002.pdf. Fundación Fomento de los estudios sociales y sociología aplicada. 2021. Sociedad expulsada y derecho a ingresos (Publicación Análisis y Perspectiva 2021). Madrid: Fundación FOESSA. https://www.caritas.es/main-files/uploads/2021/10/analisis-y-persectivas-2021.pdf. Gamson, W. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood: Dorsey Press. Goldingay, S., S. Epstein, and D. Taylor. 2018. “Simulating social work practice online with digital storytelling: Challenges and opportunities.” Social Work Education 37(6): 790–803. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2018.1481203. Granovetter, M. 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociolgy 83: 1420–1443. Hardin, R. 1982. Collective Action. London: John Hopkins University Press. Herrera, M. R., A. Corona, and M. L. Delgado. 2016. “Movimientos sociales y territorio: Una mirada desde el trabajo social.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social XXXIII(112): 33–51. Herrera-Gutierrez, M. R., and E. Pastor Seller. 2018. “Movimientos sociales e intervención social de interés colectivo.” In El trabajo social ante los desafíos del siglo XXI desde una perspectiva iberoamericana, edited by E. Pastor, 153–168. Navarra: Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi. Herrera-Gutiérrez, M. R., and M. L. Delgado-Niebla. 2019. “Movimientos sociales y trabajo social: Miradas y difusión científica.” Global Social Work 9(16): 27–48 Herrera-Gutiérrez, M. R., J. Jaraíz Arroyo, and C. Mateos Mora. 2018. “Movilización social y política publica: Reflexiones en torno a los efectos de la contienda.” In Políticas Públicas en tiempos de incertidumbre: aportes para una agenda de investigación, edited by M. Rosa HerreraGutiérrez, 71–96. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch. IFSW (International Federation of Social Workers). 2020. 2020 to 2030 Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development Framework: ‘Co-building inclusive social transformation’. News. https://www.ifsw.org/2020-to-2030-global-agenda-for-social-work-and-socialdevelopment-framework-co-building-inclusive-social-transformation/. Jenkins, J. 1994. “La teoría de la movilización de recursos y el estudio de los movimientos sociales.” Zona Abierta 69: 5–49. Kirwan, G. 2018. “Networked relationships in the digital age: Messages for social work.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 123–126. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2018.1424753. López Peláez, A., A. Erro-Garcés, and E. J. Gómez-Ciriano. 2020. “Young people, social workers and social work education: The role of digital skills.” Social Work Education 39(6): 825–842. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1795110. López Peláez, A., C. Marcuello-Servós, J. Castillo de Mesa, and P. Almaguer Kalixto. 2020. “The more you know, the less you fear: Reflexive social work practices in times of COVID-19.” International Social Work 63(6): 746–752. doi: 10.1177/0020872820959365. López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “e-Social work: Building a new field of specialization in social work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256. Manzanera-Ruiz, R., and C. Lizárraga. 2017. “Women’s social movements and social development: Opportunities for social work in Tanzania.” International Social Work 60(1): 219–233. doi: 10.1177/0020872815574132.

75

Enrique Pastor Seller and Maria Rosa Herrera Gutierrez Mattison, M. 2012. “Social work practice in the digital age: Therapeutic e-mail as a direct practice methodology.” Social Work 57(3): 249–258. doi: 10.1093/sw/sws021. McAdam, D. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: Chicago University Press. McAdam, D., J. McCarthy, and M. Zald (eds.). 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803987. McCarthy, J. D., and M. N. Zald. 1977. “Resource mobilization and social movements.” American Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212–1241. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/ pdf/10.1086/226464. Melucci, A. 1995. “The process of collective identity.” In Social Movements and Culture, edited by H. Johnston and B. Klandermans, 41–63. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Miller Scarnato, J. 2019. “The value of digital video data for qualitative social work research: A narrative review.” Qualitative Social Work: QSW: Research and Practice 18(3): 382–396. doi: 10.1177/1473325017735885. Mois, G., and K. L. Fortuna. 2020. “Visioning the future of gerontological digital social work.” Journal of Gerontological Social Work 63(5): 412–427. doi: 10.1080/01634372.2020. 1772436. Murdach, A. D. 2009. “The temperance movement and social work.” Social Work 54(1): 56–62. doi: 10.1093/sw/54.1.56. Nissen, L. 2020. “Social work and the future in a post-Covid 19 world: A foresight lens and a call to action for the profession.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 38(4): 309–330. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2020.1796892. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. Papouli, E., S. Chatzifotiou, and C. Tsairidis. 2020. “The use of digital technology at home during the COVID-19 outbreak: Views of social work students in Greece.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1107–1115. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1807496 Pastor Seller, E. 2015a. “Social work and local community development in the 21st century.” Arbor 191(771): a208. doi: 10.3989/arbor.2015.771n1010. Pastor Seller, E. 2015b. “Opportunities for participation in the policies of municipal social services in Spain.” Convergencia Revista De Ciencias Sociales 68: 229–257. https:// convergencia.uaemex.mx/article/view/3868 Pastor Seller, E. 2017. “Mechanisms for participation in the public system of social services in Spain: Opportunities for the development of social work with a citizenist approach.” European Journal of Social Work 20(3): 441–458. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1283588. Pastor Seller, E. 2021. Trabajo Social con Comunidades. Teoría, Metodología y Prácticas. Madrid: Universitas. Pastor Seller, E., C. Verde, and A. L. Lima. 2019. “Impact of neo-liberalism in Spain: Research from social work in relation to the public system of social services.” European Journal of Social Work 22(2): 277–288. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1529663. Petersen, R. 2002. Understanding Ethnic Violence: Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in TwenttiethCentury Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prada, A. 2020. Caminos de incertidumbre. Tecnologias y sociedad. Madrid: Catarata. Reamer, F. G. 2013. “Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges.” Social Work 58(2): 163–172. doi: 10.1093/sw/swt003. Reamer, F. G. 2015. “Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and riskmanagement challenges.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43(2): 120–132. doi: 10.1007/s10615014-0495-0. Smelser, N. 1962. Theory of Collective Behavior. Nueva York: The Free Press. Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511813245.

76

Collective Social Work and Social Movements Thompson, N. 2002. “Social movements, social justice and social work.” British Journal of Social Work 32(6): 711–722. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23716490. Tilly, C. 1984. “Social movements and national politics.” In State-Makingand Social Movements, edited by C. Bright and S. Harding, 297–317. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Tremblay, M. C., D. H. Martin, A. C. Macaulay, and P. Pluye. 2017. “Can we build on social movement theories to develop and improve community-based participatory research? A framework synthesis review.” In American Journal of Community Psychology 59 (3–4): 333–362. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12142. Turner, D. 2020. “Mutual ‘App’reciation: Co-production as a model for delivering digital capability within social work education.” Social Work Education. doi: 10.1080/02615479. 2020.1762858. Turner, R. and L. Killiiam. 1972. Collective Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Westoby, P., A. Lathouras, and L. Shevellar. 2019. “Radicalising community development within social work through popular Education—A participatory action research project.” British Journal of Social Work 49(8): 2207–2225. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcz022. Young, J. A., D. A. McLeod, and S. R. Brady. 2018. “The ethics challenge: 21st century social work education, social media, and digital literacies.” Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 15(1): 13–22. Zald, M. N. 1996. “Culture, ideology and creation of strategic frameworks.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, edited by D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, and M. Zald, 261–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803987.

77

PART 2

Shaping a Science of Social Work in the Digital Society

8 SOCIOCYBERNETICS FOR DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK A Second Order Approach Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós

Introduction Drawing on the theory of sociocybernetics, and in the context of the rapid technological adaptation recently experienced across society, we advocate for a theoretical discussion to strengthen the conceptualization of digital social work as a practice framework. We propose that such discussion should be focused not (only) on the technological devices or “gadgets”, platforms or apps that have been incorporated into social work practice, but also on the systemic logic underlying the new set of interactions between social workers and clients/users in our digital societies. In this chapter, we adopt a sociocybernetics perspective to consider how digital social work integrates into the realm of digital societies. We agree with those who understand digitalization as the transformation of various previously physical or analog processes into digital data systems (Schallmo and Williams 2018; Faraj, Renno, and Bhardwaj 2021). To achieve this digitalization, there are different tools that offer new forms of organization, but also social and cultural practices. However, we suggest that digital technologies have not been integrated into the structures of society in a coherent way (Vadén 2004; Williamson 2017; Dufva and Dufva 2019). In the following sections, firstly, we illustrate sociocybernetics as an analytic framework useful for enhancing our understanding of key aspects of social work practice. Secondly, we address the pandemic as a catalyst for digital activation by highlighting potential links between digital social work and sociocybernetics. Thirdly, we conclude by identifying issues derived from this discussion that require further consideration.

The Sociocybernetics Perspective Systems theory has long been an influential theory in social work (Lathrope 1969, Leighninger 1978, Germain 1979, Germain and Gittermain 1980, De Hoyos and Jensen 1985, Schirmer and Michailakis 2015, 2019, Payne 2002, Villadsen 2007). DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-10

81

Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós

It is often associated with the work of theorists and activists, many of whom were located in Chicago, USA, in the 19th and 20th centuries, marking Chicago out as a location associated with the genesis of systemic thinking. At that time, Chicago was, after all, the social observatory for many contemporary social dynamics and the laboratory for early community-based organizations such as Jane Addams’ Hull House (Addams et al. 1895, Blumer 1984, Lutters and Ackerman 1996). It was also an intellectual arena where the preliminary foundation of social work settled. It was an important location for the development of theories that would later be consolidated into what today we refer to as systems theory, such as Bertalanffy’s work in 1937 (Pouvreau and Drack 2007) as well as the work of many others including Anatol Rapoport, Kenneth E. Boulding, Robert Rosen and George J. Klir (Pouvreau 2014). Although this genealogy is well recognized in the field of social work (Walker and Akister 2004, Walker 2019), less attention has been afforded to Norbert Wiener whose (1948, 1950) publication, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, emphasized the influence of first-order cybernetics. Felix Geyer built on this work and in the 1980s he coined the neologism “sociocybernetics”, which he described as follows: Strictly speaking, one may use the term ‘sociocybernetics’ whenever cybernetics is applied to two or more persons, although one usually has larger aggregates in mind. But indeed, sociocybernetics can be applied to the micro-level of interpersonal interaction (as in family therapy), to the meso-level of several kinds of small group and institutional research (e.g. organizational problems in industry, integration problems of minorities) and the macro-level of large societal units and their interactions (e.g. countries, or even parts of the world like North vs. South, ultimately leading to the field of world systems theory). (Geyer 2006, 23) Reflecting other systems theories, sociocybernetics aims to explain how complex social systems operate. In particular, the sociocybernetics paradigm seeks to show how changes in systems come about, including consideration of the impact of negative feedback and feedforward processes on the development and adaptation of systems. Sociocybernetics adopts many of the same basic concepts found in general systems theory, including the system/limit relationship, the distinction between closed and open systems, the identification of the input and output processes and the importance of feedback loops. This framework has been already useful in social work theory and practice (Mancoske 1981, Kihlström 2012). The theoretical foundations of systems theory build on the ideas of Bertalanffy and others who sought to develop an explanatory theory regarding the dynamic, self-directing nature of social groups. Systems theory integrates concepts such as entropy, homeostasis or equilibrium, differentiation and reciprocity (Buckley 1968; Rapoport 1986; Marcuello-Servós 2006). It also adopts the classical methodological distinction between the levels of observation (macro, meso and micro), a 82

Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work

categorization often used to differentiate the context of the social work target intervention system (Geyer 2006). However, contemporary sociocybernetics integrates certain factors that other systemic perspectives do not incorporate. These include the explicit recognition of the observer in the definition and analysis of the system, which on the one hand implies reflexivity, and, on the other, the recognition of subjectivity in systemic analysis (von Foerster 2003; Scott 2021). The sociocybernetics perspective allows us to explain interconnections between elements and structures in a systemic way, including how new subsystems emerge and how changes in systems come about (Bailey 2006). In this way, the observation process and the reintroduction of information into the analyzed system (feedback) become a permanent task of research and integration (Marcuello-Servós 2006). Therefore, a characteristic feature of sociocybernetics is its recognition of the importance of the observer in the definition and analysis of the system (Who is the observer who defines the system?) and it thus prompts second-order observation of social systems (Who observes the observer? What is the observer missing? What other perspectives can enrich his/her observation?). The strength of sociocybernetics, within the systemic perspective, is that this analysis of “blind spots” can be applied to different types of systems. Sociocybernetics is thus distinguished from other approaches by its emphasis on “blind spots” analysis, integrating reflexivity as a key feature of system analysis. Thus, second-order observation is a fundamental element of this methodology. Birrer states that the inclusion of the observer in the system highlights its role and the effects that the observer could produce in the system, including its responsibilities on a specific position (Birrer 1999). We consider how these features can strengthen social work analysis and intervention frameworks. Similar to how it places special emphasis on the observer, it also places an emphasis on who controls the system, including who defines it, intervenes in and/or transforms it and on the process of reflexivity that is derived from the observation (McAfee and Brynjolfsson 2017). We argue that this can be useful for the analysis of relationships between practitioners and clients/service users, particularly in digital contexts. References to systems theory in the social work literature made an early appearance in Hearn’s (1958, 1969) publications. The interpretations of Goldstein (1973) and Pincus and Minahan (1973) brought systems theory to a wider audience, due mainly to their integration of systems theory into the contexts and debates associated with social work practice. These early examples, however, do not address social work practice in the context of the technological environment of digital communication, as at that time the use of technology in everyday life was largely unknown in its present form. Social work theory has continued to build on its early systems theory foundations, but bringing this into the realm of digital social work is a new departure. The social systems perspective in general, and sociocybernetics in particular, has produced a common language and a set of concepts as well as helping to develop reflective system thinking and a constructive epistemology (Maturana and Varela 1992; García-Boutique 2000, 2016; Kjellman 2003). We propose the adoption of

83

Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós

a sociocybernetics framework as a useful approach to aid the analysis of the development of digital social work within an increasingly digitized world.

Beyond ICTs: The Pandemic Context as a Catalyst for Digital Social Work The evolution of the Internet, as a techno-military invention of the 20th century within the context of the Cold War, is well documented by authors such as Leiner et al. (1997). Social life, in most of the world, now has a component of digitalization and connectivity through the use of devices such as computers, smart mobile phones and increasingly complex information systems which are collectively referred to as information and communication technologies (ICTs). Crucial data related to our lives, whether as citizens or clients, are now routinely recorded in one or more databases. As a society, we are dependent on ICTs, and also information and communication systems mediated by machines and codes, to enable our social organization at the macro (global), meso (sector) and increasingly, at the micro level, where information and personal management, and even intimate and private communications, are currently shaped by digital platforms. Examples include government information, medical records or financial accounts; our social profiles are already integrated into a structure that is managed digitally. This trend never seems to go in the other direction, just as change from atoms to bits is irrevocable and unstoppable (Negroponte 1995). In this increasingly digitalized context, debates have unfolded regarding privacy, security, discrimination and ownership of data (Berry 2016; Popov and Semyachkov 2018; Favaretto, De Clercq, and Elger 2019). The process of digitalization has fundamentally changed our world in many ways. The COVID-19 pandemic in the 21st century has further reconfigured the digitalization of society, including the generalized expansion of ICTs and the arrival of the “metaverse” (Lee et al. 2021; Marcuello-Servós 2021). ICTs and technological assimilation have transformed our societies. We are now living in digital contexts as a consequence of the proliferation of microelectronic devices – that is, cell phones, laptops, tablets, computers, etc. – connected using different communications networks all located in the Internet. To navigate this new landscape, access to software and digital literacy are required. The combination of these issues creates the conditions for a system of computer-mediated communications (Ceruzzi 2012). According to this model, there are levels of symbolic and material exchange that require a parallel collection of applications which is supported by the basic technical infrastructures (see Figure 8.1). In this context, there are different computer-mediated communications processes. To date, many remain freely accessible on the Internet, but that is not guaranteed to last, as corporations and governments are clearly advancing in the control of all levels (infrastructure, software and information). Social workers need to play a stronger role in advocating for people’s digital rights. Internet access is recognized as a human right by the United Nations Organization, the European Court of Human Rights and the laws of several countries (Lucchi 2011). As social workers, 84

Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work Symbolic and Material Exchange SOCIAL DIGITAL CONTEXTS

digital society HARDWARE Basic Technical Infrastructure: electricity supply, computers & communication networks

Computer-Mediated Communications SOFTWARE Programmes, Apps (CMC) USERS

abilities, digital literacy, competences inclusion/exclusion trough access

Figure 8.1

Digital societies basis

Source: Adapted from Marcuello-Servós (2022).

we need to learn how the ICTs merge in the practice of our profession. This includes aspects that run from critical digital literacy, to the service users, to the design of e-social work system, among others (Berry 2014). Indeed, social workers can collaborate with a social perspective to improve the technological approach to designing, defining and evaluating digital practices with a critical perspective on how such procedures promote autonomy of the users (and warning when it is not so). In this regard, we would like to recall a definition that allows us to understand this process. Thus, we understand that digitalization implies a set of relationships, structures and elements involved in the assumption of ICTs in any aspect of life. Digitalization processes transform interactions with users, as well as their demands and needs. They also transform the organizations in which social workers develop their professional practice. And finally, digitization produces a digital environment that creates its own context in which exclusion processes are redefined and in which it is necessary to develop new strategies for diagnosis, intervention and evaluation. (López-Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018a, 801) Likewise, digital social contexts – in which hardware and software are intertwined – produce a social space where computer-mediated communication feeds a data universe. It is in this dimension of everyday life that, once again, power relations, forms of submission or alienation and different levels of consciousness can be identified. This is where digital social work can contribute a critical perspective on the operations of the digital society. Figure 8.2 shows a representation of these issues. 85

Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós

Figure 8.2

Digital social work basics

Source: Adapted from Marcuello-Servós (2022).

ICTs and the digitalization processes they bring with them have changed custom and practice everywhere. This affects the ways in which everyday life is conducted, including professional intervention in many institutional and organizational contexts. The digitalization of society and, in particular, the digitalization of social work is, therefore, a new challenge for the theory and practice of social work (Brekke and Anastas 2019). The second-order perspective provided by sociocybernetics is useful as a theoretical and conceptual lens. It enables us to address the systemic relations of the new interactions mediated by technology and provides a foundation for reflection, regarding the impact of digitalization on the social work profession. The interpretation of technological developments cannot be left to technologists alone, be they electronic, telecommunications or software engineers. A social science approach is needed to support social work reflection on the implications of technological interventions in the social work practice domain. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an immediate response from both professionals and institutions linked to the field of social work and social services. At the individual and organizational level, strategies have been generated to support the people, groups and communities with whom social work interacts, and new technologies have been key in this response capacity. The debate on whether or not social workers should enter the digital challenge is no longer a pertinent question, as it is clear that the digitalization of social work practice has not only arrived but is now embedded in many locations (Evans 1976). As a consequence, the literature relating to best practices regarding the incorporation of digitalized processes into social work activities has increased in recent years (López-Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018a, 2018b, 2021). It is clear that the pandemic context has forced a rapid reorganization in regard to service provision and worker supervision. The pandemic emergency required rapid adaptation in a heterogeneous environment. In most contexts, this implied an 86

Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work

Content creation and dissemination using digital tools Analysis of social interactions in digital environments Social work education and professional training Reduction of exclusion due to digital divide

Figure 8.3

Digital Social Work Areas

Social services processes within e-Administration

COVID-19 effects on digital social work

accelerated adoption of new practices mediated by computer systems and ICTs which were deployed in an effort to maintain contact with users of social services, manage the institutional relationship of organizations within the social services sector and even maintain social work teaching and education. Digital social work was forced to evolve in a short period of time, with an uneven level of technological adaptation from both social workers and clients/service users. In practice, we can identify five areas of digital social work that have been strongly active since the COVID-19 pandemic arose across the world (see Figure 8.3).

Social Services Processes Within E-Administration and E-Government Already implemented but accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, public administration processes have been digitalized for the sake of greater efficiency in most parts of the developing world. Historically, social work has assigned central importance to the personal contact with service users, such as in-person interviews and in-situ supervision. Due to COVID-19, many of these processes have had to move online. It is now quite common to see new and innovative technological mediation used, such as digital files and the use of instant communication systems (WhatsApp, Skype, etc.). A clear direction for digital social work is the facilitation of contact between people and resource systems, most of the time mediated by highly complex electronic administration portals. Sociocybernetics can help explain how these systems have been designed and integrated. This is, because it includes a sociotechnical perspective that makes explicit the social decisions made as the digital system has been structured. Although many of these systems are not new, they have undergone many modifications and adaptations over the last few years. The COVID-19 context has accelerated these changes, with inputs that have not necessarily been from the top down, but have been as a result of direct interventions by social workers in the field. Reflecting on the ability to adapt digital administration systems, integrating the perspective of the user but also of the professionals who use the system, is key to improving processes, also to make evident “blind spots” that keep systems inefficient. For example, in rolling out the systems of notification to users through appointments managed by 87

Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós

digital platforms or the design of chatbots that supposedly facilitate the information and management of customers, in these cases, public administrations do not see what they do not see, and problems can continue if there are no built-in systems for reflection or evaluation.

Content Creation and Dissemination Using Digital Tools The COVID-19 lockdown and physical distance rules required the closure of institutions and organizations that traditionally provided key information services to service users. Content creation, such as audio–visual materials with specific aspects related to different intervention fields, helped to sustain the provision of information to service users. From a sociocybernetics perspective, it is possible to analyze the communication process between roles in the system, for instance, social workers and the users as well as the context of social services, or communities and groups intervention. This requires not only a communicational analysis to be carried out but an analysis of the communication system including the production of the messages, the message itself (in any of its written, oral or digital format) and the conversation used as a vehicle of transmission. We must not confuse this proposal with an analysis of reactions, now so popular in the field of digital social networks analysis. We emphasize that a sociocybernetics analysis of content creation and dissemination has to maintain attention on the specific process of feedback rather than solely looking at the general effect. This places importance on the need to keep attention focused on the messages and conversations that are designed and developed from a professional perspective looking for specific changes, and the way in which users are integrating said contributions to concrete decisions in their life processes. During the emergence of COVID-19, many of these messages were oriented to the field of care (individual, family and organizational), others, to service access. The concepts of feedback but also of forward, equilibrium and emergence can be interesting to analyze from a second-order perspective in order to evaluate the process, the aspects that are not evident at a first level of observation, and the potential for improvement.

Analysis of Social Interactions in Digital Environments Ranging from individual level to larger group interactions, the analysis of social interaction in digital environments, such as online forums and social networks, is a growing area of research and intervention. During COVID-19, social work practice included the setting up of online support groups and individual supervision mediated by technology (e.g., telecare) and also community intervention. With the employment of techniques such as data mining, big data and network analysis, these forms of intervention provide opportunities for the analysis of large systemic processes and recommendations for purposeful improvements at the macro level. The ability to analyze social interactions at macro, meso or micro levels requires competency in the application and use of digital technologies by the professionals delivering digitalized services. Furthermore, the explicit recognition of the observer 88

Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work

(the social worker, in this case) is important to support reflexive processes that can improve such communication systems.

Social Work Education and Professional Training Social work educators have increasingly utilized synchronous and asynchronous instructional processes mediated by computer systems for the production of online education, audio–visual materials, podcasts, interactive CDs and social networked study groups. During the COVID-19 period, this became a primary way for educators to overcome the consequences of lockdown in different parts of the world, while at the same time, it highlighted the profound inequality in digital access experienced by many professionals and students in different geographical regions. Many experiences have been identified and reported (Lopez-Peláez and Marcuello-Servos 2021), but from a sociocybernetics perspective, we might ask: In which ways can ICT systems enable a critical and reflective approach? Are we simply acting as users–reproducers of the internal logics of social control? Social work is both a practice-based profession and an academic discipline. Social work promotes social change and the empowerment and liberation of people with principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities. Therefore, many “blind spots” require to be addressed if we jump to the unreflective use of new technologies – that is the emphasis sociocybernetics promotes. It is necessary to address many new research questions related to the extension of empowerment, access and levels of digital content comprehension, which arise in this new digital environment for social work education. Aspects of inclusion/exclusion among students, institutions and regions are also important issues for further analysis.

Reduction of Exclusion Due to Digital Divide Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, it is crucial to address the challenge of unequal access to the Internet, computers and information systems that affect those on the margins of the digital society, excluded from its benefits, for example, due to lack of connectivity. Digital exclusion can be multidimensional. If the social work professional has no optimal access to the Internet, computers or information systems, how can they provide an effective digital practice? Evidence of digital exclusion among social workers themselves has been raised recently related to limitations in the ability of social workers to cope with COVID-19 restrictions. On the other hand, social workers can identify the levels of digital literacy needed by service users to help them avoid exclusion in relation to the use of technology. During the pandemic, for example, with the impossibility of offering the personalized service face to face, many social benefits (minimum vital income in Spain) required an online application, which, obviously in many cases, implied a barrier for the client or applicant, not only due to the dimension of access to an electronic device and the Internet, but also to the knowledge of the system codes to achieve a successful application. Social workers may be key service providers for 89

Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós

identifying such barriers and providing strategies where social intervention can be a solution at individual, group or community levels. We cannot stand idly by and wait for virtual reality to become a new site of social exclusion. It is very likely that the “digital big bang of cyberspace” (Lee et al. 2021) is not the wished-for technological paradise. Therefore, it is important to apply analytical and critical tools, such as those offered by sociocybernetics, that provide individuals, groups and communities with a lens through which they can be the protagonists of their decisions and not simply puppets of algorithms that predictively select their options based on the “behavioral surplus” they previously left in social networks (Zuboff 2019).

Conclusions The five themes considered in this chapter illustrate a wide range of digital social work in practice and how that has intensified due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is necessary to analyze the technological assimilation that is taking place in social work practice, not only as a rapid response to the impact of the pandemic but also as a sign of the ongoing digitalization of professional practice. What direction will this technological assimilation take? How are digital social work systems being designed, defined and evaluated? While solving the challenges of indirect client contact by the adoption of technological strategies, it is essential that we reflectively analyze how this is done so that we can identify the issues which current and future digital social work must address. This perspective advocates for a theoretical discussion which will strengthen the conceptual framework of digital social work. We propose a systemic approach and specifically, sociocybernetics as a useful conceptual framework to support digital social work practice and theory. As digital social work is a new challenge for the science of social work (Brekke and Anastas 2019), sociocybernetics can help us to understand and generate new approaches, questions and relationships relevant to all fields of professional education and practice within digitalized societies. It is not about simply traveling where the ICTs take us, we need a second-order perspective to perceive and interpret where we are and where we want to go as a professional discipline. This analysis is necessary to maintain our focus on the client at the center of social work. The sociocybernetic perspective supports the necessary reflexivity and second-order observation, which allows both social workers and clients, not to be mere users, but as citizens empowered by the processes of digitization, to exercise and develop a range of useful interventions with greater impact on different social levels.

Acknowledgment We dedicate this chapter to the memory of Ana Hernando-Rica, Professor of Social Work at the University of Zaragoza and a key advocate of social work in Aragon and Spain. In this chapter, we want to remember her wisdom and the knowledge 90

Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work

she transmitted to us. Sadly, she died suddenly in August 2021. Let this chapter serve as a tribute to her work and legacy.

References Addams, J., I. Eaton, A. Sinclair Holbrook, F. Kelley, J. C. Lathrop, A. Mastro-Valerio, E. Gates Starr, A. P. Stevens, J. Humpal Zeman, and C. Zueblin. 1895. Hull-House Maps and Papers: A Presentation of Nationalities and Wages in a Congested District of Chicago, Together With Comments and Essays on Problems Growing Out of the Social Conditions. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Company. Bailey, K. 2006. “Sociocybernetics and social entropy theory”. Kybernetes 35(3–4): 375–384. Berry, D. M. 2014. Critical Theory and the Digital. London: A&C Black. Berry, D. M. 2016. The Philosophy of Software. London: Springer. Birrer, F. 1999. “Sustainability, democracy, and sociocybernetics.” Kybernetes 28(6/7): 810–820. Blumer, M. 1984. The Chicago School of Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Brekke, J., and J. Anastas. (Eds.). 2019. Shaping a Science of Social Work: Professional Knowledge and Identity. Oxford University Press. Buckley, W. (Ed.). 1968. Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine. Ceruzzi, P. E. 2012. Computing. Cambridge: MIT Press. De Hoyos, G., and C. Jensen. 1985. “The systems approach in American social work.” Social Casework 66(8): 490–497. doi: 10.1177/104438948506600806. Dufva, T., and M. Dufva. 2019. “Grasping the future of the digital society.” Futures 107 (July 2017): 17–28. 10.1016/j.futures.2018.11.001. Evans, R. 1976. “Some implications of an integrated model of social work for theory and practices.” British Journal of Social Work 6(2): 177–200. Faraj, S., W. Renno, and A. Bhardwaj. 2021. “Unto the breach: What the COVID-19 pandemic exposes about digitalization.” Information and Organization 31(1): 100337, ISSN 1471-7727, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100337. Favaretto, M., E. De Clercq, and B. S. Elger. 2019. “Big data and discrimination: Perils, promises and solutions. A systematic review.” Journal of Big Data 6(12): 1–27. 10.1186/s40537-019-0177-4. García, R. 2000. El Conocimiento en Construcción. De Las Formulaciones de Jean Piaget a la Teoría de Sistemas Complejos. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa. Germain, C. 1979. “Introduction ecology and social work” In Social Work Practice: People and Environments – An Ecological Approach, edited by C. B. Germain. New York: Columbia University Press. Germain, C., and C. Gittermain. 1980. The Life Model of Social Work Practice. New York: Columbia University Press. Geyer, F. 2006. “Reflexiones sobre el futuro de la Sociocibernética.” In Sociocibernética. Lineamientos de un Paradigm, edited by C. Marcuello, 23–40. IFC-Zaragoza. Goldstein, H. 1973. Social Work Practice: A Unitary Approach. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press. Hearn, G. 1958. Theory-Building in Social Work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hearn, G. 1969. The General Systems Approach: Contributions Toward an Holistic Conception of Social Work. New York: Council of Social Work Education. Kihlström, A. 2012. “Luhmann’s system theory in social work: Criticism and reflections.” Journal of Social Work 12(3): 287–299. 10.1177/1468017310386425. Kjellman, A. 2003. Constructive Systems Science—The Only Remaining Alternative? A Contribution to Science and Human Epistemology. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University. Doctoral Thesis ISBN: 91-7283531-1.

91

Patricia E. Almaguer-Kalixto and Chaime Marcuello-Servós Lathrope, D. E. 1969. “A general systems approach in social work practice.” In The General Systems Approach: Contributions Toward an Holistic Conception of Social Work, edited by G. Hearn. N.Y.: Council on Social Work Education. Lee, L.-H., T. Braud, P. Zhou, L. Wang, D. Xu, Z. Lin, A. Kumar, C. Bermejo, and P. Hui. 2021. All One Needs to Know About Metaverse: A Complete Survey on Technological Singularity, Virtual Ecosystem, and Research Agenda. 10.13140/RG.2.2.11200.05124/6 Leighninger, R. D. Jr. 1978. “Systems theory.” The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 5(4): 2. 446–466. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol5/iss4/2. Leiner, B. M., V. G. Cerf, D. D. Clark, R. E. Kahn, L. Kleinrock, D. l. C. Lynch, J. Postel, L. G. Roberts, and S. Wolff. 1997. Brief History of the Internet. https://www.Internetsociety.org/ Internet/history-Internet/brief-history-Internet/ López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018a. “e-Social work and digital society: Reconceptualizing approaches, practices and technologies.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018b. “El trabajo social en la sociedad digital.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social (Abril-2018) XXXV (116): 11–26. https://www. serviciossocialesypoliticasocial.com/-34. López-Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2021. “Digital intervention, COVID-19, and critical realism: Toward a science of digital social work.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 48(3). https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol48/iss3/3. Lucchi, N. 2011. “Access to network services and protection of constitutional rights: Recognizing the essential role of internet access for the freedom of expression.” Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (JICL) 19(3): 645–678. Lutters, W. G., and M. S. Ackerman. 1996. “An introduction to the Chicago School of Sociology.” Interval Research Proprietary 2(6): 1–27. Mancoske, R. 1981. “Sociological perspectives on the ecological model.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 8(4): 710–732. Marcuello-Servós, C. 2006. Sociocibernética. Lineamientos de un Paradigm. IFC-Zaragoza. Marcuello-Servós, C. 2021. Metaverso, in Heraldo de Aragón. Tribuna November 4, 2021. p. 24. Marcuello-Servós, C. 2022. “Social welfare and inclusion in digital societies: Surveillance, datacapitalism and COVID-19.” In Digital Transformation and Social Well-Being: Promoting an Inclusive Society, edited by A. López Peláez, S-M. Suh, and S. Zelenev, 23–36. London: Routledge. Maturana, H. R., and F. J. Varela. 1992. Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala. McAfee, A., and E. Brynjolfsson. 2017. Crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future. New York: WW Norton & Company. Negroponte, N. 1995. On Being Digital. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Payne, M. 2002. “The politics of systems theory within social work.” Journal of Social Work 2(3): 269–292. doi: 10.1177/146801730200200302. Pincus, A., and A. Minahan. 1973. Social Work Practice: Model and Method. Illinois: Peacock. Popov, Y., and K. Semyachkov. 2018. “Problems of economic security for digital society in the context of globalization.” Economy of Region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences 1(4): 1088–1101. Pouvreau, D. 2014. “On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “general systemology”, and on its relationship to cybernetics - Part II: Contexts and developments of the systemological hermeneutics instigated by von Bertalanffy”. International Journal of General Systems 43(2): 172–245. 10.1080/03081079.2014.883743. Pouvreau, D., and M. Drack. 2007. “On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “general systemology”, and on its relationship to cybernetics part I: Elements on the origins and genesis of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “general systemology.” International Journal of General Systems 36(3): 281–337.

92

Sociocybernetics for Digital Social Work Rapoport, A. 1986. General System Theory. Essential Concepts and Applications. Abacus: Tunbridge Wells. Schallmo, D. R. A., and C. A. Williams. 2018. “History of digital transformation.” In Digital Transformation Now! Springer Briefs in Business, edited by D. R. A. Schallmo, and C. A., Williams. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-72844-5_2. Schirmer, W., and D. Michailakis. 2015. “The Luhmannian approach to exclusion/inclusion and its relevance to social work.” Journal of Social Work 15(1): 45–64. doi: 10.1177/146801 7313504607. Schirmer, W., and D. Michailakis. 2019. Systems Theory for Social Work and the Helping Professions. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Scott, B. 2021. Cybernetics for the Social Sciences. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Available From: Brill 10.1163/9789004464490 Vadén, T. 2004. “Digital nominalism. Notes on the ethics of information society in view of the ontology of the digital”. Ethics and Information Technology 6: 223–231. Villadsen, K. 2007. “‘Polyphonic’ welfare: Luhmann’s systems theory applied to modern social work.” International Journal of Social Welfare 17(1): 65–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397. 2007.00504.x. von Foerster, H. 2003. Understanding Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. New York: SpringerVerlag. Walker, S. 2019. Systems Theory and Social Work in Effective Social Work With Children, Young People and Families: Putting Systems Theory Into Practice. SAGE. 10.4135/9781446270141. Walker, S., and J. Akister. 2004. Applying Family Therapy – A Guide for the Caring Professionals in the Community. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing. Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press. Wiener, N. 1950. Cybernetics and Society: The Human Use of Human Beings. Houghton Mifflin. Williamson, B. 2017. Big Data in Education. The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. London: SAGE. Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.

93

9 BIG SOCIAL DATA AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES Opportunities for Social Work Research and Practice Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

Introduction The main function of social work is to help people build relationships so that they can generate mutual support networks from which to overcome adversity (Addams 1902). In contemporary practice, social workers, from the different social services, often have less time to pay attention to building relationships with service users as their focus is often concentrated on delivering the resources, aid and benefits that are available from the Welfare State. However, structural and permanent solutions do not usually come from these support systems but from the social capital that people may have (Cottam 2015). However, the social capital that people possess is increasingly under pressure. For example, more than one-third of the population of western countries feels lonely habitually or frequently (Cacioppo and Patrick 2008). A recent report predicts loneliness will reach epidemic proportions in 2030, unless action is taken (Linehan et al. 2014). In this sense, unwanted loneliness can turn into a new pandemic. In the digital society, at the dawn of the Internet, different services and applications have emerged that have constituted an entire digital architecture called Web 2.0 or social Web (O’Reilly 2005), which brings society together through online communication processes, that have laid the foundations for new ways for individuals and groups to relate and communicate with each other. The relationships that can be created in these contexts represent communicative processes that scale from unilateral and local interaction to multidirectional and global interaction. A step further has been the progressively implementation of Web 3.0 services and applications, the main feature of which is that they are based on the search for practical cooperation (Fuchs et al. 2010; Barassi and Treré 2012). During these processes, users of different web services no longer only consume digital content, but also participate and cooperate in its

94

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-11

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

production and reproduction, in a process of mass self-communication (Castells 1997) that challenges conventional structures and enhances the empowerment of those who take part (Hoffmann, Lutz, and Meckel 2015). Network characteristics such as low cost, high speed, wide range and progressively lowering latency have created very robust communication possibilities. These advantages allow what is defined as social connectivity, that is, computer-mediated communication that supports the development of personal ties (without geographic constraints) and connection with larger groups and communities of interest (Wellman 2001). At present, this definition could be qualified by also adding as a mediating element the smartphone that, in addition, incorporates an increase in immediacy and ubiquity (Castillo de Mesa 2017). The increase in the improvement of the usability of the different services and applications, combined with a progressive higher of digital skills across the wider population, has given rise to a parallel universe of socialization, which transforms online communication into a social phenomenon. In this digital context, the desire to connect and stay in touch with other people has given rise to the phenomenon of social networking sites, where people interact frequently and en masse (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007). Social networking sites are sometimes used to maintain or reinforce offline relationships, reflecting preexisting social relationships in the offline reality (Dunbar et al. 2015), but they are also used to meet new people (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007). Arising from social contact on social networking sites, communities are generated, which enhance the processes of online information and knowledge exchange and dissemination (Castillo de Mesa 2019). Thus, social media and online networking can help satisfy the need for social relationships and increase individual and group social capital (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2019; 2020b). Various international social work associations, such as the National Association of Social Workers (2017), are encouraging social workers to apply digital processes as a way to build relationships, increase access to information and use digital media to help people address their individual and collective needs (Van Dijk 2006; Lee, Noh, and Koo 2013). For example, strengthening connectedness through social networking sites has been shown to promote social and emotional support (Greenhow and Robelia 2009). Social networking sites also allow the development of online social work services, improving access to services for isolated or remote populations, a feature that has been of particular relevance in the context of the physical distancing and lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, different strategies can be deployed that promote collective learning, both among professionals themselves and among users of social services. The creation and empowerment of social ties through interventions that are not arbitrary, but are evidence based, provide opportunities to improve connectedness and interaction between service users where appropriate (Castillo de Mesa 2019).

Big Social Data and Thick Data as Sources of Analysis of Online Socialization Given that social networking sites constitute a particularly rich and attractive source of relational information (Ellison 2007), researchers from different disciplines have 95

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

been interested in learning more about online socialization on these platforms and have viewed the digital universe as a possible source of information from which to analyze and understand people’s behaviors and attitudes. In fact, the impact that online social networks are having on people’s socialization habits has drawn the attention of academics and researchers from various disciplines to its research potential. The so-called Big Social Data (Manovich 2011) is a universe of online socialization in which is found a set of networking and interaction behaviors suitable for exploration by social work researchers. The digital trail left on social networking sites by people’s networking and interaction behaviors allows us to observe and analyze, either in real time or after the event, the different behavior patterns of people in these settings. Online relationships, in the context of social networking sites, produce a type of digital social capital, complementary to offline social capital, which can be analyzed from the precepts of social work (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2021). Big Data enables the detection of behavior patterns that are not ostensibly visible simply because the enormous amount of data which is typically involved can radiate connections undetectable to the basic observer (Boyd and Crawford 2012). In order to observe and explain why service users do what they do and what influences their behaviors and attitudes, Wang (2013) affirms that “Thick Data” is needed, also referred to as dense information. “Thick Data” is a term that points to the concept of “thick description”, explained by Geertz (1993) as a source of information, extracted from the Big Social Data, which can be used to analyze phenomena, cultures and relationships between people. In short, Thick Data and Big Data can be understood as complementary research sources of information. While Big Data offers a large sample of data, Thick Data can provide more valuable information, specifically more personal data, from a smaller sample. It is helpful to consider how research can be conducted in relation to digital social work practice mediated through social networking sites. The next session offers some practical examples.

Using Social Networking Sites to Enhance Social Capital The extraction of large amounts of data was developed through the Twitter Streaming Importer plugin, a plugin integrated into the Gephi 0.9.2 application (Bastian, Heymann, and Jacomy 2009). The Force Atlas 2 distribution algorithm was applied, which simulates a physical system to spatialize a network. The social network analysis, which distinguishes between nodes that identify any unit of relationship (person, organization, city, etc.) and ties, which draw the link between any couple of nodes, allows for the measurement of different relational properties that show the characteristics of the online social structure (degree centrality, intermediation and closeness or transitivity). Latapy’s (2008) clustering coefficient algorithm was used to reformulate the “small world” effect and analyze cohesion. To find the Thick Data, communities were detected using the modularity algorithm (Girvan and Newman 2002). To determine the factors that shaped the communities 96

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

detected on Twitter, netnography or digital ethnography was used, which can be defined as a set of methods for recording and interpreting digital environments and which tries to adapt the notions and guides of classical ethnography to new places of technology mediation (Hine 2005; Kozinets 2015). Figures 9.1 and 9.2 demonstrate how research, using these types of methodologies as described in the previous paragraph, can generate information about online social interactions and networking. These examples show two types of social network analysis in which leadership actions are identified based on connectedness and interaction and different algorithms are implemented to detect communities. In Figure 9.1, we can visualize how connections among social workers define a dense network of connectedness. In Figure 9.2, we can observe an analysis of communication (networks of posts, comments and likes) at the meso level, that is, between professionals of social service organizations in a specific context of Facebook (Castillo de Mesa, Gómez-Jacinto, and Palma-García 2018). In another study, it was possible to analyze similar variables in activity on LinkedIn (Castillo de Mesa and Gómez-Jacinto 2020b). From the perspective of social network analysis applied to this online universe, we can see how, once the corresponding metrics are applied, the largest size of the nodes identifies those most influential, according to their higher connectedness and interaction, in the analyzed structures, while the thickness of the ties identifies the frequency of interaction. This research has shown that Facebook groups are effective instruments to facilitate and complement learning since they enhance learning and collaboration, greater connectedness and resilience (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2019). But it is not only about connecting, it is necessary to go further and interact, participate in the communicative processes in an appropriate way, mobilizing social

Figure 9.1

Communities of interaction between social workers on LinkedIn. Example 1

Source: Castillo de Mesa and Gómez-Jacinto (2020c).

97

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

Figure 9.2

Communities of interaction between social workers on LinkedIn. Example 2

Source: Castillo de Mesa and Gómez-Jacinto (2020c).

capital in a social work strategic way (Castillo de Mesa, López-Peláez, and MéndezDomínguez 2021). Figures 9.3 and 9.4 show graphs that, respectively, represent the connectedness and interaction of a community of mutual support between users of social services, where patterns of leadership, related to the highest levels of connectedness and interaction, cohesion and different forms of social capital, are identified (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2019; Castillo de Mesa, López-Peláez, and MéndezDomínguez 2021). The academic literature has reached a certain consensus that the impact of online communication on well-being depends on the objectives of the person, the nature of the communication exchange and the closeness with other nodes (Burke and Kraut 2013). When people have sufficient strategic digital skills and competencies, they tend to establish and maintain communication on social 98

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

Figure 9.3

Communities between users of social services based on connectivity on Facebook

Source: Castillo De Mesa et al. (2019).

Figure 9.4

Communities between users based on interaction on Facebook

Source: Castillo de Mesa et al. (2021).

99

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

networking sites that provides key information and can improve social position. In other words, when people know how to identify the information they require, they connect with their inner circle of people, but also with those whom they see sporadically, they plan activities based on selected criteria. They deliberately participate in groups with a goal; they know who to add and who not to among their contacts, all depending on the purpose of the information they share, as well as their understanding of how to cooperate and network and achieve social capital (Correa 2016; Castillo de Mesa 2019). At the university level, when young people have strategic digital skills and competencies, they improve self-esteem, satisfaction with life and psychosocial wellbeing (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2020a), they demonstrate tolerance of diversity and they feel better about themselves as they have a better positive self-image (Castillo de Mesa and Gómez-Jacinto 2020b). In Figures 9.5 and 9.6, we can see the role played by the Social Work Colleges of Spain on social networking sites in relation to connectivity, cooperation, the ability to generate alliances, leadership and hierarchy. The results of research on this topic highlight that the incorporation of social networking sites has so far produced an effect of hierarchization and closed communities, where they tend to connect predominantly with the same organizations, rather than in wider arena of cooperation and alliances (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2022). In this sense, the Colleges of Social Work in Spain face a crucial challenge to evolve from an online interaction model focused on self-promotion towards a model focused on cooperation and the creation of alliances.

Figure 9.5

Communities between Social Work Colleges based on connectivity on Twitter

Source: Castillo de Mesa et al. (2022).

100

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

Figure 9.6

Communities between Social Work Colleges based on interaction on Twitter.

Source: Castillo de Mesa et al. (2022).

Social Networking Sites and Social Emergencies Different authorities and, among them, social workers, increasingly use social networking sites in their communication efforts in situations of social emergency (Castillo de Mesa and López-Peláez 2019). They often share information with the public on how to act during emergencies or how to avoid possible negative consequences. The scientific literature reaches consensus in affirming the great importance of information disseminators, since they promote the use of digital media in an organized and effective way (Latonero and Shklovski 2011). Many organizations are becoming more and more aware of the value of social networking sites in times of crisis, and a multitude of recommendations can be found to analyze and improve relevant content. Nowadays, there are different applications for content analysis of social networking sites, some specially developed for crisis management, that perform different types of analysis, such as monitoring, detection of events and analysis of sentiments and content. For their part, the various humanitarian organizations use social networking sites to officially report information in real time, communicate with those affected, publicize available resources and launch alerts. Different international humanitarian agencies use social networking sites to coordinate the activities of volunteers and specialist teams. Effective use of social networking sites in these situations, in which information plays a decisive role in the strategies carried out during the process, can help reduce risks and negative effects. Social networking sites offer potential for organizations to share information and broaden their communication networks. However, in some cases, digital technologies are underused because organizations are concerned about the reliability of information and the protection of privacy. 101

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

Such concerns do not seem to impede social networking between citizens and volunteers, who communicate with each other in these cases spontaneously through social networking sites. By way of example, the content generated by citizens can serve to illustrate problematic situations through photographs taken with mobile phones (Kaufhold and Reuter 2016). In these situations, social networking sites make it possible to amplify and intensify spontaneous cooperation between citizens. In the framework of social networking sites, this type of collaboration is articulated through the so-called digital volunteers (Starbird and Palen 2012). Digital volunteers, when they act as moderators, carry out activities of transmission, amplification, synthesis and structuring of information as a result of disasters and identification of victims and hoaxes (Starbird 2013). Among the many challenges they address, the challenge of assuming the role of moderator has been identified (Kaufhold and Reuter 2016). Online communities that are created in social networking sites can be activated, reducing risk and resource inequities, involving the local population in mitigating problems, enabling the creation of organizational links and promoting and protecting social support (Castillo de Mesa and López-Peláez 2019). Furthermore, communication in networks can enhance collective resilience in cases of social emergency or disasters. In Figure 9.7, we can see large data samples in which the interaction around #LondonAttack was analyzed and communities were detected (illustrated in Figure 9.7) in the face of the social emergency of a terrorist attack. Another example is research related to the COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 9.8) which depicts an analysis of the use of hashtag # in different languages during the lockdown period, taking as an object of study the combination of social emergency care, derived from COVID-19, and social support, sense of community, social

Figure 9.7 Interaction communities and communities detected around #LondonAttack on Twitter Source: Castillo de Mesa (2020).

102

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

Figure 9.8 Communities of interaction and social support and resilience initiatives around #mequedoencasa and # quédateencasa on Twitter Source: Castro et al. (2021).

participation and resilience in the face of isolation as a result of the confinement situation (Castro et al. 2021). Moreover, we found the increasing of disinformation and fake news formed echo chambers through communities based on connectedness and interaction based on bubble filters. From a social work perspective, in the middle of the uncertainty generated by these types of emergencies situations, with the ability to differentiate the information that is trustworthy from that which is not, we can take advantage of the potential of turning social workers into sources of micro communication.

103

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

Apart from a small number of exceptions, these possibilities are not being used deliberately and strategically by social service organizations on a routine basis. Rather, what activities we do observe is mainly arising from the spontaneous effort demonstrated by individual professionals.

Social Networking Sites to Generate and Sustain Social Movements The interconnection power of social networking sites has made it possible for certain social movements to go global. Social networking sites have structured the organization of social activism that gave rise to paradigmatic social movements such as the Arab Spring in Egypt or #15-M in Spain. Recently, the feminist movement, channeled through hashtags such as #metoo, (see Figure 9.9), among others, has been shown as a social phenomenon of global dimensions. We can also observe how personal online profiles are used to claim and position individuals without fear and even with a vision of reputational revenue. It is possible to depict the analysis of evidenced communities, represented in different colors, where people align themselves based on similarities such as geographic location or common language, projecting the effect of the social mirror, that is, one that shows

Figure 9.9

Communities of interaction and communities detected around #metoo on Twitter

Source: Castillo de Mesa et al. (2020a).

104

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

that online connectivity and interaction is nothing more than a true reflection of socialization in offline reality (Dunbar et al. 2015). From the perspective of social work, all the social movements which have emerged on social networking sites should be considered as potential vehicles through which to analyze social justice. #Metoo is an example of an alliance of women that has been strongly reproduced in the digital space, generating a global digital sorority that has encouraged participation, in such a way that online disinhibition has been exacerbated. Around ideological and political affinities, other social movements are generated that fight for social rights and that have also been communicated and supported in online social networks. An example of this can be the #Chiledespertó movement that is illustrated in Figure 9.10. The social network analysis allows for the detection of communities around which interactions are formed (Castillo de Mesa 2017), most often catalyzed by affectivity, that show similar affinities and beliefs, producing identifiable patterns of homophily that give rise to the so-called echo chambers (Pariser 2011) which in turn can lead to polarization. We can see in Figure 9.11 the high level of interaction around the hashtag #openarms in relation to the migratory crisis that was triggered after the rescue of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and the subsequent dispute and political crisis over the decision of where they could land.

Figure 9.10

Interaction communities detected around # Chiledespertó on Twitter

Source: Castillo de Mesa (2021).

105

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa

Figure 9.11 Example of community interaction detected around the migratory crisis #openarms on Twitter Source: Castillo de Mesa et al. (2020).

Conclusions At first, utopian visions dominated the discourse around the use of online social networks, considering mainly opportunities and positioning them as tools that facilitated the generation of social movements and the democratization of access to information. Faced with this vision, lately the dystopian, if not apocalyptic, vision of the negative effects of participation in online social networks is gaining ground, due to the consequences that its use implies, especially in terms of loss of privacy, increased surveillance and behavior control, a tendency to polarization, 106

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites

overexposure and saturation of unreliable content (Han 2014). The continuous bombardment of the media about the negative effects of the use of online networks is amplifying the sensation of feeling observed, and consequently, this is fostering a certain inhibition and even self-censorship of interaction (Das and Kramer 2013) and strengthening the option not to participate (Harari 2018). However, not participating implies not only giving up certain damages and risks but also opportunities in terms of social connectivity, access to information, interaction and empowerment of people (Shirky 2008). Beyond the opinion generated in the media, the academic literature has reached a certain consensus that the impact of online communication on well-being depends on the objectives of the person, the nature of the communication exchange and the proximity to other nodes (Burke and Kraut 2013). Correa (2016) has found that people with less cultural capital (similar to the profiles of some social services users) use online social networks with a greater orientation to entertainment while those with greater cultural capital use them with an achievement orientation. From this perspective, and considering the importance of the orientation of use, of the “what for”, it is suggested that the type of use that people make of these media makes a difference. Throughout this chapter, different examples of evidence allow us to verify that if the use of these means is well oriented, the benefits can be significant. In a scenario of exponential increase in loneliness, social workers must take advantage of these highly sociable scenarios in order to build relationships between people. Undoubtedly, we must obtain performance from the high average daily time that people spend using online social networks and be able to work on the orientation of use, the “why”. It is about returning to the essence of social work, being present where people are, returning to field social work, in this case, the field being a digital context, and utilizing these digital media to promote social relations and social capital.

References Addams, J. 1902. Democracy and social ethics. New York: Macmillan. Barassi, V., and E. Treré. 2012. “Does Web 3.0 come after Web 2.0? Deconstructing theoretical assumptions through practice.” New Media & Society 14(8): 1269–1285. Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. “Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks.” In Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 361–362. 10.1136/qshc.2004.010033. Boyd, D., and K. Crawford. 2012. “Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon.” Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662–679. Burke, M., and R. Kraut. 2013. “Using Facebook after losing a job: Differential benefits of strong and weak ties.” Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1419–1430. 10.1145/2441776.2441936. Cacioppo, J. T., and W. Patrick. 2008. Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York, NY: Norton. Castells, M. 1997. La era de la información. Volumen 1: La sociedad red. Alianza editorial. Castillo de Mesa, J. 2017. El Trabajo Social ante el reto de la transformación digital. Big Data y redes sociales aplicado a investigación y a la intervención social. Madrid: Aranzadi. Thomson Reuters. Castillo de Mesa, J. 2019. El Trabajo Social en la era digital. Madrid: Aranzadi. Thomson Reuters.

107

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa Castillo de Mesa, J. 2020. “Sociedad digital: Oportunidades para la investigación social”. In Comunicación para el bien común, edited by R. Acebes Valentín. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi Thomson Reuters. 91–110. Castillo de Mesa, J. 2021. “Digital social work: Towards digital disruption in social work”. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare XLVIII(3): 117–133. Castillo de Mesa, J., A. López-Peláez, and P. Méndez-Domínguez. 2021. “Digital social work practice through groupwork on social networking sites: A case study with users of Social Services Community Centre from Malaga (Spain) on Facebook.” Groupwork 29(3): 5–30. Castillo de Mesa, J., and A. López-Peláez. 2019. “Redes sociales online y emergencias sociales.” In Respuestas del trabajo social ante situaciones de emergencias sociales y problemáticas sociales complejas de México y España, edited by E. Pastor Seller. Madrid, Spain: DykinsonUNAM. 187–206. Castillo de Mesa, J., and L. Gómez-Jacinto. 2020b. “Digital competences and skills as key factors between connectedness and tolerance to diversity on social networking sites: Case study of social work graduates on Facebook.” Current Sociology. First published online. 10.117/0011392120983341. Castillo de Mesa, J., and L. Gó mez-Jacinto. 2020c. “Connectedness, engagement, and learning through social work communities on LinkedIn.” Psychosocial Intervention 29(2): 103–112. 10.5093/pi2020a4. Castillo de Mesa, J., C. Marcuello-Servós, A. López-Peláez, and P. Méndez Domínguez. 2020a. “Social work and digital activism. Sorority, homophily and polarization in #Metoo.” Alternativas. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social 28: 351–375. 10.14198/ALTERN2021. 28.2.09. Castillo de Mesa, J., L. Gómez Jacinto, A. López Peláez, and M.-O. Palma García. 2019. “Building relationships on social networking sites from a social work approach.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 201–215. 10.1080/02650533.2019.1608429. Castillo de Mesa, J., L. Gómez-Jacinto, A. López-Peláez, and A. Erro-Garcés. 2020b. “Social networking sites and youth transition: The use of Facebook and personal well-being of social work young graduates.” Frontiers of Psychology 11: 230. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020. 00230. Castillo de Mesa, J., M.-O. Palma García, and L. Gómez Jacinto. 2018. “Analysis of social innovation on social networking services.” European Journal of Social Work 21: 902–915. 10.1080/13691457.2018.1461067. Castillo de Mesa, J., P. Méndez-Domínguez, A. López-Peláez, and G. Kirwan. 2022. “Comunicación digital de los colegios de Trabajo Social en España en las redes sociales online ¿Coalición, jerarquización o aislamiento?” Revista Española de Investigación SociaI 78: 39–60. Castillo-de-Mesa, J., P. Méndez-Domínguez, D. Carbonero-Muñoz, and L. Gómez-Jacinto. 2021. “Homofilia, polarización afectiva y desinformación en Twitter: Caso de estudio sobre la crisis migratoria# Openarms.” Redes: Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales 32(2): 153–172. Castro-Martinez, A., P. Méndez-Domínguez, A. Sosa Valcarcel, and J. Castillo de Mesa. 2021. “Social connectivity, sentiment and participation on Twitter during COVID-19.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 8390–8419. 10.3390/ ijerph18168390 Correa, T. 2016. “Digital skills and social media use: How Internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’.” Information, Communication & Society 19(8): 1095–1107. 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1084023 Cottam, H. 2015. Hillary Cottam: Social services are broken [video file]. Retrieved on 10 December 2021 from: https://www.ted.com/talks/hilary_cottam_social_services_are_ broken_how_we_can_fix_them?language=es.

108

Big Social Data & Social Networking Sites Das, S., and A. Kramer. 2013. “Self-censorship on Facebook.” In Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Dunbar, R. I., V. Arnaboldi, M. Conti, and A. Passarella. 2015. “The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline world.” Social Networks 43: 39–47. 10.1016/ j.socnet.2015.04.005. Ellison, N. B., C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe. 2007. “The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.” Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 12(4): 1143–1168. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x. Fuchs, C., W. Hofkirchner, M. Schafranek, C. Raffl, M. Sandoval, and R. Bichler. 2010. “Theoretical foundations of the web: Cognition, communication, and co-operation. Towards an understanding of web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0.” Future Internet 2: 41–59. 10.3390/ fi2010041. Geertz, C. 1993. “Descripción densa: Hacia una teoría interpretativa de la cultura.” In Antropología: Lecturas. (2.ª ed.), edited by P. Bohannan, and M. Glazer, 547–568. Madrid: McGraw-Hill. Girvan, M., and M. E. Newman. 2002. “Community structure in social and biological networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(12): 7821–7826. 10.1073/ pnas.122653799. Greenhow, C., and B. Robelia. 2009. “Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks.” Learning, Media and Technology 34(2): 119–140. Han, B. C. 2014. Psicopolí tica. Barcelona: Herder. Harari, Y. N. 2018. 21 lecciones para el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Penguin Random House. Hine, C. 2005. Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg. Hoffmann, C. P., C. Lutz, and M. Meckel. 2015. “Content creation on the Internet: A social cognitive perspective on the participation divide.” Information, Communication & Society 18(6): 696–716. 10.1080/1369118X.2014.991343. Kaufhold, M. A., and C. Reuter. 2016. “The self-organization of digital volunteers across social media: The case of the 2013 European floods in Germany.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) 13(1): 137–166. Kozinets, R. V. 2015. Netnography: Redefined. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Latapy, M. 2008. “Main-memory triangle computations for very large (sparse (power-law)) graphs.” Theoretical Computer Science 407(1–3): 458–473. 10.1016/j.tcs.2008.07.017. Latonero, M., and I. Shklovski. 2011. “Emergency management, Twitter, and social media evangelism.” International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management 3(4): 1–16. Lee, K. T., M. J. Noh, and D. M. Koo. 2013. “Lonely people are no longer lonely on social networking sites: The mediating role of self-disclosure and social support.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16(6): 413–418. Linehan, T., S. Bottery, A. Kaye, L. Millar, D. Sinclair, and J. Watson. 2014. 2030 vision: The best and worst futures for older people in the UK. London, England: Independent Age and International Longevity Centre‐UK. Manovich, L. 2011. “Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data.” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2: 460–475. National Association of Social Workers. 2017. NASW, ASWB, CSWE, & CSWA standards for technology in social work practice. https://www.socialworkers.org/includes/newIncludes/ homepage/PRA-BRO-33617.TechStandards_FINAL_POSTING.pdf O’Reilly, T. 2005. What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved on 10 April 2020 from: www.o-reillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html). Pariser, E. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin UK. Shirky, C. 2008. It’s not information overload. It’s filter failure. Retrieved on 5 December 2021 from http://web2expo.blip.tv/file/1277460

109

Joaquín Castillo de Mesa Starbird, K. 2013. “Delivering patients to sacre coeur: Collective intelligence in digital volunteer communities.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), edited by W. E. Mackay, S. Brewster, and S. Bødker, 801–810. Paris, France: ACM. Retrieved on 5 December 2021 from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2470769 Starbird, K., and L. Palen. 2012. “(How) will the revolution be retweeted? Information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising.” Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Bellevue, WA, USA: ACM Press. Retrieved on 5 December 2021 from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145212 Van Dijk, J. 2006. “Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings.” Poetics 34(4): 221–235. Wang, T. 2013. “Big data needs thick data.” Ethnography matters 13 May 2013. Retrieved on 18 November 2020 from: http://ethnographymatters.net/2013/05/13/big-data-needsthick-data Wellman, B. 2001. “Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25(2): 227–252.

110

10 ANALYSIS OF CITIZEN INTERACTIONS ON TWITTER ABOUT SOCIAL SERVICES AND COVID-19 Alfonso Chaves-Montero

Introduction Social Work Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic Covid-19 mobilises digital transformations and is proving to be a “total social fact”, a concept of the French sociologist and anthropologist Marcel Mauss, to refer to those phenomena that bring into play the totality of the dimensions of the social (Santorro 2020). The case of this pandemic has become a social fact that has filled and affected the whole of society, changing our daily lives. The philosopher Adela Cortina states that our current society is going to change radically after the health crisis, becoming a social crisis, and in order to get out of this crisis we will need all the moral capacity and all the ethical capital of each person (Vallejo 2020). The focus of this chapter is to demonstrate how analysis of communications on social media can help understand the responses of social work to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Context of the Research Study In light of the situation in which social services professionals found themselves during the pandemic, social intervention projects were suspended and home help for older and dependent persons was restricted. For this reason, it was necessary to implement a comprehensive plan for the care of this group during the Covid-19 pandemic. It also had the consequence of discontinuing assistance that provided a minimum of welfare to the most vulnerable families, although the Spanish government soon after approved the Minimum Vital Income to address the needs of these groups. When the authorities realised the impact of limiting or curtailing Social Services, they declared Social Services as essential services on 26 March 2020,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-12

111

Alfonso Chaves-Montero

through the order SND/295/2020. Social Services professionals then continued to provide their services under the state of emergency limitations. With the framework described above, the Social Services have been able to continue the delivery of their services, under exceptional conditions, and under the security and hygiene measures applying to all essential professional services. One of the first measures taken was to guarantee the provision of home help, reconfiguring the service to the new situation: including the adoption of tele-assistance, in some cases. All administrative management and service provider companies were adapted to teleworking, all with the aim of complying with social distancing measures and taking care of the health of professionals and users. These measures have also affected vulnerable groups, as mentioned above. These arrangements were put in place to try to mitigate the impact of Covid-19 in segregated settings and highly vulnerable neighbourhoods. The measures and recommendations adopted by the Social Services have been extended to programmes for the protection of children and adolescents, the actions of volunteers and intervention in primary care Social Services. During the months of confinement and the duration of the health crisis, many parishes, associations, communities, and non-governmental agencies mobilised their material and human resources to help the most vulnerable families (González García 2020). As mentioned above, social networks and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), especially Twitter, which is the social network we are analysing, are no strangers to this social fact, namely Covid-19 (Pérez-Dasilva, Meso-Ayerdi, and Mendiguren-Galdospín 2020). In the first month of 2020, there have been more than 15 million tweets related to the topic of Covid-19 on the social network Twitter and on the day that the World Health Organisation (WHO) designated the virus a pandemic, almost ten million contents were published on this social network, according to the data offered on the social media analysis blog Tweet Binder. Social networks have expanded exponentially during this health crisis, as well as in our lives and in the way we communicate and relate to each other, with the social network Twitter playing a fundamental role in the increasing influence of social media in our social communication (Lazer et al. 2018). The discourse on Twitter transcends beyond the screen with great visibility and notoriety; an example of this is fake news, and just as other digital communication platforms, it can be a source of disinformation. In the words of PulidoRodríguez et al. (2020), communication on social networks can represent certain negative conspiracies that are related to disinformation and fake news. It is important to assess when such disinformation and fake news related to aspects of people’s health are received or broadcast on social networks, as in the case of Covid-19 (Scheufele and Krause 2019). This research focuses on the months of March and April 2020 when the state of emergency and the hardest months of confinement in Spain occurred. In mid-April 2020, there were already more than 417 million tweets about Covid-19 worldwide. This study found that in Spain, at that time, there were 558 tweets on the topic of Social Services. 112

Analysis of Citizen Interactions on Twitter

As Gollust et al. (2020, 1) point out, “the public health crisis of the coronavirus is also a political and health communication crisis”. In this chapter, we will analyse the perceptions as communicated on Twitter regarding how Social Services in Spain responded to the impact of Covid-19 and the state of emergency as it affected the living conditions of people living in Spain during this period of time. We will present results relating to the generalised discourse on Twitter with messages of denunciations, advertising of activities, improvements in assistance, information, etc.

Social Media and the Pandemic Chen, Lerman, and Ferrara (2020) note the change in personal relationships brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic, in which interpersonal communication has been replaced by social distancing. Social networks play a fundamental role in alleviating isolation and are an effective alternative way to be connected with the world and to engage in dialogue about the pandemic that we are encountering on a global level and its repercussions on the social fabric. Social work professionals, like other essential groups during this health crisis, have used social networks to adapt to the transition from face-to-face work to teleworking in order to attend to vulnerable groups. The social network Twitter is very popular across all social strata for expressing messages of complaints, dissemination, requests for assistance and information. Ponce (2012) highlights the usefulness of social media such as Twitter for sharing messages and providing a fórum for social interaction and sharing information. Their use can be divided into three main areas: social use, informational use and professional use (Ponce 2012). In terms of social use, there is a preference for Facebook and Twitter, although there are distinctive features in terms of how they are used. Korhan and Ersoy (2016) studied the usage preferences of these two social networks from the point of view of personality dimensions. They found a positive correlation between Facebook use and people who scored higher on neuroticism, extraversion, openness and sociability, whereas in their analysis, Twitter users were more highly correlated with cognition, responsibility, openness and sociability. Pentina, Basmanova, and Zhang (2014) point out that Twitter is mainly used as a means of social interaction and information. Facebook, on the other hand, is a social network more focused on interaction and interpersonal communication with other users (Kircaburun et al. 2018). Studies by Phua, Jin, and Kim (2017) indicate that Twitter is the social network that is used to obtain sources of information and is least used to satisfy social networking needs. Korhan and Ersoy (2016), in their studies, show that the most important personality traits of Twitter users are a sense of responsibility and a need for recognition. With regard to Facebook, although to a lesser extent, it is also used to obtain and exchange information by users, although interpersonal information prevails in the information exchanged, with Twitter being reserved as the predominant channel for institutional information (Kircaburun et al. 2018). With regard to social work, Castillo De Mesa (2017) comments that the use of Facebook is used more by social work professionals, who have a presence and 113

Alfonso Chaves-Montero

connectivity on this social network. However, it should be borne in mind that Facebook is mainly used to maintain or reinforce existing offline relationships, rather than to meet new people. Thus, the contacts established in this social network correspond mostly to contacts established in the personal network, which is not the case in Twitter (Bayer et al. 2018). As the emergency situation eases, the opportunity now arises to study the experiences of Spanish citizens during the confinement. As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, since the beginning of the epidemic, the use of ICTs and social networks such as Twitter has increased including the expression of opinions, information seeking and information sharing related to Covid-19 through messages, and in this research, these messages also refer to Social Services (Galera and Juste 2020; Thelwall and Levitt 2020). Twitter is a relevant social network for this study because it is widely used, and among its 152 million daily users, many users consider this social network to be a source of information and an important source of scientific content and health-related news (Hitlin and Olmstead 2018; Wilford, Osann, and Wenzel 2018). The role of Social Service workers during the pandemic Social Services professionals at the beginning of this health crisis was not considered essential personnel such as workers in the agricultural and fishing sectors; supermarket workers involved in supply and sales; home food delivery staff; as well as staff in social and healthcare centres; domestic workers and carers; emergency services and law enforcement agencies; manufacturers of work clothes and pharmaceuticals; newsagents and the media; law enforcement agencies; the armed forces; customs; banking, insurance and agency services; funeral services; and sanitation workers such as refuse collectors. The Social Services, and the actions carried out by them during the pandemic, have been reflected in the messages and speeches broadcast on Twitter. Debates on social media have arisen about the fundamental role played by social work professionals during the social and health crisis. Social media communications are important to better understand the activity of social workers because through social networks and during the confinement, such media have been tools for social intervention and communication between professionals and users, and without these social media and ICTs, it would have been impossible to carry out the work of social work during the pandemic.

Objectives of the Study The objectives of the research were as follows: • To find out the perceptions about Social Services of the different social agents participating in Twitter during the Covid-19 crisis. • To analyse the messages on Twitter, in order to define the priority topics covered by the ideology on Social Services of the profiles that actively participate in this social network.

114

Analysis of Citizen Interactions on Twitter

Methodology The methodological process followed was based on a qualitative analysis of the data collected complemented with a descriptive analysis of frequencies (García Suárez, Trigueros Cervantes, and Rivera García 2015). The first methodological phase, aimed at data collection, involved capturing tweets using the advanced search tool of the social network Twitter for the terms “Social Services” and “Covid-19” in the territorial context of Spain. The time frame chosen comprises the months of March and April 2020. During these two months, a state of emergency was in force and these were the most challenging months of confinement in Spain, culminating in total confinement at home for everyone at the beginning of April. The second phase is defined by the qualitative analysis of the tweets extracted from the first phase of the methodological process. The method of qualitative analysis followed is grounded theory using the Constant Comparative Method approached through Computer-Assisted/Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software, in our case the Atlas.Ti 8 software. It is a tool for the qualitative analysis of large corpora of text, audio, image or video data. It facilitates the systematic organisation and management of this type of data. Atlas.Ti supported the objectives set out in this research through the qualitative analysis of the messages because it provided a means for coding the information contained in the messages and for mapping out different semantic networks on the relationship between the codes. It should also be noted that the research carried out did not require the ethical approval of the University of Huelva, as the data used are freely available and in the public domain.

Results and Discussion As a result of the application of the methodological model described above, a total of 845 tweets that included the terms “Social Services” and “Covid-19” were extracted from Twitter. These tweets formed the basis of the analysis carried out in Atlas.Ti 8. Of these, 292 were posted in March and 553 in April 2020, coinciding with the national quarantine period. The analysis process was carried out with Atlas.Ti resulted in a total of 97 codes or minimum units of information connected through 3,566 direct relations through which the discourse of the analysed tweets was structured. As can be seen in Figure 10.1, although there are differences in volume during this period with continuous rises and falls, the posting of tweets about Social Services and Covid-19 followed an upward trend, reaching a total of 30 in the central days of the confinement. We can also observe a periodicity, with Fridays and Thursdays, respectively, being the days with the lowest number of Twitter posts on the subject under study, while Mondays and Tuesdays are the days with the highest volume of tweets. In addition to the positive trend in the volume of tweets, it is important to highlight the diversity of the sources that have posted them. Thus, according to profiles, a total of 16 types of sources have been distinguished that have posted

115

Alfonso Chaves-Montero

Figure 10.1

Evolution of the volume of tweets during confinement in Spain

Source: Analysis of data extracted from Twitter.

tweets about Social Services and Covid-19 on the social network. As detailed in the following table, the most active source on the social network is the one from individuals, with a total of 193 tweets, followed by town councils and local governments with 131 tweets. These data show an important mobilisation of citizens in the information, denunciation and demand for Social Services, highlighting their importance in the pandemic. At a territorial level, a total of 230 tweets on “Social Services” and “Covid-19” from 7 March to 28 April 2020 were registered in the Community of Madrid, the region which, together with Cataluña, was the epicentre of the pandemic in Spain during the national confinement, representing 33% of the total number of tweets analysed. A more in-depth analysis by region shows a direct relationship between the number of tweets and the number of infections, with the most active regions on Twitter being those that have had a higher level of coronavirus infection, with the exception of Andalusia, which is in second position with 111 tweets and which, nevertheless, had a relatively low incidence of infections compared to the rest of the regions. This may be due to the fact that Andalusia is the region with the largest population in the country, with 8,476,718 inhabitants, which represents 17.91% of the total Spanish population. With regard to the objectives pursued in the publication of the tweets, a distinction is made between the dissemination of information regarding services or measures implemented during the confinement, complaints to public institutions about the lack of resources and demands for an increase in resources or services. The demands and complaints had a lesser presence, with the most cited point being the need for coordination and reinforcement of Social Services in the face of a pandemic. This has served to highlight the lack of economic and human resources to deal with the emergencies that have arisen as a result of the pandemic. Based on the descriptive analysis of the tweets published, we can affirm that Twitter has been the main digital communication tool during the period of confinement, being used by individuals, private organisations and public entities to publicise news, changes, improvements and disseminate the activities carried out 116

Analysis of Citizen Interactions on Twitter

throughout the period analysed. With regard to “Social Services” and “Covid-19”, the network has been used predominantly by public services and entities to disseminate the increase in investment in human, material and service resources, reaching 179 tweets at the national level in just under two months. The care provided by the Social Services has also been central to the dissemination campaigns through the social network, publicising the increase in funding for these Services and recognising the work of the professionals who, from the Social Services, have responded to the increase in demands arising from the social and health crisis generated by the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus. However, despite the dissemination carried out and the increase in resources in the Social Services, the discontent in the care and the visibility of the fragility of the budget and resources in Social Services has been highlighted in many tweets that have been very critical of the capacity of the services to respond adequately to the pandemic. The study shows how many people who comment on Twitter believe that the services were inadequately prepared or funded to meet the demands brought by the pandemic. The denunciation of the situation of saturation of the Social Services has come from practically all the sources identified, and combined with the increase in the demand for services, together with an underfunding of services, this has given rise to many highly critical tweets regarding the ability of the services to adequately, if at all, respond to the consequences of the pandemic. The urgency of the new realities of social vulnerability that emerged during the confinement has meant a delay in responding to the most basic needs, having to resort to private donations, voluntary work and non-formal support structures for Social Services to try to respond to the avalanche of requests for attention. The difficulties encountered by the Social Services in meeting social demands have been clearly exposed and repeatedly denounced by different sources in all parts of the country, highlighting the lack of resources and funding of the network of social resources, which have been clearly under pressure to deal with the volume of demands (García Aller 2020). Together with the lack of human resources and underfunding, the ineffectiveness of the coordination protocols, in many cases nonexistent, has been revealed, which has resulted in a delay in the response to social needs and the abandonment of certain groups whose vulnerability has been multiplied as a result of the crisis.

Conclusions The scientific literature frequently analyses the role of Twitter in confirming social interest in certain issues or emerging social realities (Aguilar-Gallegos et al. 2020; Jiménez-Sotomayor, Gómez-Moreno, and Soto-Pérez-de-Celis 2020; Wang et al. 2020) because the social network contains the views of individuals, organisations and decision makers. Predictably, the analysis of Twitter in the pandemic has been widely used by researchers around the world to understand the public’s perception of the barrage of cuts, measures and regulations that have had to be implemented to curb the Covid-19 pandemic. 117

Alfonso Chaves-Montero

The Social Services system has been one of the most neglected in recent years in Spain, in terms of public services, both in terms of investment and in terms of social and public care. The pandemic has highlighted the lack of adequate Covid-19 protection measures and, at the same time, the worsening of conditions in an already precarious sector (Calzada Gutiérrez 2020). The increased visibility of the Social Services during the national confinement in Spain has led to a considerable and unprecedented increase in the attention paid to these services on Twitter, with messages of information and dissemination but also complaints and demands about the lack of coordination and scarcity of resources coming mainly from the population itself and the media, while politicians have preferred to use the social network to disseminate the additional resourcing of services that they have put in place and the steps taken to try to tackle the social and health crisis. This crisis has highlighted the importance of adequate funding of Social Services in terms of budget, human resources and protocols for prevention and coordination of the different social and healthcare services. When these resources are not sufficient, this can lead to delays in attending to the basic needs of the population in a situation of maximum social vulnerability and the saturation of services unable to absorb the increase in demands generated by the situation of socio-economic paralysis and confinement such as that which occurred in Spain during the months of March and April 2020. Social networks are important to reinforce the identity of their members and contribute to greater social integration or in a somewhat ambitious effort to reduce marginalisation and exclusion during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the denser and more articulated the social networks are, the better prepared society will be to respect differences, develop solidarity and stabilise coexistence in a more democratic environment. Thus, it can be concluded that any social intervention aimed at their consolidation and construction should be conceptualised only as a means to enable social participation; beyond this, and at a more general level, it should contribute to the strengthening of identity and to freedom, solidarity and justice. The global outbreak of Covid-19 places us in a new reality that requires us to act with care and attention. Twitter is a platform that has played an important role in terms of communications in times of crisis such as the one in evidence, and has been an effective tool that has provided a response to social intervention within social work in the toughest months of the pandemic. It has allowed social work professionals to communicate with their users at times like this and has provided a community network and support between the entire social system and the services provided by the Social Services centres in Spain.

Acknowledgements Funding: This chapter is funded by an FPU predoctoral contract (FPU17/01215) from the beneficiary Alfonso Chaves-Montero of the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Government of Spain. Resolution of 31 August 2018 of the Secretary of State for Universities, Research, Development and

118

Analysis of Citizen Interactions on Twitter

Innovation by which grants are awarded for predoctoral contracts for Training and Mobility within the State Programme for the Promotion of Talent and its Employability.

References Aguilar-Gallegos, N., L. E. Romero-García, E. G. Martínez-González, E. I. García-Sánchez, and J. Aguilar-Ávila. 2020. “Dataset on dynamics of coronavirus on Twitter.” Data in Brief 30: 1–14. 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105684. Bayer, J., N. Ellison, S. Schoenebeck, E. Brady, and E. B. Falk. 2018. “Facebook in context(s): Measuring emotional responses across time and space.” New Media & Society 20(3): 1047–1067. 10.1177/1461444816681522. Calzada Gutiérrez, I. 2020. Los servicios sociales ante la pandemia: Retos, desafíos y respuestas hacia la nueva normalidad. Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública. Castillo De Mesa, J. 2017. El Trabajo Social ante el reto de la transformación digital. Big data y redes sociales para la investigación e intervención social. Pamplona, Spain: Aranzadi. Chen, E., K. Lerman, and E. Ferrara. 2020. “Tracking social media discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic: Development of a public coronavirus Twitter data set.” JMIR Public Health Surveil 6(2): 1–12. 10.2196/19273. Galera, C., and M. Juste. 2020. El impacto del coronavirus en las redes sociales españolas. Expansión. https://bit.ly/2KJmO4N García Aller, M. 2020. Los servicios sociales, exhaustos: “La demanda se ha multiplicado por cuatro”. El Confidencial. https://bit.ly/3Pqtowk García Suárez, J., C. Trigueros Cervantes, and E. Rivera García. 2015. “Twitter como recurso para evaluar el proceso de enseñanza universitaria.” RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal 12(3): 32–45. 10.7238/rusc.v12i3.2092. Gollust, S. E., R. Nagler, and E. F. Fowler. 2020. “The emergence of COVID-19 in the U.S.: A public health and political communication crisis.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 1–17. 10.1215/03616878-8641506. González García, C. 2020. “Jesús no solo está en la Eucaristía, también en los pobres.” Ecclesia 4033: 31–37. Hitlin, P., and K. Olmstead. 2018. The science people see on social media. Pew Research Center. Science & Society. https://pewrsr.ch/3aJDRyj Jiménez-Sotomayor, M. R., C. Gómez-Moreno, and E. Soto-Pérez-de-Celis. 2020. “Coronavirus, ageism, and Twitter: An evaluation of tweets about older adults and COVID-19.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 68(8): 1–5. 10.1111/jgs.16508. Kircaburun, K., S. T. Alhabash, S. B. Tosuntaş, and M. D. Griffiths. 2018. “Uses and gratifications of problematic social media use among university students: A simultaneous examination of the big five of personality traits, social media platforms, and social media use motives.” International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 18(3): 525–547. 10.1007/ s11469-018-9940-6. Korhan, O., and M. Ersoy. 2016. “Usability and functionality factors of the social network site application users from the perspective of uses and gratification theory.” Quality and Quantity 50(4): 1799–1816. 10.1007/s11135-015-0236-7. Lazer, D., M. Baum, Y. Benkler, A. Berinsky, K. Greenhill, M. Menczer, B. Nyhan, G. Pennycook, D. Rothschild, M. Schudson, S. Sloman, C. Sunstein, E. Thorson, D. Watts, and J. Zittrain. 2018. “The science of fake news.” Science 359(6380): 1094–1096. 10.1126/ science.aao2998. Pentina, I., O. Basmanova, and L. Zhang. 2014. “A cross-national study of Twitter users’ motivations and continuance intentions.” Journal of Marketing Communications 22(1): 6–55. 10.1080/13527266.2013.841273.

119

Alfonso Chaves-Montero Pérez-Dasilva, J. Á., K. Meso-Ayerdi, and T. Mendiguren-Galdospín. 2020. “Fake news y coronavirus: Detección de los principales actores y tendencias a través del análisis de las conversaciones en Twitter.” El profesional de la información 29(3): 1–22. 10.3145/epi. 2020.may.08. Phua, J., S. Jin, and J. Kim. 2017. “Gratifications of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat to follow brands: The moderating effect of social comparison, trust, tie strength, and network homophily on brand identification, brand engagement, brand commitment, and membership intention.” Telematics and Informatics 34(1): 412–424. 10.1016/j.tele. 2016.06.004. Ponce, I. 2012. “Social networks.” Astearthea 17: 13–39. Pulido-Rodríguez, C., B. Villarejo-Carballido, G. Redondo-Sama, M. Guo, M. Ramis, and R. Flecha. 2020. “False news around COVID-19 circulated less on Sina Weibo than on Twitter. How to overcome false information?” International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences 9(2): 107–126. 10.17583/rimcis.2020.5386. Santorro, P. 2020. Coronavirus: La sociedad frente al espejo. Inter Press Service. https://bit.ly/ 318V7vO. Scheufele, D., and N. Krause. 2019. “Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(16): 7662–7669. 10.1073/PNAS. 1805871115. Thelwall, M., and J. Levitt. 2020. “Retweeting Covid-19 disability issues: Risks, support and outrage.” El profesional de la información 29(2): 1–6. 10.3145/epi.2020.mar.16. Vallejo, C. 2020. La búsqueda de la felicidad en época de coronavirus. Fundación para el conocimiento de Madrid. https://bit.ly/3duh1MG. Wang, X., C. Zou, Z. Xie, and D. Li. 2020. “Public opinions towards COVID-19 in California and New York on Twitter.” MedRxiv: The Preprint Server for Health Sciences, 1–17. 10.1101/2020.07.12.20151936. Wilford, J., K. Osann, and L. Wenzel. 2018. “Social media use among parents of young childhood cancer survivors.” Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship 9(1): 10–17.

120

11 VIRAL ARTIFACTS Social Work Responses to COVID-19 Through YouTube as Archive Tara La Rose

Introduction The capacity of digital technology to facilitate communication and increase connections among people is a much-needed practice resource for social workers during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Open-access, Internet-based social media sharing is one type of digital communication technology available to support social workers’ global information sharing and knowledge mobilization. While social work scholarship related to social media remains an emerging area of inquiry, there is a body of interdisciplinary research that invites consideration of social media environments as a kind of ‘archive’ supporting the curation of formal and popular knowledge. From a social work perspective, this means the study of social media use might allow for consideration of the global pandemic and social workers’ responses to COVID-19 (Haskins 2007; Prelinger 2009; Shoshet 2010; Silberman and Purser 2012; La Rose 2019). On this basis, this chapter seeks to consider social work video materials shared online via YouTube related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Braun et al. 2018). Materials posted between March 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020, (a time frame understood as the pandemic ‘first wave’ from a Canadian perspective) are analyzed on the basis of dominant themes. These materials reflect formal and informal considerations of the COVID-19 pandemic as experienced by social workers. In the sections that follow, discussion of YouTube as a digital archive is provided, as well as a contextualization of the COVID-19 pandemic from a social work perspective. A discussion of the methodology and approach to the inquiry is provided, followed by a discussion of the research findings. The chapter concludes with considerations of the limitations of this inquiry and possibilities for future research. A table of sample videos, including links to online materials, is included as Appendix 11.1.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-13

121

Tara La Rose

YouTube as Archive The study of social media materials as artifacts and social media environments as archives is an emerging perspective in social work (La Rose 2019). Scholars in disciplines such as library sciences, communication studies and digital media studies have long considered the capacity of open-access online digital archives as affecting what constitutes ‘preservation’ (Laberge 1987; Kaplan 2000; Haskins 2007; Burgess and Green 2009). Online social media sharing sites go beyond ‘transmitting materials, but rather, facilitate the collecting, curating, and remediating of information, culture, histories and knowledge, and therefore, are a process of dynamic preservation …’ (La Rose 2019, 103). YouTube is one of the social media sites where considering the notion of the ‘grassroots archive’ demonstrates how practices of information sharing and remembering may be undertaken by a wide range of participants (Kaplan 2000; La Rose 2019). Materials are assembled by intentional and unintentional contributors and accessed by a wide range of anticipated and unanticipated audiences. In this framing, the COVID-19 global pandemic serves as a rapidly evolving example of how YouTube supports connection among people who share a common interest in a global issue (La Rose 2016; 2019). The information we seek out and preserve through our day-to-day online sharing tells a unique story about the meaning of the pandemic for social workers and the people we serve. YouTube can become one of the spaces/places where tapping into significant moments, events, responses and beliefs from a uniquely social work–focused perspective becomes possible (La Rose 2016; 2019). Within the YouTube environment, social workers may access official responses to the global pandemic sanctioned by professional regulatory bodies and representational organizations, as well as the popular and personal perspectives presented by grassroots organizations and individual social workers. In addition, considerations created by other concerned persons may reflect a social work point of view even when these creators are not social workers. For example, when clients who work with social workers or a public services/healthcare employer post a video praising or critiquing the work of social workers. These materials preserve ‘evidence’ of social workers’ responses (formally and informally) to this global crisis. These materials have the capacity to demonstrate how social workers maintain social justice goals in a time when urgency may be used as a justification for restricting rights and extending authority, and where fear may lead to unreflective reactions (Gebrekidon 2020). Finally, preservation of these materials may support remembrance and later reflection on the anticipated and unexpected outcomes flowing out of this global pandemic.

Methodology In undertaking this study, I am drawing on my own research approach to the study of YouTube from a social work perspective, developed by studying content and context over the last dozen years. I draw on interdisciplinary perspectives including

122

Viral Artifacts

critical theory, hypermedia and mediated communication research approaches as well as perspectives of multimodal discourse analysis as promoted by Baldry and Thibault (2006). In selecting the YouTube-based social work/COVID-19 materials for analysis, it is necessary to frame a ‘field’ around the many social work–related digital videos shared in response to the current pandemic (Boler 2008). Scholars argue the sheer volume of material available through sharing sites poses a challenge for researchers (Dicks et al. 2005; Markham and Baym 2009). Understanding representations of current events like the COVID-19 pandemic requires researchers to purposefully consider how to limit what materials they are looking for and to consider when to stop looking (Dicks et al. 2005; Boler 2008; Markham and Baym 2009). In this particular example, only English Language Videos or videos with English Subtitles were selected for inclusion due to a lack of resources to support translation and cultural interpretation. The videos selected were global in scope and could be shared anywhere in the world as long as English language accessibility was possible. Many of the videos are from North America; however, videos from Asia/ South Asia, Europe and South Pacific regions are also included in the analysis. The ‘gaze’ of the researcher also influences the research process (Ellingson 2009; Krips 2010). The meanings researchers assign to materials and the ways in which these materials attract the researchers’ attention may result in the researcher’s choice to include or exclude certain materials (Prasad 2005; Boler 2008). Machine learning also influences the artifact selection process. For this study, multiple searches for materials related to ‘social work COVID-19’ were conducted using the same social media site (YouTube) and the same Internet browser (Google) with similar but unique keywords entered multiple times. This repetitive process means that the software infrastructure present in these layered online environments is engaged in an invisible streamlining/ordering process which influences the materials offered as search results (Arthurs, Drakopoulou, and Gandini 2018). In considering the convergence of these processes, the particular digital materials included in this inquiry are in part the result of the researcher’s time and energy in the material process of searching, in part the result of machine learning algorithms (Lange 2009; Arthurs, Drakopoulou, and Gandini 2018) and in part the situated meanings (Baldry and Thibault 2006; La Rose 2019) and symbolic interactions (Schwandt 2007) occurring as the researcher reviews and analyzes the search results (Arthurs, Drakopoulou, and Gandini 2018). The materials are analyzed as examples of the ways social workers engage in the creation and sharing of digital texts in response to this global crisis. A constructivist grounded theory approach is applied to allow for ongoing coding to occur and for comparisons between unique texts (Chun Tie, Birks, and Francis 2019; Sebastian 2019). The materials analyzed are available online via the Internet and are presented by the content creators and channel curators as open-access materials available via a search on YouTube or Google Images/Google Video; as a result, no ethics clearance was required to complete this study as this research does not involve human subjects. This type of research is similar in nature to completing a content analysis of published newspaper articles. Videos that are published on YouTube were chosen through a process of three duplicated searches over a six-month time period 123

Tara La Rose

(March–August 2020). The following keywords were used in each of the searches: 1) social work + COVID-19; 2) social work + Coronavirus; 3) social policy + COVID-19; 4) social welfare + COVID-19 and 5) social care + COVID-19. The results of these searches were ‘captured’ by taking screenshots of the first 15 pages of each search to facilitate detailed analysis of the YouTube search results. The screenshots were analyzed and the individual videos manually coded by theme. An ongoing process of analysis was undertaken throughout the period of inquiry; comparison between and among texts occurred regularly (Schwandt 2007). Duplicate texts were noted and assigned to multiple themes as relevant. The dominant themes as analyzed are as follows: 1) the role of social work[ers] in COVID-19 response; 2) changes to social work practice resulting from pandemic protocols; 3) responses from social work professionals (regulators) and representational organizations (associations); 4) expressions of praise and congratulations to social workers; 5) social problems/issues related to the pandemic. For each of these five themes, video materials were selected from the cumulative search results for more in-depth analysis. Examples are cited as a means of illustrating the type of artifacts preserved and curated on YouTube and are included in Appendix 11.1. To facilitate ease of review and to present a more transparent relationship between the data and analysis, these video materials are publicly accessible via YouTube using the following playlist (https://youtu.be/1J1Sm117KNQ).

Findings and Discussion The Role of Social Work[ers] in COVID-19 Response These videos frequently tell stories of service delivery approaches and challenges faced by social workers attempting to meet clients’ needs in the context of the global pandemic (https://youtu.be/1J1Sm117KNQ). Stories of social work roles consider social issues and social problems created or exacerbated by the pandemic (this will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter). These videos also present social workers as frontline workers responding to community needs, demonstrating capacity and flexibility to respond to crisis (https://youtu.be/u6j9PUgQmYY) and suggesting that a willingness ‘to do what needs to be done’ in the face of crisis is social work (https://youtu.be/wgH_Lzhq1Jk). Social workers are promoted as selfsacrificing and willing to take on risk to meet the needs of others (https://youtu.be/ FDVGdtc1bFY). Videos presenting advice from individual social workers are also common in this theme. These video materials include Schools of Social Work creating content to support students and alumni (https://youtu.be/DKucnVDMTpk); representative organizations attempting to provide education and resources for members/affiliates via YouTube (https://youtu.be/u433bN9qUes); and individual social workers sharing their experience and tacit knowledge with those whom they hold affinity on the basis of their shared social work/practice identity (Lange 2009; La Rose 2019) (https://youtu.be/xFBrALgYhFs).

124

Viral Artifacts

Changes to Social Work Practice COVID-19 has changed social work practice. In some videos shared to YouTube, audiences consider the working conditions experienced by social workers, including the location of work (e.g. working from home/teleworking) (https://youtu.be/ z1QZz79XjjA); changes to the focus of practice; and/or changes to work design and service delivery processes (https://youtu.be/Zqoc0A7X9Q4). Many of the videos were created by mainstream media outlets and remediated from television to YouTube, thus extending the media outlets’ accessible audience. COVID-19 has led to a number of innovations in service delivery, illustrated in the online videos. In particular, the use of digital technology becomes more normalized in the pandemic. This is in sharp contrast to the pre-pandemic conditions. Before COVID-19, many social work regulators expressed reluctance (and a degree of moral panic) when discussing online social work practice (Boddy and Dominelli 2017; La Rose 2019). With the need for socially distanced intervention, regulators have pivoted their response with many producing amendments to previous policy statements and practice standards (https://www.ifsw.org/ethical-challenges-forsocial-workers-during-covid-19-a-global-perspective/). Other innovations in practice highlighted via YouTube include a variety of contactless and curbside approaches to resource provision, such as food distribution via drive-through or delivery (https://youtu.be/w8-58CnGTIg) and street-level support for homeless populations around hygiene and health needs (https://youtu. be/RtufjE2ihAo). The stories these artifacts tell us about ‘how service happens’ may very well change the way services are provided in the future (for better or worse), or at least provide evidence of the fact that we can do things differently. A small number of videos provide glimpses into the ways that social workers are responding to the effects of COVID-19 on practice. For example, one video introduces a group of social workers (and allied professionals) from New York City who created their own social service organization to respond to inadequate service to vulnerable populations during COVID-19 (https://youtu.be/uU5MmKbFBwk). Similarly, there is a small number of critical materials which inform social workers of their rights and identify tangible risks that workers might face during the pandemic (https://youtu.be/rKc3R4YsHi0). The need to identify and address risks is also acknowledged in many of the video artifacts. Those produced by social work regulators/representational organizations focus more on existential risks or regulatory risks. The many videos about practice ethics in the time of COVID-19 demonstrate that regulators can pivot too and do so by informing social workers what they should and should not do via YouTube (https://youtu.be/iOWbSfNwGXc). These artifacts will provide evidence of the way in which rules and regulations are reconsidered in the context of COVID-19, as well as providing examples of ethical perspectives utilized within the profession during this time. YouTube videos which present advice from social workers about practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic are shared by a broad range of content creators. These include schools of social work, seeking to support students and

125

Tara La Rose

alumni (https://youtu.be/cJP20IKReQI); representational organizations attempting to provide education and resources for members/affiliates (https://youtu.be/ vuoHhnLWdhw); and individual social workers who wish to share their experience and tacit knowledge with others (https://youtu.be/xFBrALgYhFs). These artifacts are often shared with an ambient spirit of solidarity by suggesting to other social workers that ‘you’ve got a friend’.

Responses From Social Work Representational Organizations There is a longstanding maxim that every crisis is an opportunity and social work regulators (licensing bodies) and representational organizations (associations, unions) have seized the opportunity to provide ‘official’ social work responses to the pandemic. These come largely in the form of ‘public addresses’, which seek to capture ‘this moment’ and make meaning of the pandemic on behalf of the social work profession. In some cases, these moments of address are directed to social workers specifically, a kind of ‘rallying of the troops’ designed to enhance morale among workers in the field (https://youtu.be/yaSavFmiCgo). Others address issues or concerns relevant to particular practice sectors (https://youtu.be/idbZyh1LdIg). These video materials tend to be more focused on the specifics of these contexts and attempt to provide guidance and/or affirmation. As artifacts, these videos speak to the way that representational organizations understand the pandemic and its meaning for social workers. These artifacts contain relevant discourses used by various social work institutions to inform workers about how they may understand and respond to COVID-19 in a professional way (https:// youtu.be/idbZyh1LdIg). In some instances, these video materials also collect information from social workers identified as ‘experts’ in the field (https://youtu.be/ idbZyh1LdIg).

Congratulations/Praise to Social Workers There are many YouTube artifacts that offer expressions of thanks to social workers. While some of these are addressed to particular workers, others are more generic, thanking all frontline social workers (https://youtu.be/kw_ vDPjNcrA). Some materials frame social workers as ‘heroes’ and acknowledge the sacrifice and challenge those social workers face practising in the context of COVID-19. These artifacts frequently take the form of short documentaries providing audiences with a glimpse into the work of a social worker and providing an opportunity to discuss experience. In most of these videos, social workers proclaim their practice is more than work and tie self-sacrifice to the pursuit of justice, thus bringing the heroic narrative to life. Few of these videos question the heroic expectations that social workers are made to bear, which may normalize these expectations. Praise videos may be a double-edged artifact, acknowledging and reinforcing the impossible expectations social workers face in the time of COVID-19 (Cox 2020). 126

Viral Artifacts

Another type of praise depicted among the materials discovered on YouTube is videos congratulating social work program graduates. With most University social work programs unable to hold in-person convocation exercises, online celebrations and expressions of congratulations provide public recognition of students’ achievements where few other options exist. These online materials are significant artifacts, reflecting the need to mediatize traditional approaches to public recognition, while also creating a permanent record of some individuals graduating in the time of COVID-19 (https://youtu.be/w3sJFXXySFM).

Social Issues/Social Problems In many online examples, COVID-19 exacerbated current issues and problems, while in other online materials, social problems borne out of the pandemic are identified. COVID-19 has revealed a number of ‘cracks in the system’. Many of these social problems are familiar to social workers and discussed in the video content they share online. There is a long list of issues presented, but the scope of this chapter does not allow for exploration of all these issues; a few will be highlighted to illustrate some of the dominant issues. Poverty and employment issues figure prominently in COVID-19-related discussions of social issues and social problems. The pandemic brings to light precarious employment and illustrates how vulnerable workers risk loss of employment whenever a crisis occurs, meaning that many workers are ineligible for government support programs (https://youtu.be/U7j524u9eiA). The need for workers to quarantine or self-isolate during COVID-19 has also brought to light the lack of access to sick time as a significant issue for social workers (and many other workers). A lack of paid sick time means that for some workers, following quarantine guidelines means loss of income, and so workers may feel the need to ignore the telltale signs of illness and attend work – potentially leading to virus transmission (Banks et al. 2020; Koehoorn 2020; Ashcroft et al. 2022; Fan et al. 2021). Systemic racism is a social problem highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic and reflected in the video artifacts shared via YouTube. Racialized communities have experienced greater rates of infection and more negative outcomes (including more deaths) resulting from COVID-19 exposure (Bailey and Moon 2020). The prevalence of racialized workers (in particular women) serving as personal support workers in the highly vulnerable long-term care sector means even more risk for racialized people (Allen 2021). Greater levels of precarious and lower wage work among racialized people also mean lesser eligibility for benefits and resources, placing these individuals and communities at greater risk of poverty. Finally, racialized populations are over-represented in high-density lowerincome communities, intergenerational living arrangements (e.g. extended family living together) and shared housing environments (e.g. roommates), all reflecting greater risk of COVID-19 infection and, therefore, greater risk of adverse outcomes (https://youtu.be/yea1S5SmaUk). Racialized people are bearing a greater 127

Tara La Rose

weight of the pandemic and suffering greater harm as a result. Issues of systemic racism, which produce these complex outcomes, require the advocacy efforts of social workers (https://youtu.be/p1IGRe0xQVs). The artifacts shared via YouTube serve as one resource that may support this attention and effort now, as well as in the future (https://youtu.be/yea1S5SmaUk). Another important issue well represented on YouTube is The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, which has become a significant parallel issue to the pandemic. Discussion of police violence and the death of George Floyd in the United States and Regis Korchinski-Paquet in Canada, while not directly related to COVID-19, has ignited (among other topics) consideration of the way emergency responses may facilitate other repressive and unreflective responses by the State (Gebrekidon 2020); this type of response could easily become normalized when a culture of enforcement is ‘necessitated’ by a public health crisis like a pandemic. Discussion of BLM and systemic racism requires a scope of space and analysis that cannot be done well in this chapter; therefore, this discussion is meant to acknowledge these issues and identify the need for additional inquiry and scholarship in this area. The explication of social issues and social problems made more visible and more urgent in light of the pandemic requires ongoing energy to ensure these remain as critical concerns as the health crisis subsides. The video-based materials highlighting social issues and problems shared to YouTube may serve to support continued lobbying for social change by social workers. The presence of the artifacts in the YouTube environment may provide social workers with resources to support their advocacy work now during the pandemic and long after it is over.

Limitations The scope and design of this research has a number of limitations. To begin, the materials analyzed are limited to those available in English (or where English subtitles are available). The YouTube artifacts considered in this study were assembled between March 2020 and August 2020. In the present moment, this represents a significant period since the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic in March 2020 (WHO 2020). However, many more digital artifacts continue to be created and shared on a daily basis. The need for additional research into the role of YouTube as a COVID-19 social work digital archive is warranted. Finally, the scope and quantity of data included in the study are small. This research is unfunded, and therefore, the project is limited to the personal resources of the researcher – a larger team of researchers with more time could produce a broader and more in-depth study. As research using a critical theory/ post-structural approach, this research might best be understood as one possible reading of the social work–related COVID-19 digital artifacts created and curated in the YouTube environment during this period of time (La Rose 2012, 2016, 2019). Other researchers and other social media sharing sites may well tell a different story about social workers’ understandings and experiences of this global pandemic. 128

Viral Artifacts

Conclusion Providing support for the potential of digital technologies in practice will likely be expected when the pandemic ceases to be a driving force. Within the field of social work, Internet-based research remains an emergent form of inquiry (Boddy and Dominelli 2017; La Rose 2019). As a result, capacity to evaluate and assess the expansion of technology into practice realms requires conscious attention. One approach to understanding the potential and scope of digital social work is likely to be revealed in part through analysis of social work digital artifacts produced in response to the pandemic and shared via the YouTube environment. The viral artifacts of the COVID-19 pandemic curated and preserved through social media sharing sites like YouTube are, and will likely continue to be, an enduring reminder of ‘practice during the pandemic’. The risk and a reward resulting from the mediatization of information sharing and remembering during this time will tell us something about the attitudes, values and beliefs promoted. The open-access context of YouTube means that both mainstream and marginalized perspectives across a range of political and ideological positions are more likely to be available for consideration. Now and in the future, some of these materials may be understood as unpopular, undesirable, naive and/or dangerous, while others will be understood as ground breaking, innovative and change making. Regardless of the present and future meanings, these materials will continue to be part of the collective memory of the COVID-19 pandemic and have the capacity to help provide a more holistic understanding of the context of contemporary social work practice. Understanding YouTube as an archive allows inquiry into contemporary understandings of the COVID-19 pandemic from a social work perspective. This inquiry supports the development of a deeper understanding of both the framing of YouTube as an archive, as well as facilitating the explication of online materials that may be used to support practices of remembrance, demonstrate the mediation of traditional social work practice and consider social policy changes necessary to support social justice and equity outcomes in the time of COVID-19. This reading of YouTube as a COVID-19 archive opens the door to other studies that might expand social work digital scholarship and promote emerging social work knowledge on practice during the context of a global pandemic.

References Allen, U. 2021. “COVID-19 among racialized communities: Unravelling the factors predictive of infection and adverse outcomes.” In Royal Social of Canada Working Group on COVID-19. Impacts on COVID-19 in Racialized Communities: An RSC Collection of Essays. https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/RC%20PB_EN%20FINAL_0.pdf Arthurs, J., S. Drakopoulou, and A. Gandini. 2018. “Researching YouTube.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 24(2): 3–15. 10.1177/ 1354856517737222. Ashcroft, R., D. Sur, A. Greenblatt, and P. Donahue. 2022. “The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers at the frontline: A survey of Canadian social workers.” British Journal of Social Work 52(3): 1724–1746. 10.1093/bjsw/bcab158.

129

Tara La Rose Bailey, Z. D., and J. R. Moon. 2020. “Racism and the political economy of COVID-19: Will we continue to resurrect the past?” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 45(6): 937–950, 10.1215/03616878-8641481. Baldry, A., and P. Thibault. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Course Book With Associated On-line Course. Oakville, ON: Equinox. Banks, S., T. Cai, E. de Jonge, J. Shears, M. Shum, A. M. Sobočan, K. Strom, R. Truell, M. J. Úriz, and M. Weinberg. 2020. “Practising ethically during COVID-19: Social work challenges and responses.” International Social Work 63(5): 569–583. 10.1177/002087282 0949614. Boddy, J., and L. Dominelli. 2017. “Social media and social work: The challenges of a new ethical space.” Australian Social Work 70(2): 172–184. 10.1080/0312407X.2016.1224907. Boler, M. 2008. “The politics of making claims: Challenges of qualitative web-based research.” In The Methodological Dilemma: Creative, Critical and Collaborative Approaches to Qualitative Research, edited by K. Gallagher, 11–33. Toronto: Routledge. Braun, V., V. Clark, N. Highfield, and G. Terry. 2018. “Reflexive thematic analysis.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social Sciences, edited by P. Liamputtong, 843–860. Springer. Burgess, J., and J. Green. 2009. “The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture beyond the professional amateur divide.” In The YouTube Reader, edited by P. Snickars and P. Vondreau, 360–370. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Chun Tie, Y., M. Birks, and K. Francis. 2019. “Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers.” SAGE Open Medicine 7, 205031211882292. Cox, C. L. 2020. “‘Healthcare heroes’: Problems with media focus on heroism from healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Journal of Medical Ethics 46(8): 510–513. 10.1136/medethics-2020-106398. Dicks, B., B. Mason, A. Coffey, and P. Atkinson. 2005. Qualitative Research and Hypermedia: Ethnography for the Digital Age. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Ellingson, L. 2009. Engaging Crystallization in Qualitative Research: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fan, J., S. Senthanar, R. A. Macpherson, K. Sharpe, C. E. Peters, M. Koehoorn, and C. B. McLeod. 2021. “An umbrella review of the work and health impacts of working in an epidemic/pandemic environment.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(13). 10.3390/ijerph18136828. Gebrekidon, S. 2020. “For autocrats, and others, corona virus is a chance to grab even more power.” The New York Times. March 30. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/ europe/coronavirus-governments-power.html Haskins, E. 2007. “Between archive and participation: Public memory in a digital age.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37(4): 401–422. 10.1080/02773940601086794. Kaplan, E. 2000. “We are what we collect, we collect what we are: Archives and the construction of identity.” The American Archivist 63(1): 126–151. 10.17723/aarc.63.1. h554377531233l05. Koehoorn M. 2020. Ability to Work From Home and Paid Sick Leave Benefits by Precarious Employment and Socioeconomic Status, In Partnership for Work, Health, & Safety Research BRIEF. University of British Colombia: https://pwhs.ubc.ca/2020/05/28/ability-towork-from-home/. Krips, H. 2010. “The politics of the gaze: Foucault, Lacan and Zizek.” Culture Unbound 2: 91–102. 10.3384/cu.2000.1525.102691. La Rose, T. 2012. “Digital stories through the lens of multimodal analysis: A case study of Erahoneybee’s song about a child welfare agency.” Journal of Human Services and Technology 30(3-4): 299–311. La Rose, T. 2016. “Analyzing digital narratives as global social work texts: A case study of the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie social worker.” Labour/Le Travail 77(1): 181–202.

130

Viral Artifacts La Rose, T. 2019. “Rediscovering social work leaders through YouTube as archive: The CASW oral history project 1983/1984.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 37(2-3): 93–112. 10.1080/15228835.2019.1609385. Laberge, D. 1987. “Information, knowledge, and rights: The preservation of archives as a political and social issue.” Archivaria 25: 44–50. Lange, P. G. 2009. “Videos of affinity on YouTube.” In The YouTube Reader, edited by P. Snickars and P. Vondreau, 77–88. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Markham, A., and N. Baym. 2009. Internet Inquiry: Conversations About Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781483329086. Prasad, A. 2005. Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpostivist Traditions. Armok: ME Sharpe. Prelinger, R. 2009. “The appearance of archives.” In The YouTube Reader, edited by P. Snickars and P. Vondreau, 268–273. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Schwandt, T. 2007. The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Sebastian, K. 2019. “Distinguishing between the types of grounded theory: Classical, interpretive and constructivist.” Journal for Social Thought 3(1). Retrieved from https://ojs.lib. uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index. Shoshet, L. 2010. “YouTube, use, and the idea of the archive.” Shakespeare Studies 38: 68–76. Silberman, N., and M. Purser. 2012. “Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture.” In Collective Memory as Affirmation: People Centered Cultural Heritage in a Digital Age, edited by E. Giaccardi, 13–29. Abington: Routledge. World Health Organization. 2020. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-directorgeneral-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020

131

132

Social worker explains WSOCTV9 the challenges first Eye Witness News 9 responders face amid Covering the COVID-19 outbreak Carolinas

Social Work Role in COVID-19 Response

April 1, 2020

Care One Hospice

Changes to Practice April 25, 2020

Care One Hospice: COVID-19 team response from our lead social worker

How the virus may impact the social work community

Mind Your Society: Social Work, Business and Life

Heroes work here: Danielle Leone, MSW, LCSW, social work supervisor

Video title

Changes to Practice March 13, 2020

Creator/Curator

RWJ Barnabas Health

Date

Changes to Practice June 4, 2020

Theme

Appendix 11.1 Curatorial Information for YouTube Videos Under Analysis

Social work supervisor Danielle Leone, MSW, LCSW, discusses changes in her role resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Danielle reflects on the new role of social workers supporting patients and hospital colleagues. Reflections on how COVID-19 may affect the ‘day-to-day’ life of a social worker including client interaction. Lead social worker, Theresa Hennessey, discusses social work practice adaptations in hospice care during COVID19. Social and emotional responses and challenges as resources for future strength are discussed. Social worker explains ‘first responders’ role in the context of COVID-19.

Synopsis

Appendix

Views: 650 Comments: 0

https://youtu.be/ wgH_Lzhq1Jk

https://youtu.be/ bs7zLwvUuFg

https://youtu.be/ xFBrALgYhFs

Views: 2,092 Comments: 10 Views: 52 Comments: 0

https://youtu.be/ 1J1Sm117KNQ

Views: 362 Comments: 0

Views/ Comments URL (24/01/21)

Tara La Rose

133

May 29, 2020

April 9, 2020

Responses From SW Representational Organizations

April 20, 2020

Social Work Role in COVID-19 Response

Social Work Role in COVID-19 Response

KTVB 7

April 20, 2020

Social Work Role in COVID-19 Response

NASW New Jersey

Felipe Rivera

CBC 17 WVID

CAN News Singapore

May 15, 2020

Social Work Role in COVID-19 Response

WDIV Detroit Local 4

April 20, 2020

Social Work Role in COVID-19 Response

The critical role Metro Social workers role in the lives of Detroit social people during the pandemic is workers are playing considered. in COVID-19 crisis Social workers impacted CPS practice in the context of the by Coronavirus COVID-19. A lot of families outbreak are under a lot of pressure due to the pandemic. Social work case managers reflect 7s Heros: West Ada on their role in caring for School District social homeless and ‘unsupervised’ workers help youth in the context of a local homeless students during COVID-19 school system. pandemic Critical role of SW in Discussion of the role of social Metro Detroit workers supporting families of hospital patients with COVID-19 who cannot have visitors. Social worker NYC – R.E.A.C.H Social Service Inc.’s social workers united goal is to become New York & formed City’s ‘bridge’ to quality organization during healthcare @ social supportive COVID-19 services for low-income lockdown families and individuals. Impact of COVID-19 Webinar discussion on how to on healthcare social continue to provide the best work – NASW-NJ and most useful services, and Healthcare Shared how to support each other Interest Group during this unprecedented time in healthcare social work. Views: 253 Comments: 2

Views: 1,944

(Continued)

https://youtu.be/ u433bN9qUes

https://youtu.be/ uU5MmKbFBwk

https://youtu.be/ u6j9PUgQmYY

https://youtu.be/ Zqoc0A7X9Q4

Views: 442 Comments: 0

Views: 977

https://youtu.be/ z1QZz79XjjA

https://youtu.be/ u6j9PUgQmYY

Views: 59,000

Views: 972 Comments: 0

Viral Artifacts

134

Responses From SW Representational Organizations

May 29, 2020

May 5, 2020

March 23, 2020

CASW – Canadian Association of Social Work

OASAS Communications

BASW-UK

IFSW

April 1, 2020

Responses From SW Representational Organizations Responses From SW Representational Organizations

SWAN in Partnership With IFSW

May 15, 2020

Responses From SW Representational Organizations Responses From SW Representational Organizations

Creator/Curator

Date

Theme

Appendix 11.1 (Continued)

Ethical challenges for social workers during COVID-19.

Synopsis

Social workers are provided with examples of processes for reframing fear, grief and loss into empowerment and social transformation. Message from the social John McGowan, General workers union on Secretary, has a short message COVID-19 on advice and representation amidst COVID-19. Ontario’s social services The #HeretohelpON campaign are #HeretohelpON aims to connect Ontario during COVID-19. children, youth, and families with the help they need by raising awareness of the services and supports available to them during the pandemic. Race, Health and The key objective is to deepen COVID-19. Coparticipants’ understanding of hosted by CASW, the impact COVID-19 is OASW and the Hon. having on African Canadians. Senator Wanda Senator Bernard aims to Thomas Bernard inspire participants to explore intersectionality and race equity in policy analysis and beyond.

Social work responds to COVID-19 report 3

Ethical challenges for social workers during COVID-19

Video title

Views: 722 Comments: 0

Views: 1,700

https://youtu.be/ yea1S5SmaUk

https://youtu.be/ FDVGdtc1bFY

https://youtu.be/ yaSavFmiCgo

https://youtu.be/ idbZyh1LdIg

Views: 1,400 Comments:

544 Views

https://youtu.be/ iOWbSfNwGXc

Views: 446 Comments: 0

Views/ Comments URL (24/01/21)

Tara La Rose

135

UCF College of Health Professionals and Sciences ABC: 13 On Your Side Michgan

May 1, 2020

August 21, 2020

Congratulations/ Praise for Social Workers

Congratulations/ Praise for Social Workers

2020 Social Work Online Advocacy Day took the place of annual Social Work Day at the Capitol. Video presents an interview with an MN legislator, updates on current issues and an overview of how to engage in everyday advocacy. Despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, social workers like Tim Sreyoun are determined not to give up. But they should not have to put their lives on the line to keep children safe. Three videos depicting SW graduates from accredited program in alphabetical order. Views: 126 Comments: 0

Views: 2,497 Comments: 10

Views: 220 Comments: 0

Unsung heroes: social workers in the pandemic

Video touches on the challenges Views: 435 faced by social workers in their Comments: 1 personal as well as professional lives.

UCF social work MSW Congratulations video celebrating View: 539 virtual graduation students’ program completion. Comments:0 celebration

National Association NASW congratulates of Social Workers the social work class of 2020!

Social work during COVID-19 | UNICEF (with English translation subtitles)

May 29, 2020

UNICEF

August 19, 2020

Responses from SW Representational Organizations

Social Work Online Advocacy Day

Congratulations/ Praise for Social Workers

NASW-MN

April 14, 2020

Responses From SW Representational Organizations

(Continued)

https://youtu.be/ keovAACcVtg

https://youtu.be/ w3sJFXXySFM https://youtu.be/ gJ2gnOv-6Wk https://youtu.be/ jRaIEVRDAzE https://youtu.be/b_ zBFXE0_0o

https://youtu.be/ JgedKX1G5K4

https://youtu.be/ QYC5rg4T-z0

Viral Artifacts

Date

April 9, 2020

May 7, 2020

June 4, 2020

Theme

Social Issues/Social Problems: COVID Effects

Social Issues/Social Problems: COVID Effects

Social Issues/Social Problems: COVID Effects

Appendix 11.1 (Continued) Video title

Synopsis

Social impact live: Richard Hara interviews Mashura impact of COVID-19 Akilova to discuss the likely on refugees and impact of the novel displaced populations Coronavirus on refugee and displaced populations. SWAN Social Work Racism and Michael Lavalette interviews Weyman Bennett, Stand Up to COVID-19: what is Racism, and Gurnam Singh, causing BAME Social Work Professor on the deaths? (Black, Asian, level of BAME deaths from Minority Ethnic) COVID-19. SABC News Social worker who A 48-year-old social worker who died of COVID-19 died of COVID-19-related complications in the complications in the UK has UK laid to rest in been buried in Durban. Durban Massondo died weeks after contracting the virus (March 2020). This memorial video considers the experience and the complications of repatriation in the context of pandemic restrictions.

Columbia U School of Social Work

Creator/Curator

Views: 1,600 Comments: 4

Views: 587 Comments: 0

Views: 100 Comments:0

https://youtu.be/ rKc3R4YsHi0

https://youtu.be/ p1IGRe0xQVs

https://youtu.be/ DKucnVDMTpk

Views/ Comments URL (24/01/21)

Tara La Rose

136

12 SUPERDIVERSITY AND DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK Pablo Álvarez-Pérez

Introduction By the end of the 1970s, the use of computers for digital record keeping was already widespread, and in the 1990s, the virtual space known as the Internet expanded rapidly, ushering in the “digital age”, characterized by the speed of communications and the beginning of a new social space for coexistence. However, it seems as if the socio-health reality that we currently live in has made us rediscover the digital world in which we have lived for decades. It seems like a digital awakening has occurred for which there has not been enough preparation or training. However, all professions, including social work, have been increasingly digitized, in what is now known as the data imperative (Schildt 2020). Alongside the digitization of society, the global migratory reality at the beginning of the century, especially in European countries such as Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom, brought with it considerable changes in mobility patterns, differentiated from other “waves” by its intensity, dimensions, socio-political configurations and impacts on the origin and host societies. This new social configuration of migratory flows into host societies has been defined by Vertovec (2007) as superdiversity. At the same time, digital social work has been described by some authors as a “hybrid, anticipatory and flexible practice” (Pink, Ferguson, and Kelly 2021, 3), where face-to-face intervention will continue, but where practice is supplemented when appropriate by digital means. Others have defined digital social work as a specific field of intervention explicitly related to the online space and use of information and communication technology (ICT), describing this specificity as digital social work or e-social work (López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó 2017). Incorporating the concept of superdiversity within the sphere of digital social work provides an opportunity for considering the complexity and inter-dimensionality of populations in contemporary societies (Álvarez-Pérez and Harris 2022), recognizing

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-14

137

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez

their needs and adapting social work practice so that it can respond effectively to this new social composition. Although the use of technology by social workers has been present since the beginning of the profession, with the telephone as an early example (López Peláez and Marcuello Servós 2018b, 26), the profession and academic literature did not engage in much discussion regarding the use of technology openly and consciously until a few years ago, with the arrival of the digital revolution, which has led to the conceptualization of digital social work or e-social work (López Peláez, Pérez García, and Aguilar-Tablada Massó 2017). Widespread access to the Internet, ICT, digital social networks, the application of the Internet of Things (IoT), robotization and domotization, artificial intelligence, algorithms for detecting social needs and the use of big data, among others, constitute useful and effective supporting tools for social intervention (Castillo De Mesa et al. 2019), and within this new superdiverse configuration, they are presented in this chapter as a sine qua non condition for the analysis and interpretation of contemporary social realities. This chapter will discuss the digital adaptations that social work must consider adopting in order to respond to the characteristics of superdiverse societies. At the macro level, this requires attention to public policies and reorganization of services; at the meso level, it must focus on the relationships between individuals and institutions; and at the micro level, it requires attention to the relationships between subjects, reference groups and peers.

Contextualizing Superdiversity Since the term “superdiversity” was first coined by Vertovec (2007), it has been used by multiple authors and disciplines with very varied orientations, reinterpreting, in turn, the concept itself (Vertovec 2019). This chapter adopts Vertovec’s original use of the term, that is, its explanatory capacity in relation to migratory flows and migrant populations. However, migration does not have to be the main variable that defines a superdiversity perspective. This means that, although the cultural, ethnic and country of origin elements of individuals are variables to be taken into account, they are not considered a priori as starting points for an analysis using superdiversity methodologies, a point that has been previously argued: “Being faithful to the notion of superdiversity requires consideration of ‘all’ the possible elements of differentiation that international migrations during the last two decades have contributed to diverse societies, including that individuals can also justifiably be studied as the unit of analysis in superdiversity research.” (Álvarez-Pérez, López Peláez and Harris 2022, 3) Superdiversity is an interesting concept for social workers to consider because, according to Vertovec (2007, 1025), it addresses the “diversification of diversity” and it does not assume that all people fit into classically defined groups but suggests that 138

Superdiversity and Digital Social Work

they possess a multiplicity of individual characteristics, even when belonging to predefined groups. For this reason, diversity cannot be associated only with migration, but as a constituent characteristic of societies (UNESCO 2001; Van Breugel, Maan, and Scholten 2014). For this reason, it is the intersection of variables that must be considered when understanding superdiversity, meaning that people’s experiences should not be presented or interpreted simply as a correlation of predefined characteristics, but rather their experiences are best understood as an inter-dimensionality of all of them (Álvarez-Pérez and Harris 2022). In this vein, multiple authors have theorized about the intrinsic dimensions of superdiversity in an implicit or explicit way (Vertovec 2007, 2010Nowicka and Vertovec 2014; Boccagni 2015; Meissner 2015; Meissner and Vertovec 2015; Padilla, Azevedo, and Olmos-Alcaraz 2015; Pride 2015; Schrooten, Geldof, and Withaeckx 2015; Geldof 2016; Goodson and Grzymala-Kazlowska 2017; Creese and Blackledge 2018; Grzymala-Kazlowska and Phillimore 2018; Van Robaeys, Van Ewijk, and Dierckx 2018; Aptekar 2019; Ozkazanc-Pan 2019; Álvarez-Pérez and Harris 2022; Álvarez-Pérez, López Peláez and Harris 2022), and this is presented graphically in Figure 12.1. According to the systematization made (Álvarez-Pérez, López Peláez and Harris 2021), it could be considered within the individual dimension, age, sex, gender, personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness), country of origin, marital status, language, disability(ies), principles and values, religion and lifestyle. For the migration dimension, three large categories emerge as follows: a) legal status, in which the type of migrant would be included, that is: economic migrants, undocumented migrants (illegal; irregular), family reunification, return migration, retiree migration or forced migrants (refugees; asylum seekers); b) transnational practices, that include sending of remittances and goods, use of mother tongue/ bilingualism, consumption of products from the country of origin, third sector activities, country of origin visits, participation in elections, personal contacts by Internet, use of online contact and exchange platforms, letters, phone calls and SMS, among others; and c) migration channels, referring to channels used and its legality (or not), and safety in the migratory process. The socioeconomic dimension refers to employment, position in the labor market, schooling, academic background, income and purchasing power. The contextual dimension can be divided into two categories: a) residence, that is, geographical area and type of housing; and b) local community, constituted by social networks of residents or neighbors, presence of other groups (i.e., minorities), responses from the host society (i.e., support), associations and places of worship. The family dimension includes the number of family members, degree of relatedness, dependent family members and spoken language; and lastly, the networks dimension, which has four categories: a) structural (size, density and type – family, friends, neighbors); b) functional (social support – material and instrumental, social company, access to resources and new links and social regulation); c) relational (homogeneity or heterogeneity, intensity, durability and sources of stress); and d) contextual (geographical dispersion and contact frequency). 139

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez

Individual

Contextual

Migration

Family

Networks

Socioeconomic

Figure 12.1

Superdiversity dimensions. Author’s own based on literature review

This list must be considered as incomplete, but it represents a starting point for multivariate analysis, and current digital tools can assist this task. It would be impossible to measure service users’ superdiversity characteristics (especially their hierarchy, relevance and impact) without utilizing technology.

Digital Social Work In contemplating the application of “digital“ approaches within social work practice, The SMACIT framework can be usefully incorporated where the acronym stands for the following dimensions: social, mobile, analytics, cloud and the IoT

140

Superdiversity and Digital Social Work

(Ross, Beath, and Mocker 2019). In this way, the realm of digital applications would cease to be external tools and instead would become components of practice, integrated within all fields of intervention, where appropriate. It is useful to explain here the SMACIT acronym in more detail and consider how these dimensions of digital technology could be usefully applied in social work practice and research. Firstly, Social stands for social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, which constitute a new way to reach and interact with current and future service users. These digital platforms also offer new ways of understanding service users’ interactions, interests, hobbies and ways of thinking. Mobile stands for devices and platforms, such as smartphones and tablets, that have changed the way people communicate, shop and work. The introduction of connected devices and wearable devices, both of which rely on cheap sensors to generate and transmit data, is the basis for new ways to gather reliable information and to offer targeted interventions to specific groups of services users. Data Analytics allows social workers to understand how, when and where people use services. In this big data era, the access to big data can be used as a predictive indicator for present and future service users’ behavior or needs, as shown in exploratory studies (Babvey et al. 2021). Without neglecting the ethical issues related to data protection, we highlight here the access to information that users freely produce and upload to the Internet. For other types of data, consent must always be guaranteed. Cloud computing provides a new way to access technology and the data an organization needs to quickly respond to changing needs and solve service users’ problems. It has ushered in a new way to build digital infrastructure, platforms and services that social workers have been traditionally challenged to develop and deliver. A practice that could integrate this type of technology could be assessment, whether individual or community. Lastly, the IoT stands for a network of connected devices that enables machineto-machine communications. Although it may seem futuristic and implausible for an application in the short or medium term, there are job tasks that could be digitized (for example, gathering real-time and continuous health information from smart devices), thus freeing professionals to attend to matters that require professional judgment. It is, therefore, arguable that the automation of tasks and information collection could be advantageous for social workers. There are several ways to integrate ICTs into social work practice, namely: a

b

c

e-practices such as e-mails and videoconferences, not necessarily to replace, but useful in combination with, face-to-face interventions (Pascoe 2021; Mitchell, Sarfati, and Stewart 2022); web-based programs, such as agency platforms, which can be developed by an IT technician (Schwinn, Hopkins, and Schinke 2016; Fung, Chan, and Ross 2020); and programs supported by robots, games or virtual environments (Elias-Lambert et al. 2015; Sorbring, Bolin, and Ryding 2015).

141

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez

These digital options allow social workers to communicate with service users through digital technologies such as exchange of e-mails and text messages using their smartphones or through video calls using tools such as cameras, Webpages, Skype or FaceTime (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018a, 2018b; Castillo De Mesa et al. 2019). The heavy workloads of social workers, and the pressure to provide high-quality services, require effective and efficient systems. This can be achieved through the use of ICTs for planning and organization processes, helping to ease the pressure of waiting times, administrative burdens and labor-intensive tasks. The application of ICT into social intervention can never fully substitute for or replace face-to-face contact, but it can release more time for professional tasks that require higher professional judgment where technology would not be as useful as the social worker themselves (Arriazu Muñoz and Fernández-Pacheco Sáez 2013). Research on digital social work in direct practice is still in early development but already it includes examination of professional relationships in digital contexts (Chan and Holosko 2015; Turner 2016; Simpson 2017; Byrne and Kirwan 2019), the effective use of social media in social work practice (Chan 2016), online blogs (Aguilar-Idañez, Caparrós-Civera, and Anaut-Bravo 2020), apps specifically created for practice (Mackrill and Kirkegaard Ørnbøll 2019), social networks as an instrument of intervention (Rodríguez and Ferreira 2018; Castillo De Mesa et al. 2019) and interventions with specific populations (Fan 2016; De La Fuente Robles and Martín Cano 2018; Mois and Fortuna 2020). Also, social intervention models focused on digital tools have been discussed, including online counseling, video counseling, cyber-therapy (avatar therapy), self-guided web interventions, online group social work and community-based interventions (Reamer 2014; Wodarski and Curtis 2015).

Integrating the Concept of Superdiversity Into Digital Social Work Practice Social work now has at its disposal two different, but arguably, complementary innovations, in the form of firstly, the new superdiversity paradigm and, secondly, a range of digital communication technologies (video-conferencing, etc.) that have come of age in social work since the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. The question posed in this chapter is whether or not these two developments can be integrated as an aid to social work research and practice. To avoid an overly abstract discussion, this section briefly considers how elements of superdiversity theory intersect with digital technologies across the three major levels of social work intervention, namely, macro, related to policies; meso, referring to the (inter)institutional dimension; and micro, understood as direct intervention with service users (see Figure 12.2).

Macro Level Historically, the basis of public policies has been to focus on the protection of certain population sub-groups taking only a few variables into consideration, such 142

Superdiversity and Digital Social Work

Figure 12.2 An integrated model of superdiversity and digital technology within social work intervention levels

as orphans, widows, people with disability; or focused on particular types of need such as unemployment, maternity benefits, etc. (Greve 2019). This type of approach to policy formation has resulted in general responses in terms of social protection, but which tend to be inflexible in their ability to rapidly pivot in order to address the multiplicity of contingencies of the complex society in which we now live (Ewijk 2018). Recent recognition and insight into the multiple identities and characteristics of individuals within superdiverse societies (Oliveira and Padilla 2017; van Breugel and Scholten 2017) have prompted the desire for better targeted protection measures. The questions that then arise include as follows: what do we choose? under what criteria? Recognizing multiple identities and needs does not mean that resources are unlimited, and hard choices still need to be made. The macro level is related, therefore, to the political dimension of professional practice. Ideally, at this level, the social worker is not simply carrying out public and social policies nor are they a technocrat at the service of the institutional bureaucracy, but rather a specialist who can (and should) contribute to the creation of the policies that later they may be involved in implementing (Ferreira and Álvarez-Pérez 2017) and which respond to the needs of the people they serve. Superdiversity methodologies offer social workers a means of accessing vital information on which to make these decisions. The superdiversity paradigm uses 143

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez

big data to understand not only large-scale phenomena but also the particular needs of smaller groups in society. This type of data potentially offers social work an evidence base from which to advocate on behalf of many marginalized and underserved population sub-groups, some of whom are not fully visible in policy practices at present because they are subsumed within larger sub-groups. Thus, superdiversity moves beyond the paradigm of pre-established political policies, recognizing the importance of the individual experience in the midst of large groups (Boccagni 2015). By way of example, Vertovec (2007) points out that most social services still do not adequately respond to the changes in need associated with the new immigration flows which have taken place in recent decades. This mismatch assumes high costs regarding the integration of migrating populations, as well as gaps in the satisfaction of their real needs, and is mainly caused by only interpreting need on the basis of a small set of characteristics and ignoring the other characteristics of individuals: “in order to avoid the conventional trap of addressing newcomers just in terms of some presumably fixed ethnic identity, an awareness of the new superdiversity suggests that policymakers and practitioners should take account of new immigrants’ ‘plurality of affiliations’ (recognizing multiple identifications and axes of differentiation, only some of which concern ethnicity)” (Vertovec 2007, 1048). This criticism of policy formation and failure to use new methodologies to get a deeper level understanding of need is not only confined to how immigrant population needs are addressed; as a theoretical approach, it possesses the potential for diverse applications. Thus, policymakers and social workers are invited to reflect on the new perspectives of diversity that superdiversity brings to the scene in the light of the new social dynamics caused by the new forms of migration as well as the consequent changes in population due to the social complexity we live in. This need not be a unidirectional process, but rather an interactive and dynamic process of constant exchange and sharing, where political decision makers and social workers can create innovative public policies and intervention practices through the use of digital tools and methodologies that allow this complex type of analysis to be carried out. From this perspective, social workers are prompted to develop a “meta-practice” (Grise-Owens, Miller, and Owens 2014) using the digital tools available to process information (among them, big data) in order to know how to better contextualize work within organizations and in interventions with superdiverse service users.

Meso Level At the meso level, social work practices focus on work within organizations and on the relationship between agencies and service users. Digital transformation is gaining pace in agencies where social workers are employed (Goldkind, Wolf, and Jones 2016). The use of social networks (not only for publicity purposes but for interaction with the public) as well as the use of cloud-based data storage, the use of big social data or online social capital are increasingly adopted as a means to connect with and understand the needs of increasingly superdiverse target groups. Some preconditions are required to guarantee an effective practice at this level, both for organizations and within their structures, including the effective training of 144

Superdiversity and Digital Social Work

social workers (Goldkind, Wolf, and Jones 2016; Simpson 2017; De La Fuente Robles and Martín Cano 2018). This means that organizations must invest in infrastructure and training for innovation. Thus, there is an opportunity to incorporate online social networks into social intervention as a formula for social work innovation that improves information exchange and cooperation between professionals and organizations (Castillo de Mesa, Palma García, and Gómez Jacinto 2018; Castillo De Mesa et al. 2019; Castillo-De Mesa and Gómez-Jacinto 2020).

Micro Level At the micro level, social work intervention is centered on the level of individuals, groups or communities. At this level, digital technologies can support professional practice in at least three aspects: planning and decision-making, processing information and direct intervention. Regarding the first, the act of planning is internationally recognized, whether for intervention with people or for organizing the work within the organizational context (Allison and Kaye 2015; Hughes and Wearing 2016). The act of planning, as well as decision-making, can be supported by digital technologies (Gillingham 2018) and an evidence base which incorporates superdiversity theory and methods. The challenge at this level is to incorporate less conventional technologies that can support professionals in delivering more grounded and holistic social interventions, including mobile technologies (not only as a tool for interaction with service users but also for organizing work and obtaining information), as well as the IoT, which facilitates the flow of information between professionals and service users, and the use of robotics, as already highlighted by other authors (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018a).

Conclusions Today’s society is highly complex, and individuals have multiple characteristics of differentiation that can inform the development of a more responsive type of personcentered practice. For this, digital technologies can offer added value, not only of themselves but also when integrated with emerging ideas from the theoretical field of superdiversity. Access in recent years to new ways of gathering and interpreting information has dramatically changed the economic, political and social landscape, making it possible to identify the multiple superdiversity dimensions of individuals and communities. One of the most important benefits of the new digital technologies concerns their capacity for networking and data analysis (Antonucci, Ajrouch, and Manalel 2017) and also their applicability in direct service delivery, a potential that is very relevant for social work practice. We are living in the information saturation era, in which individuals produce a lot of content not only actively (i.e., social networks), but also passively (i.e., recorded physical activity through the geolocation of mobile devices, or the interaction we have through home automation devices). The future of social work intervention 145

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez

approaches is likely to increasingly incorporate these possibilities in the development of new services as well as using digital data to enhance evidence-based practice. It is true that digital social work presupposes equal access to technology by organizations, professionals and service users alike, which currently is something of a false premise. It is evident that there are multiple barriers to this access, such as financials, gaps in skills (Elliott 2018) or even motivational (Gann 2018). In addition, the world’s technological distribution is very uneven (United Nations 2020; ITU 2021) with evidence to suggest that more than half of the families in the world (53%) do not have access to a computer, and four in ten do not have Internet access in their homes (ITU 2020, 6). Digital technologies have enabled a new set of tools to support social work practice, but not without posing significant challenges also (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós 2018b). In the ethical domain, issues exist relating to professional boundaries, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, privacy, online consent and data protection, the latter being regulated in Europe by the General Data Protection Regulation (2016). Also, there are blurred boundaries between public and private domains and issues regarding access inequalities (Reamer 2014, 2015; Boddy and Dominelli 2017). As pointed out by López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós (2018a), issues related to the preservation of relationship-based practice with service users, computer systems piracy, digital identity theft and lack of legislation regarding these matters, as well as the greater intensification of work, are real concerns to be considered. Nevertheless, there is a need to invest in training, both in digital skills for social workers as well as for service users (Punie and Brecko 2013; García-Castilla et al. 2019). To do so, an institutional responsibility for continuous learning is required. In addition, political commitment is necessary to transform the conceptualization of public and social policy into a co-constructed process including frontline professionals and service users, which possesses enough flexibility to be adapted to the extremely diverse contexts in which social protection policies are applied. Through this process, digital tools could be used as a practice support tool for more accurate analysis, assessment and interventions, highlighting social work’s principles and values, especially the respect for the intrinsic uniqueness of each person, which acknowledges each service user’s superdiverse uniqueness.

References Aguilar-Idañez, M. J., N. Caparrós-Civera, and S. Anaut-Bravo. 2020. “E-Social Work: An Empirical Analysis of the Professional Blogosphere in Spain, Portugal, France and Italy.” European Journal of Social Work 23(1): 80–92. 10.1080/13691457.2018.1476326. Allison, M., and J. Kaye. 2015. Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations. A Practical Guide for Dynamic Times. Third. New Jersey: Wiley. 10.1073/pnas.0703993104. Álvarez-Pérez, P., and V. Harris. 2022. “Personal Social Networks as a Superdiversity Dimension: A Qualitative Approach With Second-Generation Americans.” Current Sociology 70(2): 227–257. Álvarez-Pérez, P., A. López Peláez, and V. W. Harris. 2022. “Methodological Pathways to Portray Superdiversity: A Few Concluding Thoughts.” Current Sociology. 10.1177/00113 921211021939.

146

Superdiversity and Digital Social Work Antonucci, T. C., K. J. Ajrouch, and J. A. Manalel. 2017. “Social Relations and Technology: Continuity, Context, and Change.” Innovation in Aging 1(3): 1–9. 10.1093/geroni/igx029. Aptekar, S. 2019. “Super-Diversity as a Methodological Lens: Re-Centring Power and Inequality.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 42(1): 53–70. 10.1080/01419870.2017.1406124. Arriazu Muñoz, R., and J. L. Fernández-Pacheco Sáez. 2013. “Internet En El Ámbito Del Trabajo Social: Formas Emergentes de Participación e Intervención Socio-Comunitaria.” Cuadernos de Trabajo Social 26(1): 149–158. 10.5209/rev_cuts.2013.v26.n1.41665. Babvey, P., F. Capela, C. Cappa, C. Lipizzi, N. Petrowski, and J. Ramirez-Marquez. 2021. “Using Social Media Data for Assessing Children’s Exposure to Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Child Abuse and Neglect 116(P2): 104747. 10.1016/j.chiabu. 2020.104747. Boccagni, P. 2015. “(Super)Diversity and the Migration–Social Work Nexus: A New Lens on the Field of Access and Inclusion?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(4): 608–620. 10.1080/0141 9870.2015.980291. Boddy, J., and L. Dominelli. 2017. “Social Media and Social Work: The Challenges of a New Ethical Space.” Australian Social Work 70(2): 172–184. 10.1080/0312407X.2016.1224907. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-Based Social Work and Electronic Communication Technologies: Anticipation, Adaptation and Achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. 10.1080/02650533.2019.1604499. Castillo-De Mesa, J., and L. Gómez-Jacinto. 2020. “Connectedness, Engagement, and Learning Through Social Work Communities on LinkedIn.” Psychosocial Intervention 29(2): 103–112. 10.5093/pi2020a4. Castillo De Mesa, J., L. Gómez Jacinto, A. López Peláez, and P. García. 2019. “Building Relationships on Social Networking Sites a Social Work Approach.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 201–215. 10.1080/02650533.2019.1608429. Castillo De Mesa, J., M. l. O. Palma García, and L. Gómez-Jacinto. 2018. “Analysis of Social Innovation on Social Networking Services.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 902–915. 10.1080/13691457.2018.1461067. Chan, C. 2016. “A Scoping Review of Social Media Use in Social Work Practice.” Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work 13(3): 263–276. 10.1080/23761407.2015.1052908. Chan, C., and M. J. Holosko. 2015. “A Review of Information and Communication Technology Enhanced Social Work Interventions.” Research on Social Work Practice 26(1): 88–100. 10.1177/1049731515578884. Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity – Google Libros. New York: Routledge. Taylor & Francis. De la Fuente Robles, Y. M., and M. C. MartÍn Cano. 2018. “E-Social Work and At-Risk Populations: Technology and Robotics in Social Intervention With Elders. The Case of Spain.” European Journal of Social Work 1457: 1–11. 10.1080/13691457.2018.1423550. Elias-Lambert, N., J. F. Boyas, B. M. Black, and R. J. Schoech. 2015. “Preventing Substance Abuse and Relationship Violence: Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of a Social, MultiUser, Tablet-Based Game.” Children and Youth Services Review 53: 201–210. 10.1016/ j.childyouth.2015.04.007. Elliott, M. 2018. Out of the Maze: Building Digitally Inclusive Communities. Wellington: The Workshop. Ewijk, H. V. 2018. Complexity and Social Work. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315 109275 Fan, Q. 2016. “Utilizing ICT to Prevent Loneliness and Social Isolation of the Elderly. A Literature Review.” Cuadernos de Trabajo Social 29(2): 185–200. 10.5209/CUTS.251771. Ferreira, J., and P. Álvarez-Pérez. 2017. “Pobreza y Exclusión: Reinterpretación Desde El Trabajo Social Para Un Sistema de Bienestar Sostenible.” In Sistemas y Polí ticas de Bienestar: Una Perspectiva Internacional: Una Perspectiva Internacional, edited by E. P. Seller and C. De-Robertis, 1st ed., 197–211. Madrid: Dykinson.

147

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez Fung, H. W., C. Chan, and C. A. Ross. 2020. “A Web-Based Psychoeducation Program for People With Pathological Dissociation: Development and Pilot Testing.” Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work (United States). 10.1080/26408066.2020.1760990. Gann, B. 2018. “Digital Inclusion in Health and Care in Wales.” Wales Co-operative Centre Carnegie UK Trust. García-Castilla, F. J., Á. D.-J. Oliva, E. Vírseda-Sanz, and J. P. Gallego. 2019. “Educational Potential of E-Social Work: Social Work Training in Spain.” European Journal of Social Work 22(6): 897–907. 10.1080/13691457.2018.1476327. Geldof, D. 2016. “Superdiversity and the City.” In Social Work and the City, 127–149. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1057/978-1-137-51623-7_5. Gillingham, P. 2018. “Decision-Making About the Adoption of Information Technology in Social Welfare Agencies: Some Key Considerations.” European Journal of Social Work 21(4): 521–529. Goldkind, L., L. Wolf, and J. Jones. 2016. “Late Adapters? How Social Workers Acquire Knowledge and Skills About Technology Tools.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 34(4): 338–358. 10.1080/15228835.2016.1250027. Goodson, L., and A. Grzymala-Kazlowska. 2017. “Researching Migration in a Superdiverse Society: Challenges, Methods, Concerns and Promises.” Sociological Research Online 22(1): 1–13. 10.5153/sro.4168. Greve, B. 2019. Routledge Handbook of the Welfare State, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Grise-Owens, E., J. J. Miller, and L. W. Owens. 2014. “Responding to Global Shifts: MetaPractice as a Relevant Social Work Practice Paradigm.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 34(1): 46–59. 10.1080/08841233.2013.866614. Grzymala-Kazlowska, A., and J. Phillimore. 2018. “Introduction: Rethinking Integration. New Perspectives on Adaptation and Settlement in the Era of Super-Diversity.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1341706. Hughes, M., and M. Wearing. 2016. Organisations and Management in Social Work. London: SAGE Publications. ITU. 2020. Measuring Digital Development. Facts and Figures 2020. ITU Publications. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. ITU. 2021. 2021 Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures. ITU Publications. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018a. “E-Social Work and Digital Society: Re-Conceptualizing Approaches, Practices and Technologies.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803. 10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018b. “El Trabajo Social En La Sociedad Digital.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social XXXV(116): 25–34. López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and Ma. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “E-Social Work: Building a New Field of Specialization in Social Work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256. Mackrill, T., and J. Kirkegaard Ørnbøll. 2019. “The MySocialworker App System – A Pilot Interview Study.” European Journal of Social Work 22(1): 134–144. 10.1080/13691457.2018. 1469471. Meissner, F. 2015. “Migration in Migration-Related Diversity? The Nexus Between Superdiversity and Migration Studies.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(4): 556–567. 10.1080/ 01419870.2015.970209. Meissner, F., and S. Vertovec. 2015. “Comparing Super-Diversity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(4): 541–555. 10.1080/01419870.2015.980295. Mitchell, B., D. Sarfati, and M. Stewart. 2022. “COVID-19 and Beyond: A Prototype for Remote/Virtual Social Work Field Placement.” Clinical Social Work Journal 50: 3–10. 10.1007/s10615-021-00788-x. Mois, G., and K. L. Fortuna. 2020. “Visioning the Future of Gerontological Digital Social Work.” Journal of Gerontological Social Work 63(5): 412–427. 10.1080/01634372.2020.1772436.

148

Superdiversity and Digital Social Work Nowicka, M., and S. Vertovec. 2014. “Comparing Convivialities: Dreams and Realities of Living-With-Difference.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 17(4): 341–356. 10.1177/ 1367549413510414. Oliveira, N., and B. Padilla. 2017. “Integrating Superdiversity in Urban Governance: The Case of Inner-City Lisbon.” Policy and Politics 45(4): 605–622. 10.1332/030557317X14 835601760639. Ozkazanc-Pan, B. 2019. “‘Superdiversity’: A New Paradigm for Inclusion in a Transnational World.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 38(4): 477–490. 10.1108/EDI07-2018-0134. Padilla, B., J. Azevedo, and A. Olmos-Alcaraz. 2015. “Superdiversity and Conviviality: Exploring Frameworks for Doing Ethnography in Southern European Intercultural Cities.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(4): 621–635. 10.1080/01419870.2015.980294. Pascoe, K. M. 2021. “Remote Service Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Questioning the Impact of Technology on Relationship-Based Social Work Practice.” The British Journal of Social Work, 1–20. 10.1093/bjsw/bcab242. Pink, S., H. Ferguson, and L. Kelly. 2021. “Digital Social Work: Conceptualising a Hybrid Anticipatory Practice.” Qualitative Social Work. 10.1177/14733250211003647. Pride, M. 2015. “Measuring Superdiversity: Constructing a Theoretical Multi-Dimensional Framework.” MA dissertation, University of Birmingham. Punie, Y., and B. Brecko. 2013. “DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe.” Luxembourg. 10.2788/52966. Reamer, F. G. 2014. “Clinical Social Work in a Digital Environment: Ethical and RiskManagement Challenges.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43(2): 120–132. 10.1007/s10615014-0495-0. Reamer, F. G. 2015. Risk Management in Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press. Robaeys, B. V., H. V. Ewijk, and D. Dierckx. 2018. “The Challenge of Superdiversity for the Identity of the Social Work Profession: Experiences of Social Workers in ‘De Sloep’ in Ghent, Belgium.” International Social Work 61(2): 274–288. 10.1177/002087281 6631600. Rodríguez, M. D. D., and J. Ferreira. 2018. “The Contribution of the Intervention in Social Networks and Community Social Work at the Local Level to Social and Human Development.” European Journal of Social Work 1457: 1–13. 10.1080/13691457.2018. 1423551. Ross, J. W., M. Beath, and M. Mocker. 2019. Designed for Digital. How to Architect Your Business for Sustained Success. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Schrooten, M., D. Geldof, and S. Withaeckx. 2015. “Transmigration and Urban Social Work: Towards a Research Agenda.” European Journal of Social Work, 1–13. 10.1080/13691457. 2014.1001725. Schildt, H. 2020. The Data Imperative. How Digitalization is Reshaping Management, Organizing, and Work. 10.1093/oso/9780198840817.001.0001. Schwinn, T. M., J. E. Hopkins, and S. P. Schinke. 2016. “Developing a Web-Based Intervention to Prevent Drug Use Among Adolescent Girls.” Research on Social Work Practice 26(1): 8–13. 10.1177/1049731515579204. Simpson, J. E. 2017. “Staying in Touch in the Digital Era: New Social Work Practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(1): 86–98. 10.1080/15228835.2017.1277908. Sorbring, E., A. Bolin, and J. Ryding. 2015. “A Game-Based Intervention – A Technical Tool for Social Workers to Combat Adolescent Dating-Violence.” Advances in Social Work 16(1): 125–139. 10.18060/18260. Turner, D. 2016. “‘Only Connect’: Unifying the Social in Social Work and Social Media.” Journal of Social Work Practice 30(3): 313–327. 10.1080/02650533.2016.1215977. UNESCO. 2001. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. International Law Reports. Vol. 21. United Nations. 10.1017/cbo9781316151488.157. United Nations. 2020. Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. United Nations.

149

Pablo Álvarez-Pérez van Breugel, I., and P. Scholten. 2017. “Mainstreaming in Response to Superdiversity? The Governance of Migration-Related Diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands.” Policy and Politics 45(4): 511–526. 10.1332/030557317X14849132401769. van Breugel, I., X. Maan, and P. Scholten. 2014. Conceptualizing Mainstreaming in Immigrant Integration Governance. Rotterdam: UPSTREAM. Vertovec, S. 2007. “Super-Diversity and Its Implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024–1054. 10.1080/01419870701599465. Vertovec, S. 2010. “Towards Post-Multiculturalism? Changing Communities, Conditions and Contexts of Diversity.” International Social Science Journal 61(199): 83–95. 10.1111/j. 1468-2451.2010.01749.x. Vertovec, S. 2019. “Talking Around Super-Diversity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 42(1): 125–139. 10.1080/01419870.2017.1406128. Wodarski, J. S., and S. V. Curtis. 2015. E-Therapy for Substance Abuse and Co-Morbidity. E-Therapy for Substance Abuse and Co-Morbidity. New York: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-12376-9.

150

13 SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH Digitising the Critical Incident Technique for the 21st Century Using Audio Diaries Niamh Flanagan

Introduction During World War II, John C Flanagan developed the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) from his work in the Aviation Psychology Program of the US Army Air Forces. He observed that reasons given for failure in learning to fly were typically clichés such as ‘lack of inherent flying ability’ or ‘insufficient progress’ (Flanagan 1954, 328). CIT was initially developed as a tool to create functional descriptions of activities which could be examined to elucidate reasons for failure. CIT thus uncovers important aspects of work tasks, identifying factors that impair or improve performance. Flanagan’s original method (1954) remains in wide use today as an effective investigative, educational and reflective tool. It has been applied in a range of disciplines, originating in industrial psychology and expanding to health and social care sectors, among others. Flanagan’s (1954) technique was developed in the pre-digital era and relied on observation or narrative accounts of incidents, lending itself to memorable events. The advent of the digital age affords the opportunity to marry Flanagan’s technique with audio-diary methods thereby extending the reach of CIT beyond memorable, critical incidents to more mundane, less memorable, private, cognitive, but nonetheless significant, events. The cliched reasons for flight-learning failures which inspired CIT resonate with the oft quoted, but little explored, barriers to incorporation of research evidence in social work. Reasons such as ‘lack of time’, ‘primacy of experiential knowledge’ or the ‘absence of a research culture’ offer limited explanation of the barrier to incorporating research evidence into practice. In a study which set out to elucidate the information behaviour of social workers (Flanagan 2020), the author used CIT methodology supported by audio-diary data collection to capture narrative accounts of information behaviour as chronologically close to the event as possible. This chapter considers the strengths and limitations of a CIT/audio-diary approach within social work research and reviews how this combination supports digitisation of CIT for the 21st century.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-15

151

Niamh Flanagan

Critical Incident Technique CIT is a systematic, inductive, open-ended procedure for eliciting information on behaviour, used to facilitate solving of practical problems (Flanagan 1954, 327). It involves obtaining first-hand accounts of the execution of a task. Reports are typically recorded narratively and subsequently probed for common patterns of behaviour, barriers and facilitators of task completion, contexts and critical points in the decision-making process where changes can be made to prevent or promote similar situations in the future. CIT has been likened to pushing the pause button on life and signalling that something has occurred that needs further attention through reflection and interrogation (Noffke and Somekh 2009, 163). CIT methodology involves three components: incidents, accounts and probing the account. Firstly, CIT is grounded in real-world incidents which help participants concretise their accounts, facilitating accurate reporting. The second component of CIT is its reliance on first-hand narrative accounts in which the research participants capture an event, turning anecdotes into data (Bradley 1992). CIT limits the negative aspects of anecdotes, such as lack of rigour and evidentiary value, while retaining their benefits (Fitzgerald et al. 2008). The final component is probing the narrative account, which assists research participants to describe the incident, teasing out its complexities. CIT thus facilitates thick descriptions of events offering a deeper understanding of behaviours and contexts. Two seminal papers corroborated the reliability and validity of CIT – Andersson and Nilsson (1964) and Ronan and Latham (1974). More recently, Butterfield et al. (2005, 486–489) documented measures to improve CIT credibility including the incorporation of second interviews with participants to amend or augment the reported incidents by participants’ acknowledging their expertise by experience.

Audio Diaries Although Flanagan proposed direct observation as a method of data collection (1954, 340), latterly he advocated first-hand narrative accounts via interviews. This remains the most common CIT data-collection method (Butterfield et al. 2005, 481). However, temporal distance from the event introduces a recall-associated margin of error into CIT and few methodologies support real-time study. Observation allows recording in real time, but it is time consuming, intrusive, at risk of observing the wrong behaviour and misses cognitive processes. Audio diaries have the potential to overcome some of these limitations. They are a form of narrative in which the diarist records their experience in monologue in near to real time. Audio diaries share many of the strengths and limitations of conventional paper diaries, whilst also bringing additional advantages. Alaszewski (2006) defined diaries as A document created by an individual who has maintained a regular, personal, and contemporaneous record. (2006, 1)

152

Digitizing the Critical Incident Technique

While the use of unsolicited diaries in social research is largely confined to historicalbiographical or anthropological research, solicited diaries are more widely used as research instruments, collecting data about behaviour or events. In the diary method of research, participants actively participate in both recording and reflecting on their behaviour in the full knowledge that the contents will be analysed and written about. Structured diaries typically gather quantitative data, e.g. dietary data collected over a set period, while semi-structured diaries are a more open format of diary keeping, allowing respondents to record in their own words in their own timeframe. For example, in Monrouxe’s study of medical training, she asked diarists to Tell us a story about something that has happened to you since the last time you left a message and how it has affected the way you think about yourself now and your future role as a doctor. (Monrouxe 2009, 85) Strengths attributed to research cover enhancements to the quality of data and data accuracy, suitability to particular participant groups and topics, and enhanced participant experience. The validity and reliability of the diary method have not been widely studied and hinge on good compliance (Bolger, Davis, and Rafaeli 2003, 591). Hufford and Shiffman (2003, 81), while acknowledging routine failures to adhere to diary protocols, point to the increased reliability of diary data resulting from multiple diary entries, allowing aggregation of assessments over time. Furthermore, the fact that diaries are more representative of experiences in everyday life increases the ecological validity of the data, in addition to the increased accuracy resulting from minimising errors of recall.

A Social Work CIT/Audio-Diary Study CIT was employed for this study on social workers’ information behaviour (Flanagan 2020) for several reasons: the study required an exploratory, in-depth, qualitative methodology which facilitated accurate documentation and dissection of real-world, task-related incidents. However, the most compelling reason was the opportunity to turn anecdotes into data, particularly given the preference for experiential knowledge in social work. Bradley’s (1992) observation of medical practitioners’ proclivity for recounting anecdotes regarding their case work holds significant resonance for the social work profession. Both professions struggle to reconcile the low-evidentiary value of anecdotes with their obvious intuitive and illustrative value, being interesting, absorbing, immediate and relevant (Fitzgerald et al. 2008, 302). Although Flanagan (1954, 338) focused on critical events, the CIT capacity to uncover behaviours embedded in practice and in everyday life is particularly pertinent in the context of an ancillary task. Information behaviour, while vital for social work practice, typically represents an ancillary task, the process of which is easily forgotten and subject to errors of recall. Moreover, advances in 153

Niamh Flanagan

digital-voice technology facilitate minimisation of recall errors by completing the report as near as possible to the actual event, without sacrificing the accuracy and value of self-reports. For a social work population, audio diaries hold three key advantages. Firstly, given the primacy of time constraints, speed of use is invaluable. Secondly, the audiodiary method is well suited to a population whose modus operandi is typically oral (Tsang 2007). In addition, the audio-diary methodology can capture unpredictable, ancillary behaviours, context, antecedents and consequences, while minimising errors of retrospection. Thus, the final research strategy for the study (Flanagan 2020) drew on the advantages of a CIT methodology with near-to-real-time audio-diary data collection.

Research Methodology The study involved a purposive sample of 16 social workers in a range of settings with the aim of exploring information behaviour inductively. The approach required studying behaviour at micro level and as near to real time as possible and analysing the individual steps involved in producing the behaviour – antecedents, responses and consequences. The design was operationalised in four stages (see Figure 13.1): preliminary data collection using an audio-diary method; verbatim transcription of diaries; CIT interview based on annotated diary transcripts yielded an augmented diary; and content analysis of augmented diary data. As a multi-site project, ethical approval/exemption was received from relevant participating organisations and from the Human Research Ethics Committee (Humanities), University College Dublin. Support strategies were required to reduce the burden on participants and facilitate compliance during fieldwork. These included a Participant Guidance Handbook, a recording prompt card and technological support. Diary keeping was preceded by a setup/guidance meeting and followed by the CIT interview.

Figure 13.1

The stages of the research strategy

154

Digitizing the Critical Incident Technique

Participants were asked to make audio-diary recordings on an event-based schedule, i.e. if they experienced the following information events: needing, seeking, receipt/ encountering or using any information. Participants were asked to comment on each event giving a description of the information; context and trigger which prompted seeking; action taken; barriers encountered; and outcomes of the search. Completed diaries were transcribed verbatim, annotated with questions and comments and returned to the participant for review before the CIT interview. This afforded participants the opportunity to review, reflect or amend transcripts of their accounts if they wished. The CIT interview probed the diary accounts for elucidation and augmentation.

Evaluation of the CIT/Audio-Diary Approach Literature highlights the strengths and limitations of CIT and audio diaries separately, whilst the following evaluation considers how these methods work in tandem in a social work setting.

Stage 1: Audio-Dairy Data Collection Data Quality Enhancements Diaries are characterised by their ability to capture aspects of everyday life which are often taken for granted, forgotten or not easily articulated. One diarist in the current study noted You hardly think of … how much [information you] access quickly on the computer … or you lift the phone to somebody. If you had asked me at the end of the week how much information I’d got, I’d go ‘very little’. A further feature of this qualitative methodology is its capacity to capture the context of the event which the diary records. In the narrative of diary reports, the particulars of experiences can be captured in a way that is not possible using traditional research methods which remove experience from its usual context. The audio-diary method permits the examination of accounts and experiences near to their natural, spontaneous and varied contexts, as opposed to distanced from the temporal, spatial and relational dimensions of the event. Moreover, because diaries facilitate reporting near to natural contexts, audio diaries can capture in-situ emotive responses, e.g. researchers can pay attention to the participants’ tone, silence gaps, other sounds or voices or even adopt Cottingham and Erickson’s (2020) ingenious visualisation of waveforms to capture the ‘texture’ of spoken words. The diary method allows participants to tell their story in their own words and in their own time, facilitating reflection on their responses without the restrictions and researcher influences associated with other methods such as interviews. Therefore, diaries can be a sensitive tool for capturing emotions and emotional reflexivity, undampened by temporal distance (Cottingham and Erickson 2020). A diarist highlighted this point 155

Niamh Flanagan

In stressed work environments the notion of sitting down to write your reflections and thoughts is just too difficult …. The diary allowed you to capture thoughts and reflections instantaneously. The audio-diary method has the advantage of being able to gather far greater quantity of data than traditional methods, offering a more comprehensive picture for critical analysis (Hislop et al. 2005). For example, diarists said … when I’d [go to] record the piece, it was maybe a sentence, [but] when I began to talk to you on the tape I felt quite comfortable about elaborating. … I though ‘there’s more here than I thought’. I think when you talk it through you probably give a lot more information. Audio accounts preserve a ‘stream of consciousness’, without the interruption that a written, linear narrative can cause (Cottingham and Erickson 2020, 550). Writing is more burdensome, drawing on a more formal, stylised system of communication than speaking. Diarists supported this saying It was much better than writing it. At the time I thought that I wasn’t putting in much, I thought I was putting in little points. I feel I talk better than I write! Diaries are frequently employed as an adjunct to other research methods, to triangulate or support other data. Although this may represent a limitation of the method, it can also represent a strength as diary data can be used to supplement or inform subsequent interviews, such as CIT interviews, where diaries enrich the data, aiding recall and facilitating development or springboarding of issues.

Data Accuracy Improvement Audio diaries’ capacity to capture events close to when they unfold is perhaps their greatest strength. By minimising the amount of time elapsed between an experience and the account of the experience, diary methods reduce several problems associated with recall. Reflecting on this, a diarist commented There is no way I would have written down all those details, I just wouldn’t have [noted all] the details, or I’d have just forgotten [them]. Methods such as interview or survey rely on participants’ abilities to recall experiences, leaving responses vulnerable to issues of retrospection such as: aggregated recall where respondents ‘aggregate’ their recollections (Bolger, Davis, and Rafaeli 2003, 585); state-congruent recall where the participant’s current state (e.g. mental health) influences perceptions; or telescoping, where chronology of events becomes distorted. Relying on a participant’s hindsight also exposes responses to the risk of 156

Digitizing the Critical Incident Technique

retrospective reconstruction or self-representation, e.g. reframing, censorship or impression management, rather than the ‘self as unfinished’ (Cottingham and Erickson 2020, 554). Diarists alluded to this If I was to type [the diary] out I would be editing it and trying to make it look a bit better than it actually was. If I had been writing it down … I would probably have read over what I’d written and thought ‘Well she won’t understand this, so I’ll add that’. By reducing recall errors, the audio-diary method helps reduce distinctions between what people do and what they say they do (Hislop et al. 2005) – an essential element in reviewing critical incidents. Thus, a significant advantage when events of interest are ancillary or easily forgotten, as illustrated by a diarist Definitely [it enhanced the data] because I don’t even remember half of this [transcript]!

Topic and Participant Suitability The diary method offers advantages when researching a range of issues such as sensitive topics, sense making and phenomena which are typically inaccessible to researchers. Sensitive issues that may be difficult to address using face-to-face methods are more easily captured as the absent presence of the researcher may be less intimidating for respondents (Cottingham and Erickson 2020). However, it was also the case that participants were mindful of the researcher as they recorded, underlining the need for prior establishment of trust and rapport. Diaries can serve as a proxy for observation in some situations with the added advantage of reducing the risk of observing irrelevant behaviour. This is particularly pertinent to social work, where issues of confidentiality limit the appropriateness of observation. For example You’re just so self-conscious when people are following you around [during observation. The Diary] was just ideal. … I thought it was perfect. Participant groups such as those challenged by writing or textual communication, those with visual impairment and those with little time may find audio diaries more convenient. Diarists reported It doesn’t take a lot of time to say what you are saying and it’s not writing, so it doesn’t seem like a hassle. I’d never have gotten the time to write it all down, it was just so much more efficient. CIT, as a narrative approach, offers much to a profession whose modus operandi is thought to be primarily oral or to topics that are best verbalised. A diarist articulated this 157

Niamh Flanagan

Because as social workers we talk for a living, we’re more used to talking and I think I could think it out better [orally] because it was just like having a conversation.

Enhanced Participant Experience Diary research is participant friendly, enhancing the participant experience of fieldwork by offering a more participative, reflective and even cathartic engagement (Crozier and Cassell 2016), e.g. I thought it was a very good reflective thing. … It did make me reflect. … It would be good for students on their initial placement. Moreover, the diary method gives control of the data to the participant, enabling them to consider and shape their responses on their own timescale, revealing as little or as much as they please. The varied length of diaries – ranging from 334 to 14,930 words – in this study, illustrated this latitude. However, while latitude for diarists is a strength, the variability may represent a limitation and is revisited below. As with much research, diary completion makes participants increasingly aware of their own behaviour. While this can represent a biasing of data, diarists’ latitude to reflect on their own activities can provide cathartic outcomes for some participants (Williamson et al. 2015). In the current study, diarists said It was also quite positive in that it [was] affirming. … For one minor matter I made six phone calls [and] I came off the six phone calls feeling like I had gained nothing, but still I had put the effort into it. It really surprised me that there was so much … information coming and going … and [how] constant, and how often and so frequently.

Limitations of Diaries as a Research Method As illustrated in the forgoing section, diaries have received relatively good press in literature; however, there are some inherent limitations as discussed here. a.

Sample-Selection Bias and Generalisability

The diary method may be susceptible to sample-selection bias (Williamson et al. 2015, 21). Indeed, given the diarists’ burden in diary keeping, it seems indisputable that there is self-selection bias in those who agree to keep such diaries. However, like most qualitative data collection, the limited generalisability afforded by the diary method can be balanced against the depth and detail captured. b.

Need for Participant Support

The importance of incorporating participant-support features such as advance briefings, training, prompts and sustained contact to ameliorate the risk of poor 158

Digitizing the Critical Incident Technique

adherence cannot be underestimated (Williamson et al. 2015). Such features are not typically required with other methods. In this study, the Participant Guidance Pack (see above) proved useful, e.g. I definitely needed the [Participant Handbook] because I’m not good technologically … but the book was very clear, the instructions were very clear. But also the little thing you had hanging from it – the little plastic [prompt card]. That was good because you could check that you had [completed the task.] c.

Uncertain Compliance

The greatest limitation of the diary method is the issue of uncertain compliance, attrition or lack of adherence to the diary protocol (Crozier and Cassell 2016, 414). However, evidence suggests that compliance with audio-diary schedules is higher than in paper-diary studies (Hislop et al. 2005). Diaries are dependent on the willingness of participants to record entries and the simplest threat to diary research is forgetfulness. For example, a diarist in this study reported: Mostly I did the recordings soon after, but one of them I went ‘Oh! I never put that [recording] on’ and I put it on [then]. The novelty factor, convenience and the short time needed to record each diary entry are credited with increasing the acceptability of the method in the field (Hislop et al. 2005), making it a less burdensome method of data collection for diarists. Participants’ evaluation of the method in this study suggested that compliance was high, although diarists did indicate that they sometimes made recordings at the end of the day if they had been particularly busy. The days that I wasn’t busy, that I had a normal working day [my recordings] were great. That was fine, I could think etc. But … when I was running around … I totally forgot about it for two days and I recorded things in retrospect then. This would suggest that the limitation relates to proximity to the event rather than to compliance. Inclusion of a pocket notebook in the current study went some way to bridging the gap between events and recordings when immediate recording was not feasible. I kept my notes and then I’d [record] it in the evening time. Variability in the number, length and richness of recording is a further aspect of uncertain compliance (Williamson et al. 2015, 213). However, augmentation provided by the CIT interview goes some way to ameliorating this. I think my entries got less detailed as I went along.

159

Niamh Flanagan

[With a written diary] I think I would be more aware of the gaps I was leaving out. … But [the CIT interview] kind of balances that out. For valid data to be obtained, diary studies must achieve a level of participant commitment and dedication rarely required in other types of research. This places responsibility for adherence on the respondent. Few diarists in the current study found the diary-keeping ‘burdensome’ but they did indicate that it entailed sustained commitment, e.g. Just something you have to remember. Would definitely have been more of a burden to write it down. I think the issue for me was just finding time to do it in a quiet space. I share an office and this place is very busy so there’s never really anywhere to go, so I think I was doing [recordings] in the car a lot! d.

Impact on Behaviour

As above, diary keeping makes diarists inherently more aware of their behaviour, yielding both benefits and limitations such as prompting an unnatural focus on the issue of interest. One diarist noted I think I followed through on things a bit more than I probably would normally. … I think I became more aware of my practice and how many loose ends I was leaving around the place and not tidying things up. e.

Burden of Recording

Participants in this study made their diary recordings during working hours for ten consecutive working days. Over half indicated that ten days was an appropriate length, a quarter would have preferred a longer period of diary keeping, and one, a shorter period. I think longer would have been better. Because you were just getting into it. I’d say I could easily have done four weeks. It was very interesting. Ten days felt long, too long. Five days would probably have been easier for me. I’d say two weeks was probably enough … I think to get people to do it for more than two weeks would probably put them off. f.

Technological Challenges

Technology has traditionally been one of the key challenges to using audio diaries including the need to train diarists, manage technological challenges and deal with poor quality/loss of recordings. Increasing availability and functionality of mobile phone apps

160

Digitizing the Critical Incident Technique

has contributed significantly to the application of this methodology (Lev-On and Lowenstein-Barkai 2019, 3). However, it remains crucial to identify suitable technology and provide clear instructions. This strategy paid off in the current study. I can’t use my dictaphone at work but that was a lovely one, easy to use. I was even able to download it onto my laptop [for emailing]. I found that particular model, as distinct from any model, easy to use and the instructions were pretty good. Studies have reported diarists being self-conscious about making recordings (Williamson et al. 2015). Although, diarists in the current study found their selfconsciousness reduced as they became accustomed to the task. Once you get over the initial embarrassment of talking, it’s fine. We have a shared office, so at first I’d go off by myself, but then by the end I was [saying] ‘Hang on a minute, be quiet I have to do [a recording]’. Self-consciousness may be reduced through development of trust between the researcher and the participant. Indeed, many diarists addressed their monologues to the researcher, underlining the present absence of the researcher and the importance of establishing a positive and trusting relationship prior to diary keeping.

Stage 2: Diary Transcript for the CIT Interview Diary recordings in this study were transcribed verbatim, emerging questions noted in the margins and linkages between events which formed a sequence of events provided. While the average diary was 3,559 words/26 minutes, there was considerable variation in the length of diaries (range 334–14,930 words/2–131 minutes). Interestingly, the average diarist provided 149 words per minute. Thus, even the ‘two-minute’ diary transcript yielded descriptions of nine events which were augmented in the CIT interview. This potential to extract near-to-real-time data, even from a very small diary, is an undoubted asset. Participants were invited to review their transcript for corrections, deletions or additional information to discuss at the CIT interview.

Stage 3: The CIT Interview and Augmented Diaries CIT interviews involved probing of the diary transcripts to further elucidate the event with both sets of data interwoven to form the augmented diary (see Figure 13.2). This yielded, on average a 72% augmentation on diaries (hereinafter ‘augmented diaries’). The greatest increases were in previously short diaries, indicating that CIT goes some way to improving the quality of short diaries by encouraging participants to elaborate, underlining the power of the methodological marriage.

161

Niamh Flanagan

Figure 13.2

Augmented diary entry: original diary interwoven with CIT interview

Stage 4: Analysis of Augmented Diaries CIT typically relies on content analysis, a detailed systematic, data reduction and sense-making technique, which aims to identify patterns and themes in a body of text. Writers differ on whether content analysis should be quantitative or qualitative, or a blend of the two (Krippendorff 2004, 87; Silverman 2011, 169). In the current study, content analysis yielded quantitative findings, supplemented with qualitative illustrations. Diarists provided recordings on 424 information events. While the data collection afforded a rich narrative of social workers’ experiences over a ten-day period, it could not hope to capture the universe of social work experiences because of the time-limited nature of the fieldwork. Notwithstanding this, the audio diaries offered a rich insight into key aspects of social workers information behaviour such as the pragmatic palette of strategies used to navigate information that supports practice, the substantially broader evidence base than expected, and the valuable use of knowledge-share practices (Flanagan 2020).

Conclusions As the CIT approaches its seventh decade, there can be little doubt about the value of an approach which allows researchers to deep dive into lived experiences. 162

Digitizing the Critical Incident Technique

However, the issue of recall introduces limitations and threats to the validity and reliability of the methodology. Audio diaries provide an opportunity to counterbalance some of the limitations of CIT by providing a near-to-real-time method of data capture. And indeed, vice versa, CIT ameliorates some of the limitations of the audio-diary method. The combined methodology was well received by participants, and evidence of enhanced data and positive experiences were clear. The additional burden on researcher and participants is indisputable; however, in neither case was this deemed onerous. The issue of uncertain compliance and variation in the data output represented the most significant limitation of the audio-diary method; however, the CIT interview and resulting augmented diaries ameliorated this. While Flanagan’s innovation of the mid-20th century has undoubtedly stood the test of time, the marriage of his methodology with audio-diary data collection offers a valuable digitisation of the CIT for the 21st century.

References Alaszewski, A. 2006. Using Diaries for Social Research. London: SAGE Publications. Andersson, B. E., and S. G. Nilsson. 1964. “Studies in the reliability and validity of the critical incident technique.” Journal of Applied Psychology 48: 398–403. Bolger, N., A. Davis, and E. Rafaeli. 2003. “Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived.” Annual Review of Psychology 54(1): 579–616. Bradley, C. P. 1992. “Turning anecdotes into data: The critical incident technique.” Family Practice 9(1): 98–103. Butterfield, L. D., W. A. Borgen, N. E. Amundson, and A.-S. T. Maglio. 2005. “Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond.” Qualitative Research 5(4): 475–497. Cottingham, M. D., and R. J. Erickson. 2020. “Capturing emotion with audio diaries.” Qualitative Research 20(5): 549–564. Crozier, S. E., and C. M. Cassell. 2016. “Methodological considerations in the use of audio diaries in work psychology: Adding to the qualitative toolkit.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 89: 396–419. Fitzgerald, K., N. S. Seale, C. A. Kerins, and R. McElvaney. 2008. “The critical incident technique: A useful tool for conducting qualitative research.” Journal of Dental Education 72(3): 299–304. Flanagan, J. C. 1954. “The critical incident technique.” Psychological Bulletin 51(4): 327–358. Flanagan, N. 2020. “The information behaviour of social workers: Needs, seeking, acquiring and using information in practice.” British Journal of Social Work 50(5): 1588–1610. Hislop, J., S. Arber, R. Meadows, and S. Venn. 2005. “Narratives of the night: The use of audio diaries in researching sleep.” Sociological Research Online 10(4). Hufford, M. R., and S. Shiffman. 2003. “Assessment methods for patient-reported outcome.” Disease Management and Health Outcomes 11(2): 77–86. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Lev-On, A., and H. Lowenstein-Barkai. 2019. “Viewing diaries in an age of new media: An exploratory analysis of mobile phone app diaries versus paper diaries.” Methodological Innovations 12(1): 1–9. Monrouxe, L. V. 2009. “Solicited audio diaries in longitudinal narrative research: A view from inside.” Qualitative Research 9(1): 81–103. Noffke, S. E., and B. Somekh. 2009. The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. London: SAGE.

163

Niamh Flanagan Ronan, W. W., and G. P. Latham. 1974. “The reliability and validity of the critical incident technique: A closer look.” Studies in Personnel Psychology 6(1): 53–64. Silverman, D. 2011. Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. London: SAGE. Tsang, N. M. 2007. “Orality and literacy: Their relevance to social work.” Journal of Social Work 7(1): 51–70. Williamson, I., D. Leeming, S. Lyttle, and S. Johnson. 2015. “Evaluating the audio-diary method in qualitative research.” Qualitative Research Journal 15(1): 20–34.

164

14 DIGITAL SOCIAL GROUP WORK Evolution, State of the Art and a Renewed Research Agenda Andrés Arias Astray, David Alonso González, Linda Vanina Ducca Cisneros, and Juan Brea Iglesias

Introduction The promise of a new era of social work practice, thanks to computer-based technology, is a frequently repeated idea since the first introductory papers were published on this topic (Finn and Lavitt 1994; Weinberg et al. 1995). From the beginning of the Internet, social workers have been aware of the potential of “the Net” for social intervention (Alonso and Alonso 2019; Kirwan and Byrne 2021). It did not take long, however, before social workers and other professionals expressed concern about its many risks (Finn and Banach 2000; Parker-Oliver and Demiris 2006; Tierney 2006; Webb, Burns, and Collin 2008; Reamer 2013). Social group work has not been unaffected by these promises and reservations (Coulson 2018). In fact, some of the first articles on social work and information and communication technology explicitly referred to groups or were written by group workers (e.g.: Galinsky, Schopler, and Abell 1997). If this has been the reality on the “supply” side, on the “demand” side, for some years now, and particularly in the countries with the highest development indicators, Internet access has been available to almost whole populations (Davidson and Schimmele 2019). According to Hootsuite & We Are Social (Kemp 2021), in April 2022, there were 4.95 billion Internet users in the world (61.8% of the population), 5.29 billion cell phone owners (59.5%) and 4.55 billion active users on social networks (57.6%). In wealthier societies, even people with greater economic difficulties and more serious situations of exclusion (such as homelessness, for example) often can access the Internet through mobile telephony and the use of public or free Wi-Fi networks (Rice and BarmanAdhikari 2014; Rhoades et al. 2017).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-16

165

Andrés Arias Astray et al.

Recent evidence suggests that many people now spend more and more time on the Internet and interacting with others online (OECD 2020). Our lives are increasingly virtualized and we find it natural to use different e-tools in our daily lives (mail, chat tools, virtual social networks, etc.) (Tripathi and Bajpai 2021). This leads to an increasing demand for all types of online services in a type of vicious circle: the greater the use of online services, the greater the demand for similar and other services. It is becoming increasingly clear that social work with groups in virtual formats is one such service for which there is a growing demand (TaylorBeswick 2021). This is reinforced by the fact that network bandwidth has increased considerably in recent years leading to connectivity enhancement (OECD 2021). Also, advanced video compression systems and other support tools, based on artificial intelligence and deep learning, have been developed that make it possible, with greater ease, to conduct video and audio meetings with a considerable number of participants (Kudoo et al. 2021). Defined in a general way, e-social group work (“e-social group work” and “online group work” will be used interchangeably in this text) consists of a collection of people meeting together via computer-based technology and facilitated by a professional with similar purposes as those pursued in the face-to-face groups offered by social workers: therapeutic, educational, socialization, personal growth, support and social action. “Digital”, “computer based”, “cyber”, “electronic”, “Internet”, “networked”, “technology based”, “virtual”, “web based” and “online” are some of the terms used interchangeably to name this type of groupwork context in which members are physically separated but connected by technology (Arias Astray and Barrón 2009; Arias Astray and Segado 2013; López Peláez and Marcuello Servós 2021). But beyond its definition and means of delivery, there is a question to be asked about the extent to which e-social group work has been researched in the last three decades. Furthermore, what has happened to this practice since the lockdown caused by COVID-19? What might be the future of this practice? What deserves and needs to be investigated in relation to online group intervention? These are the questions which this chapter aims to address in order to contribute to our understanding of how technology is affecting social work practice in a changing welfare society. With this overall aim in mind, this chapter addresses three objectives, all of them linked to research on the practice of e-social group work. The first is concerned with the evolution of online social group work since the emergence and popularization of the Internet, and possibly before. The second objective seeks to ascertain if any changes, brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, have impacted e-social group work research. In particular, it is of interest to ascertain if the pandemic crisis has been a turning point in the adoption of video conferencing and other digital instruments for the development of online group work by social workers. The third and last objective considers the establishment of a renewed research agenda for social work with virtual groups in the coming years, thereby supporting it to continue advancing on solid evidence-informed foundations in order to achieve its full potential. The chapter concludes with a reflection on the curriculum necessary for future social work professionals to be able to offer an informed and responsible e-social group practice. 166

Digital Social Group Work

Method To address the aims and objectives of this study, a critical literature review methodology was selected, which focused on the specialized literature on the practice of social work with online groups. In particular, the literature review aimed to analyze the reported research on e-social group work published in academic journals. Given that our interest is specifically focused on social work with groups and not on other types of intervention with groups by professionals from other disciplines (e.g. psychologists or educators), one way of limiting the literature to be analyzed was to use journal databases specifically focused on social work. In particular, two relevant bibliographic databases that currently concentrate on social work are Social Work Abstracts (SWA), produced by the American National Association of Social Work, and Social Services Abstracts (SSA). According to Ebsco (2021), the publishing group supplying the SWA database, SWA “provides indexing and abstracts for journals dealing with all aspects of the social work field, including theory and practice, areas of service and social issues and problems”. It covers more than 500 social work and human services journals dating back to 1965. SSA, edited by Proquest, “provides bibliographic coverage of current research focused on social work, human services and related areas, including social welfare, social policy and community development”. This database contains abstracts and indexes relating to thousands of publications dating from 1979 onwards. These two databases were selected for this literature review because they complement rather than compete with each other (Flatley, Lilla, and Widner 2007). The limitations of this approach include the fact that only publications mostly written in English are included in the selected databases. Nevertheless, this strategy has the advantage of reflecting what is known in the discipline as knowledge endorsed by the scientific community of social work. Doctoral theses were excluded from this literature review, since their content, if sufficiently valuable, will most likely be published in peer-reviewed journals. Books or book chapters were also excluded for the same reason.

Units of Analysis and Search Strategy Therefore, the units of analysis were only scientific articles published in peerreviewed journals, collected in the SWA and SSA databases. The search was conducted on December 14, 2021. The search fields used were the article title field and the abstract field, combining all synonyms for social work with groups and online. Thus, the search algorithm used in the two referred fields was as follows: (online OR virtual OR distant OR web OR computer OR cyber OR electronic OR technology OR Facebook OR Twitter OR Internet OR video-conferenc* OR remote OR Skype OR oovoo OR Adobe OR Lync OR hangouts OR meet OR jitsi OR zoom OR whatsapp) AND (groupwork OR “group work” OR “social group work” OR “social work with groups” OR “support group*” OR “self-help group*”).

167

Andrés Arias Astray et al.

Procedure The list of articles from both databases, 121 articles from SWA and 416 articles from SSA, was combined and repetitions were eliminated. The result was a total of 537 articles with repeats and 376 articles with no repeats. Separately, each of the two first authors of this chapter read the title and abstract of each article in this sample to determine whether or not the article should be selected for further analysis based on whether or not it met the standardized inclusion criteria. Articles had to meet the following inclusion criteria: to be about online social work intervention, research or training. The degree of agreement between the two authors as measured by Cohen’s (1960) kappa coefficient (k) was 0.94, which can be considered almost perfect according to Landis and Koch (1977). In cases where there was no initial agreement, this was addressed by carrying out a complete reading of the article and discussion between the two researchers (the first two authors of this chapter). Thus, through this process, the number of articles finally selected and coded was 167.

Findings and Discussion For the sake of brevity, the results and discussion are presented together in this section.

Annual Production of Research Papers Figure 14.1 shows the number of articles published per year on the topic of social work with virtual or online groups.

Figure 14.1

Papers on online social group work per year of publication in SWA and SSA

168

Digital Social Group Work

As can be seen, the first articles date back to 1990, that is, before the Internet was in widespread use among the general public. The first of these articles by Edward Madara (1990) focused on community self-help, in which the possibilities of the future use of computers for the development of self-help networks were discussed. The second paper refers to the use of “telecomputing” to provide information and support to caregivers (Smyth and Harris 1993). The third, published in 1994, represents the first proper research article and focuses on self-help groups with survivors of child sexual abuse (Finn and Lavitt 1994). Although not true for every year, there is a growth in the number of articles published on online social group work from year to year. However, there has been a slight decrease since 2014. In the sample examined, that year saw the largest number of articles published up to that point in time (16). Since then, a production rate in the region of eight articles per year has been maintained. It is surprising, however, that the number of articles has not been much higher since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has caused many personal services to be offered virtually.

Journals The 167 articles dedicated to online social group work were published in 77 different journals. This shows the wide dispersion of the media in which this type of content appears. The 53 journals published a single article and another 11 published only two articles. In our sample, the journal in which most articles were published is a publication specializing in the application of technology in human services (Journal of Technology in Human Services). The other two journals with the second highest number of articles were journals dedicated to groupwork, specifically the American journal Social Work with Groups and the British journal Groupwork. The scarce content published on the subject in some journals which specialize in groupwork, such as the Journal for Specialists in Group Work (two articles) or Group Analysis (one article), is striking. Table 14.1 details the scientific journals in which two or more papers on online social group work had been published by the end of 2021. The following journals, “International Journal of Self Help & Self Care”, “Groupwork”, “Social Work with Groups” and “Journal of Technology in Human Services”, have the highest number of articles published on online social group work among the journals included in the SSW and SWA databases.

Authors Figure 14.2 presents a word cloud derived from the analysis of authors’ surname frequencies to determine the most published authors on virtual social group work identified through our literature review on articles located in the SWA and SSA databases. The word cloud was produced using the Tag Crowd application (https://tagcrowd.com).

169

Andrés Arias Astray et al. Table 14.1 Number of papers on online social group work per journal (N > 2) Journal name

N

%

AIDS and Behavior AIDS Education and Prevention Contemporary Rural Social Work Death Studies European Journal of Social Work Illness, Crisis & Loss Illness, Crisis, and Loss Journal for Specialists in Group Work Journal of Social Service Research Journal of Teaching in Social Work The Journal for Specialists in Group Work Health Care on the Internet The British Journal of Social Work Behaviour Research and Therapy Computers in Human Behavior Health & Social Work Journal of Medical Internet Research Social Work Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Social Science & Medicine The Gerontologist International Journal of Self Help & Self Care Groupwork Social Work with Groups Journal of Technology in Human Services

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 8 10 15 18

1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,20% 1,80% 1,80% 2,40% 2,40% 2,40% 2,40% 2,40% 3,00% 3,00% 3,00% 4,80% 6,00% 9,00% 10,80%

Gallinisky (7), Finn (6) and Meier (6) stand out especially for their productivity, together with authors such as Abell, Donahue, Liberman, Medara, Marciali and Simon, all with four articles, followed by a large group of 19 authors with three articles and 44 with two articles. In contrast to these figures, which seem to represent the existence of a research program with a certain continuity, it should be noted that most of the authors (95%) have only published one paper on the subject of online social work with groups in the sample of journals examined in our research. In other words, most of the authors seem to be interested in the topic of online group work in a circumstantial way and without continuity, at least in social work publications.

Type of Research The research on virtual groups published in journals included in SSA and SWA is difficult to classify. It was substantially characterized by its fundamentally descriptive nature, although there is a notable increase of outcome-focused research (close to one-third). However, it would seem there is an excess of programmatic articles emphasizing the importance of the virtual format for working with groups and 170

Digital Social Group Work

Figure 14.2

Most productive authors on online social group work in SWA and SSA

specifying its benefits and potential, as well as its disadvantages and limitations. A significant number of reviews of online work on specific issues were also identified. Methodologically rigorous outcome (experimental) and process research appeared less frequently in our sample which is disappointing given its key importance in advancing knowledge about the determinants of the effectiveness of online group work. A graphic representation of these findings can be seen in Figure 14.3, which shows a word frequency analysis of the methodological orientation categories that the two researcher authors assigned to each of the articles. It was estimated that approximately 55% of the articles reviewed were of an empirical nature, with an increasing trend in this trajectory in recent years.

Situations, Problems or Needs Addressed The main issues on which interventions with virtual groups were reported to focus include cancer (particularly the emotional and other consequences associated with

Figure 14.3

Type of papers on online group work categorized according to their methodological orientation

171

Andrés Arias Astray et al.

Figure 14.4

Problems and needs referred to in papers on digital social group work in SWA and SSA

this condition), the difficulties and need for support of caregivers and the needs of social work students and professionals. Some of the articles in the review sample dealt with interventions related to older people in general, dementia in particular, and other health problems. Figure 14.4 illustrates the range of topics addressed in the sample of scientific papers collected in SSA and SWA. Furthermore, the review revealed that in total 21 general articles have been published, not focused on a specific situation, problem or need. As expected, in the last two years, half a dozen articles have been published related to the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Type of Groups In an attempt to follow, as far as possible, the classification of Toseland and Rivas (2017) on types of groups regarding treatment groups, it can be said that the most frequent type of group found in the sample of articles that we reviewed fits with their categorization of support (75) and self-help (35) groups. This is understandable in the context of social work, a discipline that advocates for the participation, autonomy and empowerment of people (IFSW 2014). However, it is important to point out that social support groups are sometimes referred to as such when, in fact, they are self-help groups, and this should be taken into account in the context of the results presented here. This conflation of support and self-help groups may arise due to the terminology adopted by the authors when designating their groups or because the nature of the group does not neatly fit into a prescribed typology. Some of the reviewed articles did not refer to a specific type of group, since, as indicated above, a significant percentage of the publications was general and programmatic. Some of these generic articles refer to all types of groups (4). Educational groups were frequent, although many of them were developed with social work students as participants. These were often quite prototypical articles in which online teaching experiences were referred to and where in many occasions 172

Digital Social Group Work

Figure 14.5 Type of groups referred to in the articles on online groups collected in the SSA and SWA databases

the group process was not central to achieving the group’s objectives. The inclusion of therapeutic groups was not frequent, an aspect that is striking since many social workers offer this type of service, at least in the United States, which is where most of the publications originated from. The reason for the scarce presence of virtual therapeutic groups in the literature could be speculated as due to the fact that those who offer these professional services are not typically engaged in research and writing academic articles. Publications dedicated to task groups and social action groups were also low in number in the review sample. In the latter case, this was surprising in the context of social work (see Figure 14.5).

Technical Issues and Terminology for Technology-Based Groups It should finally be noted that the most frequent term used to describe intervention with distance and technology-mediated groups in social work is “online”, followed by “virtual” and “Internet”. Figure 14.6 shows these and other, less frequently used expressions which were identified in the literature review. The terms “computer assisted”, “computer conferencing” and “cyber”, among others, seem to be idiosyncratic. In short, it would seem that the term “online” is the term of choice for most authors. It can be observed that, in tandem with the evolution of the capacity of computers and video conferencing systems, there has been a shift from asynchronous groups, which dominated the 1990s and 2000s, to synchronous, which dominate the experiences described in more recent times. At the same time, asynchronous groupwork continues to provide, among other things, information and support. Also significant, on the one hand, is the shift from text-based groups to groups using rich audio and video. On the other hand, it should be noted that no clear reference has been observed regarding the use of smartphones as a method for connecting to groups, something that will undoubtedly become increasingly important in the coming years. 173

Andrés Arias Astray et al.

Figure 14.6 Terms most frequently used to refer to technology-mediated groups in articles collected in SSA and SWA

Conclusions With due caution given the limitations of this study, from the 167 articles selected for analysis from the SWG and SSA databases, some conclusions can be drawn about the state of research on online social group work. In this analysis, we could identify the development and evolution of the publications about the topic as well as the changes and impact in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. Research, although growing, is scarce, perhaps due, at least until 2019, to the limited intervention with online groups carried out by social workers. While there appears to have been some reluctance in the past, the lockdown resulting from Covid-19 has encouraged many professionals, previously unwilling, to start virtual practice. In the existing research, an abundance of programmatic, descriptive and case studies were identified. A lack of rigorous outcome research was noted, particularly of the experimental type, and almost no process research was found in this review. In other words, more methodologically robust research is needed. The research found in the literature focuses mainly on support or self-help groups that seek to respond to health-related issues or needs. Surprisingly, there were not many articles on therapeutic groups, nor many articles on task groups or on social action groups. The lack of continuity of a large part of the existing research is a point of concern. A very high percentage of researchers identified in this literature review had published only one paper on online groupwork, which seems to indicate that there may not be enough consolidated research programs in this field. If we had to describe an article that represents them all, it would be one that, in a programmatic way, underlines the importance and potential of social work with groups or describes an experience that may not have continuity over time.

174

Digital Social Group Work

A Renewed Research Agenda for Online Social Group Work In our modest understanding, a renewed agenda for online social work must answer at least the following questions that could undoubtedly ensure the continuity of relevant research programs. 1

2

3

4

5

What work are social workers conducting online? In particular, what use of groups are social workers making when they offer their services virtually? What tools do they use, what problems do they try to address, what types of groups do they work with and so on? There is a need to build and update a map of social work with online groups. What are the outputs of e-social group work? We need to establish if online social group work is effective/efficient? Is this true for all types of groups that develop virtually in social work? Ultimately, methodologically rigorous research results are needed. We cannot offer services if we do not know that they really work. How can social workers improve their online group work practice? To answer this question, it is clear that more research is required which analyzes and tests common and new developments in the virtual group practice setting. What are the main ethical problems and dilemmas arising in the context of online social work with groups? A surprising result of this literature review was that we did not find any reports of practical research on ethical issues and dilemmas, issues traditionally so important for social work. What are the main barriers or obstacles to working with online groups when it is the practice of choice? In relation to this question, research related to the behavior and attitudes of social work professionals towards technology, as well as their training needs in technology, will be very relevant.

Implications for Teaching and Learning in the Social Work Curriculum As Kurt Lewin (1952, 169) wrote, “there is nothing more practical than a good theory”. Therefore, we believe that there is a need to build a general theory of online social work with groups that goes beyond the use of specific digital tools or specific types of groups. It will be this general theory on which future professionals can be trained. This theory will incorporate the fundamental principles and values of social work. At the same time, it is necessary that online social group work expertise is developed by means of exemplary and real-life practices. Online social work must be learned in a practical way. For this, there is no doubt that social work educators must be properly prepared for this task. They must be up to date in technological developments, they must be competent in their use, as well as in the proper practice of social work with groups. The medium will change, but the essence remains. Of course, we must investigate how to achieve this.

175

Andrés Arias Astray et al.

References Alonso González, D., and A. Alonso Puelles. 2019. “Can and should social workers innovate? Two case studies of hidden social innovation.” Journal of Social Work Education and Practice 4(2): 1–11. Arias Astray, A., and A. Barrón. 2009. “Online support groups.” In Encyclopedia of Social Work With Groups, edited by A. Gitterman and R. S. Salmon. New York: Routledge. Arias Astray, A., and S. Segado. 2013. “Trabajo social con grupos en entornos virtuales o en línea.” In Modelos de Trabajo Social con Grupos: Nuevas Perspectivas y Nuevos Contextos, edited by S. Segado Sánchez-Cabezudo, M. Del Fresno García, and A. López Peláez. Madrid: Universitas. Cohen, J. 1960. “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46. 10.1177%2F001316446002000104 Coulson, N. S. 2018. “Peer-to-peer health-related online support groups.” In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 4th ed., edited by M. Khosrow-Pour, 3767–3781. Hershey PA: IGI Global. Davidson, J., and C. Schimmele. 2019. Evolving Internet Use Among Canadian Seniors. Statistics Canada. https://www.fortismedia.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/InternetUse-Canadian-Seniors.pdf Ebsco. 2021. Social Work Abstracts. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/ social-work-abstracts Finn, J., and M. Banach. 2000. “Victimization online: The downside of seeking human services for women on the Internet.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 3(5): 785–796. 10.1089/ 10949310050191764 Finn, J., and M. Lavitt. 1994. “Computer-based self-help groups for sexual abuse survivors.” Social Work with Groups 17(1-2): 21–46. 10.1300/J009v17n01_03 Flatley, R. K., R. Lilla, and J. Widner. 2007. “Choosing a database for social work: A comparison of Social Work Abstracts and Social Service Abstracts.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33(1): 47–55. Galinsky, M. J., J. H. Schopler, and M. D. Abell. 1997. “Connecting group members through telephone and computer groups.” Health & Social Work 22: 181–188. 10.1093/ hsw/22.3.181 International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). 2014. Global Definition of Social Work. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/ Kemp, S. 2021. Digital 2021 October Global Statshot Report. Hootsuite & We Are Social. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-october-global-statshot Kirwan, G., and J. Byrne. 2021. “The history of technology in social work.” In Social Work in Digital Societies, edited by A. D. Alonso, A. Arias Astray, and A. Alonso, 49–62. Madrid: Macgraw-Hill. Kudoo, A., A. Pahurkar, U. Prajapati, and J. Ramteke. 2021. “Real-time compression artifact reduction for low bandwidth video conferencing.” 2021 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI). 10.1109/iccci50826.2021.9402387 Landis J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.” Biometrics 33: 159–174. 10.2307/2529310 Lewin, K. 1952. Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. Tavistock: London. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello Servós. 2021. “Digital social work in digital societies: Challenges for research, practice, and innovation.” In Social Work in Digital Societies, edited byD. Alonso González, A. Arias Astray, and A. Alonso Puelles, 63–76. Madrid: Macgraw-Hill. Madara, E. J. 1990. “Maximizing the potential for community self-help through clearinghouse approaches”. Prevention in Human Services 7(2): 109–138. OECD. 2020. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020. OECD Publishing. 10.1787/bb167041-en

176

Digital Social Group Work OECD. 2021. Historical Data for Fixed and Mobile Broadband. Key ICT Indicators. https://www.oecd.org/digital/broadband/oecdkeyictindicators.htm Parker-Oliver, D., and G. Demiris. 2006. “Social work informatics: A new specialty.” Social Work 51(2): 127–134. 10.1093/sw/51.2.127 Reamer, F. G. 2013. “Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges.” Social Work 58(2): 163–172. 10.1093/sw/swt003 Rhoades, H., S. L. Wenzel, E. Rice, H. Winetrobe, and B. Henwood. 2017. “No digital divide? Technology use among homeless adults.” Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 26(1): 73–77. 10.1080/10530789.2017.1305140 Rice, E., and A. Barman-Adhikari. 2014. “Internet and social media use as a resource among homeless youth.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(2): 232–247. Smyth, K. A., and P. B. Harris. 1993. “Using telecomputing to provide information and support to caregivers of persons with dementia.” The Gerontologist 33(1): 123–127. 10.1093/geront/33.1.123 Taylor-Beswick, A. 2021. “Social work, technologies and Covid-19.” In Social Work and Covid-19: Lessons for Education and Practice, edited by D. Turner. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Tierney, S. 2006. “The dangers and draw of online communication: Pro-anorexia websites and their implications for users, practitioners, and researchers.” Eating Disorders 14(3): 181–190. 10.1080/10640260600638865 Toseland, R. W., and R. F. Rivas. 2017. An Introduction to Group Work Practice. 8th ed. Boston MA: Pearson. Tripathi, S., and A. Bajpai. 2021. “Living in today’s world: Reflections on the interactions between technology and human relational patterns.” Technology in Society 67: 101706. Webb, M., J. Burns, and P. Collin. 2008. “Providing online support for young people with mental health difficulties: Challenges and opportunities explored.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 2(2): 108–113. 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2008.00066.x Weinberg, N., J. D. Schmale, J. Uken, and K. Wessel. 1995. “Computer-mediated support groups.” Social Work with Groups 17(4): 43–54. 10.1300/J009v17n04_04

177

PART 3

Digital Social Work in Practice

PART 3A

Digital Social Work with Client Groups

15 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, ROBOTICS AND GERONTOLOGICAL SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly

Introduction A global transformation is taking place as the world’s population is rapidly ageing, and for the first time in history, most people can expect to live into their sixties and beyond; According to World Population Prospects 2019 (United Nations, 2019), by 2050, 1 in 6 people in the world will be over the age of 65, up from 1 in 11 in 2019. All societies in the world are in the midst of this longevity revolution … What is more, the proportion of adult life spent beyond age 65 increased from less than a fifth in the 1960s to a quarter or more in most developed countries today. (United Nations 2019, 5) While increased longevity is a cause of celebration, many advanced economies face major challenges to ensure that their health and social care systems are ready to make the most of this demographic shift (Kodate and Timonen 2017). A particular challenge is the projected increase in the numbers of people living with dementia, and the need to support ageing in place, which is the preference of the majority (Donnelly, Begley, and O’Brien 2019; United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In some countries, digital technologies such as robots are gradually being adopted as a policy solution to tackle the workforce shortage and promote ageing in place. Furthermore, the recent global pandemic has affected the lives of older people particularly harshly, and reinforced the view that building capacity in health systems by utilising technologies should be one of the public policy priorities. Increasing attention is also being paid to the role

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-19

183

Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly

of assistive technology in supporting healthy ageing and the lives of people with disabilities, including people living with dementia, and the ethical issues relating to consent and human rights in this context. This chapter will outline a brief overview of policy developments regarding care robots and assistive technology, as part of the digitalisation process, and explore the perceptions and attitudes of care professionals towards such technologies, with a particular focus on robotics-aided care. It presents some empirical studies that highlight opportunities and challenges with regard to using assistive technologies. The chapter also considers major implications for gerontological social work policy and practice.

Development of Care Robots, Assistive Technology and Policy Developments in Relation to Older People Service Provision What Is Assistive Technology? Assistive technology (AT) can be defined as “an umbrella term for any device or system that allows individuals to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to carry out or that increase the ease and safety with which it can” (Davies et al. 2017, 252). AT is deigned to promote and support the well-being of people in need, by enabling them to live a healthy, productive, and independent life (World Health Organization 2018). AT often supports activities of daily living (ADLs) independently, or even with assistance. ADLs include personal care such as toileting, mobility (ambulation), eating, bathing, dressing, and grooming. Therefore, AT includes wheelchairs, walkers, lifts, exoskeletons, prosthesis, braille display, screen magnifier, hearing aids, memory aids, in-home monitoring, care robots, and wearable technology.

Historical Overview of Policy Relating to Assistive Technology While AT has a long history, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century, it was officially recognised by the U.S. Congress in 1988 as an instrument and device to “increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” when the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 was passed (Bryant and Seay 1998). In Japan, as one of the fastest ageing countries, AT has been labelled as “welfare equipment” (fukushi yōgu), and in 1993 the Act on the Promotion of Research, Development and Dissemination of Welfare Equipment was passed. In the same year, the European standardisation organisation CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) produced standards for AT (Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 19931993). According to the standards, most of ATs fall under the Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993). In parallel, in 2005, there was also the development of a trans-European telecommunications network, when the EASTIN (European Assistive Technology Information Network) was founded in the European Union. 184

Assistive Technologies and Robotics

In order to ensure accessibility and promote social inclusion, the concept of “universal design” and “design for all” began to be used across Europe (European Accessibility Act 2015). The term “universal design” was coined in the late 1990s by an American architect and advocate for people with disabilities, Ronald Mace. The concept signifies the “design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University 1997). The seven principles of universal design include (1) equitable use, (2) flexibility in use, (3) simple and intuitive use, (4) perceptible information, (5) tolerance for error, (6) low physical effort, and (7) size and space for approach and use (National Disability Authority n.d.).

Conceptual Models for Assistive Technology Internationally, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was a major milestone in setting a framework for considering disability to be the results of an interaction between the person and his/her environment (World Health Organization 2002). In this model, AT is part of the latter component, which is external to the person. Furthermore, the WHO published a report in 2015, outlining a framework for action to foster healthy ageing based on the new concept of functional ability, or “the health-related attributes that enable people to be and to do what they have reason to value” (World Health Organization 2015). With this new concept, the environment in which an older person lives is regarded as playing an essential role in enabling her or his functional ability. AT is therefore expected to enhance the environment, which will lead to healthy ageing and ageing in place, or “the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently and comfortably, regardless of age, income or level of capacity” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention n.d.; United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model, devised by Cook and Polgar (2015), is well-known and describes AT as a tool to enable a human to do an activity in a context. One of the key professional disciplines and early adopters of AT were occupational therapists (OTs), and they have been the frontrunner in educating and promoting the use of AT to improve the quality of life for care recipients. Their Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance (PEOP) model (Baum, Christiansen, and Bass 2015) also describes AT as environmental enablers (or barriers). In recent years, a social-ecological systems approach such as HAAT and PEOP has become more commonly used (Kodate 2021; AAATE 2012).

Use of Assistive Technology in Care Settings: A Case of Care Robots When it comes to the use of AT in care settings, the physical, social, cultural, and institutional context are all important. For example, in Ireland, for a long time, AT infrastructure has been insufficient and underdeveloped, compared with other countries such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands (National Disability 185

Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly

Authority 2012). To remedy the situation, many advocacy groups in Ireland, including National Disability Authority (NDA), Enable Ireland, Disability Federation of Ireland, and ALONE, have been very active over the last decade. The NDA was founded in 2007 under the 2005 Disability Act with the goal of achieving universal access, and spearheaded several projects promoting the use of AT (Government of Ireland 2005; Mendelsohn 1997). Care robots can be seen as a variant of AT. While the use of care robots for older people has been a recent trend, it is a fast-growing area (Charisi et al. 2021). A robot is an intelligent mechanical system with three main functions (detecting, assessing, and acting on the information) (National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology 2017). Drawing on National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) (2017) and adapted from Obayashi, Kodate, and Masuyama (2020), care robots can be broadly classified into three types (Table 15.1). In Italy, a care robot was developed and brought into homes as a result of the EU-funded H2020 project named Robot-Era (Implementation and integration of advanced Robotic systems and intelligent Environments in Real scenarios for the Ageing population) (SPARC 2015; Pavolini, Ranci, and Lamura 2017). In Denmark, a feeding robot Bestic was implemented in care homes under the auspices of the government and local authorities (Nickelsen 2018). Also in Germany, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has been funding research and development projects for robotic support of care under the banner of “Robotic Systems for Care” (Robotische Systeme für die Pflege) (BMBF n.d.). Robotics has great potential for realising home care, and it is estimated that in Finland, 20 per cent of current nursing work could be replaced by robots (Kangasniemi and Andersson 2016). Due to increasing demand, work pressure, and a shortage of carers, the integration of robots and information and communication technology into care provision and daily life has been given serious thought in countries such as Australia,

Table 15.1 Three types of care robots Type

Primary target users

Examples

1 Physical support type

Caregivers

2 Independent-living support type 3 Communication, comfort and safety monitoring type

Care recipients living autonomously Care recipients being paired up with care givers

Power suits, a modular robot arm and robots that assist with bathing, dining, excretion and sleep, and transferring Powered exoskeletons, and mobile arm/hand support Safety monitoring, giving guidance to people with dementia, and companionship

Sources: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (2017); Obayashi, Kodate, and Masuyama (2020).

186

Assistive Technologies and Robotics

Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Japan. In Japan, robots and caremonitoring systems are already commercially available, and a strong impetus exists for bringing these innovative assistive technologies into care facilities and private homes (MHLW n.d.). The development of care robots is moving forward with the aim of achieving Society 5.0. Society 5.0 is defined by the Cabinet Office of Japan (CAO) as follows: “a human-centered society that balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space” (CAO n.d.). However, in the context of care giving, some questions have been raised. In the public discourse, the dichotomy of “cold technologies vs. warm care” (Pols and Moser 2009) has been a dominant narrative and widely shared perception. The word robot was first used in the Czech writer Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots 1920), with the word robota meaning “servitude,” “forced labor,” or “drudgery” in the old Slavonic language (Dinan 2017). Therefore, there is a deep-rooted binary view of “robots vs. humans,” and people have concerns that cheaper and more efficient robots can potentially replace humans in the workplace. Indeed there has been scepticism about the use of such technologies in older people’s care particularly among social care professionals (Saborowski and Kollak 2015).

What Do We Know about Older People, Social Work and Health and Social Care Professionals’ (HSCPs) Attitudes and Perceptions of Robotics and Assistive Technology? Addressing the anticipated lack of formal care capacity in the era of global ageing, assistive technologies, including robots, are expected to play a greater role in the future. Societies now have the potential to provide a mix of human and technological applications to health and social care delivery, and the technologisation of care is high on the agenda for policy and practice (Share and Pender 2018). There is still a strong view however, particularly amongst health and social care professionals (including social workers), older people and family cares, that such technologies should not be part of human and personal care services (Suwa et al. 2020). Many opinion polls have shown generally negative attitudes towards technological solutions. However, evidence has begun to emerge, reporting some tangible and intangible benefits (e.g. increased safety and reduced social isolation) for both caregivers and care recipients. For example, research has shown that monitoring technologies can provide comfort and relief to carers (Bennett 2019; Obayashi et al. 2020). Other studies highlighted positive impacts of socially assistive (communication or pet-type) robots on older people (Moyle et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2018). To date, however, there has been relatively little research looking at the perceptions of potential immediate users, including older people in receipt of care, carers, social workers, and HSCPs to name a few (Kodate et al. 2021). The latest Eurobarometer in 2017 indicates that while 61 per cent of respondents have a positive view of robots and artificial intelligence (defined as systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking action – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals (European 187

Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly

Commission 2017), 88 per cent agreed that robots and artificial intelligence are technologies that require careful management. Previous research also suggests differences in the way that men and women approach the use of robots. The results of a European study indicate that gender, age, and education are all independent variables correlated with the individual’s opinions on the use of robots in caring for older people (Hudson, Orviska, and Hunady 2017). In relation to older people specifically, Merkel and Hess (2020) found that older users who are better educated and from a higher socio-economic status group are more likely to use internet-based health and social care while older people in rural areas are less likely to use these services. It has also been reported that the rate of older people’s acceptance of wearable technology remains low despite technological improvements (Laitinen, Niemelä, and Pirhonen 2016; Rantanen et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; Turja and Oksanen 2019). There is thankfully an emerging body of research on attitudes and perceptions of HSCPs which it is helpful to discuss. Saborowski and Kollak (2015) discovered that many care workers experience difficulties using technology: devices malfunction, are unreliable, are difficult to handle, and can be expensive for institutions or older people. However, if a device or a system works well and is perceived to be supportive, care workers are very open to using it with other devices or services and discovering new functions within it (Work Research Centre and Genio 2015). A recent questionnaire study carried out in Japan, Finland, and Ireland explored the principal factors affecting home-care staff perceptions, which included “respect for older person’s autonomy,” “non-maleficence,” and “beneficence.” The results showed a significantly high rate of “Familiarity with Robots” in Japan compared with both Ireland and Finland. Ninety per cent of the respondents in all three countries responded that the potential user should make his or her own decision regarding the use of home-care robots, thus placing great value on selfdetermination. Interestingly, in Ireland and Finland, the greatest importance was placed on the guarantee of the entitlement to receive human care, irrespective of the use of home-care robots, which again indicates a strong commitment to human rights underpinning to attitudes, policy, and practice in these jurisdictions (Suwa et al. 2020). In the Irish context, HSCPs with care responsibilities in their private capacity expressed more interest in, and readiness to use, home-care robots, while stressing the importance of “privacy protection” and “guaranteed access to human care.” Both older people and HSCPs identified observation and recording of older people’s mental and physical condition as desirable functions of such robots, whereas practical functions such as fall prevention and mobility support were also deemed desirable by HSCPs (Kodate et al. 2021).

The Benefits and Challenges of Assistive Technology and Robotics for Gerontological Social Workers in Practice Existing literature and policy pertaining to technologies in social work education and practice has a knowledge base that is sporadic and sparse. It has been argued that the 188

Assistive Technologies and Robotics

profession has not engaged sufficiently with digitalisation thus far (Hill and Shaw 2011; Taylor 2017). The emerging practice dilemmas evidence the need for practitioners who can differentiate between technology usage that is “empowering and human-centred” and that which is “divisive and dehumanising” (Schwab 2017, 2). The importance of e-Professionalism and the need for social workers to focus on both their ethical and digital literacy so that they practise with integrity, reputations are safeguarded, and clients are not harmed by inappropriate use of technology, has been stressed (McAuliffe and Nipperess 2017). In the context of AT and robotics, it is easy for social workers to focus on the potential problems such as risks to confidentiality, challenges in fostering therapeutic relationships, or the possibility of technological glitches or malfunctions (Harris and Birnbaum 2014). Barsky (2017) makes the argument that the strength’s perspective should be the starting point for social workers, identifying the positive uses of technology for older people, rather than simply focusing on risks or problems. Bennett et al. (2017, 751) suggest that technology may help support advance planning for older people by increasing awareness of the need for planning and facilitating access to documentation to support the planning process. Technology may also significantly enhance access to services for a variety of older people. For example, teleconferencing can provide timely and convenient access for older people who live in rural and remote areas, as well as for urban dwelling older people who may not have the time or resources to travel to a social work agency for services (Harris and Birnbaum 2014). Relationship building between service providers and older people can therefore be enhanced and strengthened if such technologies are used by social workers equipped with an understanding of how and why such forms of communication can assist relationship development in their practice (Byrne and Kirwan 2019). For this to happen, “linear, routinised, technical and task-oriented aspects of practice” (Morley, Ablet, and Stenhouse 2019, 143) are not enough, and it is vital to educate and foster social work practitioners with strong ethics and values. In any consideration of social support to older people in terms of ageing in place, the regulation of access to assistive technology is critically important (Zhu and Andersen 2020). This varies very much from country to country in line with the different social insurance systems in place (Saborowski and Kollak 2015). Central to the debates over the use of assistive technology and robotics in aged care, however, has been concerns over the implications of robotics-aided care for the dignity of those using them (Alzheimer Europe 2010, 58; Bennett 2019). For example, safety monitoring that uses photographs and videos captures not only the older person but also his or her surrounding environment as well, hence, there is a high risk of violating privacy (Suwa et al. 2020). In addition, the challenge of keeping up with technology may be particularly acute for older persons, and they may be vulnerable to “elder abuse” by those who would seek to take advantage of their limited knowledge of technology, or their limited capacity in the case of those with dementia or other cognitive conditions (Bennett 2019). For those living with dementia, one of the positives, is the potential to harness these technologies to support greater independence and social integration, allowing older people to live in their own homes for longer than might otherwise be the case. 189

Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly

On the negative side are concerns about loss of privacy and loss of dignity, particularly through the use of technologies that may be used to monitor the activities of the person living with dementia or loss of autonomy if technology is used to support restrictions on movement (Bennett 2019). In a policy landscape where health and social care systems in many jurisdictions are heavily reliant on informal and family care to support older people to age in place, there has been increased attention given to the ethical challenges associated with balancing the rights of older people and their family carers in relation to decision-making and privacy when using AT/robotics. A focus on the older person as decision-maker, as reflected in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2015), states that disability does not negate rights or the need to provide appropriate decision-making supports to ensure that those rights can be exercised. With the individual as decision-maker, consent becomes a key factor in the process of deciding whether to use assistive technologies to support an older person. Gerontological social workers have a key role to play in navigating this difficult ethical terrain where issues of autonomy, control, and human rights are paramount (Donnelly and Torres 2022). In order for supported decision-making to be fully actualised in relation to AT and robotics care, social workers must advocate and ensure the promotion of the older person’s voice, autonomy and participation in decision-making. They must also help establish and maintain a purposeful, supported decision-making environment (Donnelly 2021), informing the older person in advance of the risks and benefits in a clearly understandable way (Suwa et al. 2020). Given the progressive nature of dementia, its impact on cognitive capacity, and the ability to communicate at later stages, advance care planning on this issue is vital and social workers have been recognised as being well positioned to take a leadership role in this task (Otis-Green et al. 2019). As in other areas of advance planning, early discussion about the older person’s values and views in relation to use of assistive technologies may help to inform later decision-making by the person themselves or by substitute decision-makers. Bennett (2019) argues that the adoption of a human rights lens can provide valuable insights to assist in deciding whether the use of technology will be supportive of older persons, including those with disabilities. Key questions to be decided are: who gets the decision-making rights in relation to whether or not to use a technology; whether the technology protects the privacy, dignity, and liberty of the person using it; whether it supports mobility, companionship, and social engagement; and finally, whether the technology is accessible to all on an equitable basis (Bennett 2019, 6). This positioning fits well with the value base of the social work profession and its commitment to social justice which places gerontological social workers in a unique position to promote equality and to uphold older people’s human rights and to add to the quality of life and health and social care they are entitled to.

Conclusion and Implications for Policy and Practice Our readiness for a future that includes artificial intelligence, robotics and automation, needs further exploration. If we do not take steps to bridge digital 190

Assistive Technologies and Robotics

knowledge gaps in social work future generations will have good reason to hold us responsible (Susskind and Susskind 2015, 307). Social work education should not be reduced to what robots can be programmed to do otherwise, social work graduates may find that they are not competitive with the next generation of artificial intelligence (Morley, Ablet, and Stenhouse 2019). We argue that by adopting a more critical and reflexive approach, including the use of a human rights lens to evaluate the use of technology, ensures that the interests of the person being cared for, including their privacy-related rights, are given full consideration (Bennett et al. 2017). For technology to be able to play a supportive role in the lives of older people, the technology needs to be accessible. Cost can be a barrier to the accessibility of technology (Alzheimer Europe 2010, 6; Kodate et al. 2022). However, other factors including lack of training with, and awareness of, technology can also be relevant (Australian Human Rights Commission 2018, 37). Organisational support for the use of AT, embedded in care processes and teamwork, also needs to be carefully considered (Kodate et al. 2021; Pirhonen et al. 2020) so that AT and care robots are not used to replace human care. Social workers have a key role to play in helping older people to navigate the ethical and practical challenges associated with using technology to support independent living not only at the micro level of the individual but also at the macro level in terms of influencing wider policy and service provision.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Toyota Foundation (Co-Creating New Society with Advanced Technologies – D18-ST-0005) for funding our study “Harmonisation towards the establishment of Person-centred, Robotics-aided Care System (HARP:RoCS).”

References Act on the Promotion of Research, Development and Dissemination of Welfare Equipment (Fukushi yōgu no kenkyū kaihatsu oyobi fukyū no sokushin ni kansuru hōritsu, Japanese). 1993. Japan. https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=405AC0000000038 (accessed 25 March 2022). Alzheimer Europe. 2010. Alzheimer Europe report. The ethical issues linked to the use of assistive technology in dementia care. Luxembourg: Alzheimer Europe. Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE). 2012. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: Position paper. Retrieved from https://aaate.net/ (accessed 25 March 2022). Australian Human Rights Commission. 2018. Human rights and technology: Issues paper (July 2018). Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission. Barsky, A. E. 2017. “Social work practice and technology: Ethical issues and policy responses.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(1): 8–19. 10.1080/15228835.2017. 1277906 Baum, C. M., C. H. Christiansen, and J. D. Bass. 2015. “The person-environment-occupationperformance (PEOP) model.” In Occupational Therapy: Performance, Participation, and Well-Being

191

Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly (4th ed.), edited by C. H. Christiansen, C. M. Baum, and J. D. Bass, 49–56. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Incorporated. Bennett, B. 2019. “Technology, ageing and human rights: Challenges for an ageing world.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Sep-Oct: 66:101449. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101449. Epub 2019 Jun 21. PMID: 31706404. Bennett, B., F. McDonald, E. Beattie, T. Carney, I. Freckelton, B. White, and L. Willmott. 2017. “Assistive technologies for people with dementia: Ethical considerations.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 95: 749–755. 10.2471/BLT.16.187484 BMBF. n.d. Collaborative projects. Retrieved from https://www.pflege-und-robotik.de/ (accessed 26 March 2022). Bryant, B. R., and P. C. Seay. 1998. “The technology-related assistance to individuals with disabilities act: Relevance to individuals with learning disabilities and their advocates.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (1): 4–15. 10.1177/002221949803100102 Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. 10.1080/02650533.2019.1604499 CAO, Japan. n.d. What is Society 5.0 (Japanese). Retrieved from https://www8.cao.go.jp/ cstp/english/society5_0/index.html (accessed 25 March 2022). Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University. 1997. The principles of universal design. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/ udprinciplestext.htm (accessed 26 March 2022). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). n.d. Healthy places terminology. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm (accessed 25 March 2022). Charisi, V., R. Compañó, N. Duch Brown, E. Gomez, D. Klenert, M. Lutz, R. Marschinski, and C. Torrecilla-Salinas. 2021. “JRC conference and workshop report: What future for European robotics? A science for policy perspective.” European Commission. Retrieved from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/ (accessed 26 March 2022). Cook, A. M., and J. M. Polgar. 2015. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice, 4th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Mosby. Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Retrieved from https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31993L0042&from= EN (accessed 25 March 2022). Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31993L0068&rid=1 (accessed 25 March 2022). Davies, R., R., Fukuda, H.-M. Hua, S. Martin, M. Mulvenna, and S. Merkel. 2017. “Assistive technology for older people.” In Gerontechnology: Research, Practice, and Principles in the Field of Technology and Aging, edited by S. Kwon, 251–270. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Dinan, M. 2017. “The robot condition: Karel Čapek’s R.U.R. and Hannah Arendt on labor, technology, and innovation.” Perspectives on Political Science 46(2): 108–117. Donnelly, S. 2021. “The assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act, 2015: Reflections for the profession of social work.” In Towards a New Frontier for Human Rights: The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 Personal and Professional Reflections. Dublin: Health Service Executive. Donnelly, S., E. Begley, and M. O’Brien. 2019. “How are people with dementia involved in care-planning and decision-making? An Irish social work perspective.” Dementia 18 (7-8): 2985–3003. 10.1177%2F1471301218763180 Donnelly, S. and S. Torres. 2022. “Social work and critical gerontology: Why the former needs the latter.” In Critical Gerontology for Social Workers, edited by S. Torres and S. Donnelly. Bristol: Policy Press. European Accessibility Act. 2015. European Commission: Employment, social affairs and inclusion. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1202 (accessed 23 March 2022).

192

Assistive Technologies and Robotics European Assistive Technology Information Network (EASTIN). 2012. Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: Position paper. https://aaate.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 12/2016/02/ATServiceDelivery_PositionPaper.pdf (Accessed 3 January 2021). European Commission. 2017. Special Eurobaromer 460. Attitudes towards the impact of digitisation and automation on daily life. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/ jrccties/files/ebs_460_en.pdf (accessed 26 March 2022). Government of Ireland. 2005. Disability Act. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/ 14/enacted/en/html Harris, B., and R. Birnbaum. 2014. “Ethical and legal implications on the use of technology in counselling.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43: 133–141. 10.1007/s10615-014-0515-0 Hill, A., and I. Shaw. 2011. Social Work and ICT. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Hudson, J., M. Orviska, and J. Hunady. 2017. “People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly.” International Journal of Social Robotics 9 (2): 199–210. Kangasniemi, M., and C. Andersson. 2016. Enemmän inhimillistä hoivaa (More Human Nurturing, in Finnish). Finnish Business and Policy Forum publication. https://www.eva. fi/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Enemm%C3%A4n-inhimillist%C3%A4-hoivaa.pdf (accessed 25 March 2022). Kodate, N. 2021. “Social, cultural and policy issues of perception of life assistive technologies: The case of social implementation of nursing care robots (Seikatsu shien gijutsu no juyo wo meguru shakai, bunka, seisaku teki kadai: kaigo robotto no shakai jisso wo jirei ni. Japanese).” In Technologies to Assist Older People and Related Social Issues, edited by I. Sugawara and M. Nihei, 65–80. Japan: Research and Legislative Reference Bureau, National Diet Library. Available from: https://www.ndl.go.jp/jp/diet/publication/ document/2021/index.html#rm1234023 (accessed 5 April 2022). Kodate, N., K. Obayashi, H. Mannan, and S. Masuayama. 2022. “Using a systems approach to understand quality improvement in a nursing home in Japan: Robotics-aided care and organisational culture.” In Systems Thinking for Global Health: How Can Systems-Thinking Contribute to Solving Key Challenges in Global Heath?, edited by F. Larkan, F. Vallières, H. Mannan, and N. Kodate. Oxford: Oxford University Press (In Press). Kodate, N., S. Donnelly, S. Suwa, M. Tsujimura, H., Kitinoja, J. Hallila, M. Toivonen, H. Ide, and W. Yu. 2021. “Home-care robots – attitudes and perceptions among older people, carers and care professionals in Ireland: A questionnaire study.” Health and Social Care in the Community. 10.1111/hsc.13327 Kodate, N., and V. Timonen. 2017. “Bringing the family in through the back door: The stealthy expansion of family care in Asian and European long-term care policy.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 32 (3): 291–301. 10.1007/s10823-017-9325-5 Laitinen, A., M. Niemelä, and J. Pirhonen. 2016. “Social robotics, elderly care, and human dignity: A recognition-theoretical approach.” In What Social Robots Can and Should Do, edited by J. Seibt, M. Nørskov, and S. Schack Andersen, 155–163. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Li, J., Q. A. Ma, H. S. Chan, and S. S. Man. 2019. “Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: Smart wearables acceptance model.” Applied Ergonomics 75: 162–169. 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006 McAuliffe, D., and S. Nipperess. 2017. “E-professionalism and the ethical use of technology in social work.” Australian Social Work 70 (2): 131–134. 10.1080/0312407X.2016.1221790 Mendelsohn, S. 1997. “Assistive technology: Public policy and financing.” Technology & Disability 6 (1-2): 17–29. Merkel, S., and M. Hess. 2020, “The use of internet-based health and care services by elderly people in Europe and the importance of the country context: Multilevel study.” JMIR Aging 3 (1): e15491. 10.2196/15491 MHLW. About care robots. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-12300000Roukenkyoku/0000210895.pdf (accessed 23 March 2022). Morley, C., P. Ablet, and K. Stenhouse. 2019, “Technicist education: Paving the way for the rise of the social work robots?” Critical and Radical Social Work 7 (2): 139–154.

193

Naonori Kodate and Sarah Donnelly Moyle, W., C. J. Jones, J. E. Murfield, L. Thalib, E. R. A. Beattie, D. K. H. Shum, S. T. O’Dwyer, M. Cindy Mervin, and B. M. Draper. 2017. “Use of a robotic seal as a therapeutic tool to improve dementia symptoms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 18 (9): 766–773. National Disability Authority. 2012. Research on the Provision of Assistive Technology in Ireland and other Countries to Support Independence living across the Life Cycle. NDA: Work Research Centre. National Disability Authority. n.d. The 7 principles. Retrieved from https://universaldesign. ie/what-is-universal-design/the-7-principles/ (accessed 26 March 2022). National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan. 2017. Large-scale empirical studies on utilization of communication robots in the field of nursing care, 2017. http://robotcare.jp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/communi_robo_veri_test_ report.pdf (accessed 3 June 2020). Nickelsen, N. C. M. 2018. “Socio-technical imaginaries and human-robotics proximity: The case of Bestic.” In Envisioning Robots in Society: Power, Politics, and Public Space, edited by M. Coeckelbergh, J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, and M. Nørskov, 212–220. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Obayashi K., N. Kodate, and S. Masuyama. 2020. “Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan.” Technology in Society 62. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101318 Otis-Green, S., J. Thomas, L. Duncan A. Walling, C. Lieto, C. Kung, C., Pietras , and N. Wenger 2019. “Advance care planning: Opportunities for clinical social work leadership.” Clinical Social Work Journal 47: 309–320. 10.1007/s10615-019-00709-z Pavolini, E., C. Ranci, and G. Lamura. 2017. “Long-term care in Italy.” In Long-Term Care for the Elderly in Europe: Development and Prospects, edited by B. Greve, 75–92. Abingdon: Routledge. Pirhonen, J., L. Lolich, K. Tuominen, O. Jolanki, and V. Timonen. 2020. “These devices have not been made for older people’s needs” – Older adults’ perceptions of digital technologies in Finland and Ireland. Technology in Society 62. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101287 Pols, J., and I. Moser. 2009. “Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies.” Alter – European Journal of Disability Research, Revue Européen de Recherche sur le Handicap 3 (2): 159–178. Rantanen T., P. Lehto, P. Vuorinen, and K. Coco. 2018. “The adoption of care robots in home care: A survey on the attitudes of Finnish home care personnel.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 27 (9-10): 1846–1859. 10.1111/jocn.14355 Saborowski, M., and I. Kollak. 2015. “How do you care for technology?” – Care professionals’ experiences with assistive technology in care of the elderly. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 93 (20): 133–140. 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.006 Schwab, K. 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. London: Penguin Share, P., and J. Pender. 2018. “Preparing for a robot future? Social professions, social robotics and the challenges ahead.” Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies 18 (1): 4. 10.21427/D7472 M. Available at: https://arrow.dit.ie/ijass/vol18/iss1/4 SPARC. 2015. “Robotics 2020 multi-annual roadmap for robotics in Europe horizon 2020 call ICT-2016 (ICT-25 & ICT-26).” Retrieved from https://www.eu-robotics. net/sparc/upload/about/files/H2020-Robotics-Multi-Annual-Roadmap-ICT-2016.pdf (accessed 25 March 2022). Susskind, R. E., and D. Susskind. 2015. The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Oxford: Open University Press. Suwa, S., M. Tsujimura, N. Kodate, S. Donnelly, H. Kitinoja, J. Hallila, M. Toivonen, H. Ide, C. Bergman-Kärpijoki, E. Takahashi, M. Ishimaru, A. Shimamura, and W. Yu. 2020. “Exploring perceptions toward home-care robots for older people in Finland, Ireland, and Japan: A comparative questionnaire study.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 91. 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104178

194

Assistive Technologies and Robotics Taylor, A. 2017. “Social work and digitalisation: Bridging the knowledge gaps.” Social Work Education 36 (8): 869–879. Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988. Catalogue No. 850. (Senate Rpt. 100-438). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE102-Pg1044.pdf (accessed 25 March 2022). Turja, T., and A. Oksanen. 2019. “Robot acceptance at work: A multilevel analysis based on 27 EU countries.” International Journal of Social Robotics 11: 679–689. 10.1007/s12369019-00526-x United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2015. [Web page]. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-therights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (accessed 25 March 2022). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2019. World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/430). United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ healthyplaces/terminology.htm (accessed 28 January 2021). Wilson, J. R., N. Y. Lee, A. Saechao, L. Tickle-Degnen, and M. Scheutz. 2018. “Supporting human autonomy in a robot-assisted medication sorting task.” International Journal of Social Robotics 10: 621–641. Work Research Centre and Genio. 2015. Implementing assistive technology in dementia care services: A guide for practitioners. Retrieved from https://www.genio.ie/our-impact/researchevidence/implementing-assistive-technology-dementia (accessed 26 March 2022). World Health Organization. 2002. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF: ICF (The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retreived from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/ training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf (accessed 26 March 2022). World Health Organization. 2015. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. 2018. Assistive technology. [Web page]. Retrieved from https:// www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology (accessed 25 March 2022). Zhu, H., and S. T. Andersen. 2020. “ICT-mediated social work practice and innovation: Professionals’ experiences in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.” Nordic Social Work Research. 10.1080/2156857X.2020.1740774

195

16 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN STATUTORY CHILDREN’S SERVICES Thomas Mackrill

Introduction The term statutory Children’s Services employed in this chapter refers to frontline organizations that undertake the following tasks. They deal with notifications regarding at risk children. They assess risk and care. They refer children and families to interventions or care and perhaps conduct certain interventions themselves. They follow up on the child’s situation with regard to risk and care. Organizations that provide care and intervention services without statutory authority are not the focus of this chapter. Research into the use of digital technologies in this field has focused on a range of differing functions. There is research into case management systems. There is research that studies the use of communication technologies between service users and the social workers who work with them, referred to in this chapter hereafter as caseworkers. Some research focuses on digital tools that are made specifically to enhance child and family participation in statutory work. There is also some, albeit limited, research that focuses on the use of digital technology to train statutory caseworkers. This chapter will explore each of these fields and point to challenges connected with the use of such technologies. The chapter points out that most of the issues relating to the use of new digital technologies concern classic statutory social work issues, where the new technology has added to the complexity of dealing with the issue.

Case Management Systems There has been a wealth of critical discussion, particularly in the United Kingdom, about the impact of case management systems that have been developed in connection with the implementation of the Integrated Children’s System. Systems such as this have been developed with the aim of making sure children who come into contact with statutory children’s services are systematically and thoroughly

196

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-20

Digital Technology in Statutory Services

assessed and that legal requirements are upheld (Shaw et al. 2009; Fahnøe 2015). A key question with regard to using case management and also decision-making systems in children’s services is the extent to which the systems enhance or reduce the support provided to at risk children. Some policy makers initially seem to have believed that it was possible to reduce human factors in statutory casework to a high degree by developing very technical and bureaucratic digital systems to limit false positives and false negatives in risk assessments (Wastell 2011). From this perspective caseworker discretion and relational factors were seen as a key source of error, which could be reduced by implementing complex digital systems. Contrary to this view was the widely held view among professional social workers, that professional discretion is a necessary and key element in undertaking assessments, and that case management and decision-making systems needed someone to feed them with relevant information and interpret their outputs (Wastell and White 2014a). Viewed from a professional caseworker perspective, the attempt to limit rather than inform the professional’s discretion risked increasing the number of false positive and false negatives. Similarly, caseworkers in Australia did not experience that a structured decision-making tool assisted decision-making, or promoted consistency in decision-making, or targeted the children most in need of a service (Gillingham 2009). A further finding in research into the implementation of case management and decision-making systems was that they changed the focus of children’s services in a way whereby statutory caseworkers increasingly became concerned with fulfilling managerial bureaucratic requirements at the expense of tailoring their practice to the needs of specific children and families (Gillingham 2011; Wastell and White 2014a). Concerns were raised in the literature that the time spent managing the digital system detracted from time that could be spent working directly with families to improve their situation, and time spent earning families’ trust, which might improve the quality of the information that families were willing to give (Samuel 2005; Gillingham 2009). Thus, the issue of case-management and decision-making tools in statutory family services contains an embedded conflict, as Sarwar and Harris (2019, 699) noted when they wrote about the underlying, ‘discord between socio-historically evolved professional values epitomising the social work profession and managerialist reforms promoting standardised ways of performing it’. This is a classic social work issue, regarding how to balance the demands of standardizing assessments and, thereby, treating people in the same way, and tailoring to the individual case, while at the same time securing people’s varied needs for support. The present challenge is how to develop systems that deal with this dichotomy in a better way. Mackrill and Ebsen (2018, 950) noted that digital technology in statutory services needs to be assessed with regard to how and to what extent it serves the interests of stakeholders such as clients (children, youth and parents), social workers, managers, politicians, lawyers and so on (…), as long as we remember that social work always transpires in the nexus of the many stakeholders’ interests. 197

Thomas Mackrill

There has been an increased focus on how digital case management systems can support caseworker discretion in their work and that caseworkers need to play a central role in the development of case management systems (Munro 2011). Research has gone on to look into what type of systems are needed to enhance the services to at risk children and how they should be developed (Wastell and White 2014a, 2014b). Høybye-Mortensen (2015) found that Danish trained statutory caseworkers who understood the theory underpinning the case management system they were using, were much more open to using the system than untrained caseworkers. Tregeagle (2016) described a system developed to support caseworker discretion and highlighted not only that the system had to make sense to caseworkers, but that family members might also experience the system as contributing to the quality of the service they received.

Digital Communication Technologies Digital technologies have led to a proliferation of means of and platforms for communication spanning a wide range of social media, text messaging, video messaging, email, secure mailing systems and the smartphone. Research has shown how it can be important to use communication media that correspond with service users’ preferred communication media so they are given appropriate information via the media channels they use (Mackrill and Ebsen 2018). If new technologies are employed that service users cannot access for whatever reason, then the technology can widen the digital divide (Hudson 2003), restricting service users’ access to and ability to engage with Children’s Services. However, data security is also a key issue. Mishna and colleagues (2012) described what they call the slippery slope or opening Pandora’s box, when, for example, a media such as email is used in one connection in a case, where it may be legal, but then the family continues to use the media in relation to another type of information, where it is no longer appropriately secure, and the caseworker can feel obliged to keep using it. How to maintain data security while working to involve clients is a classic social work issue. According to Mishna and colleagues (2012), if caseworkers match service users’ preferred media, they may find they are compromising the family’s rights to privacy, as certain media are not data secure. Data secure media are not necessarily the preferred media of service users, but Children’s Services in many countries are legally obliged to use them. Professional social workers without such laws also have an ethical obligation to protect service users from harm such as a data breach. As a statutory service, there will be situations where communication takes on a form that follows statutory requirements and fulfilling these requirements in certain circumstances will mean that the communication does not match service users’ preferences. The issue of how to manage matching service users’ media preferences so they are involved in and informed about what is transpiring while maintaining their privacy by only using secure communication media is an issue that needs exploring and developing to a far greater degree. The issue relates to the speed of, and enormous amount of resources used by the public and private sector to develop technological communication, compared with the relatively sparse resources allocated to 198

Digital Technology in Statutory Services

developing Children’s Services. Mackrill and Ebsen (2018) noted that the digital divide in Children’s Services is not just about statutory services using technologies that families cannot access. It also relates to the fact that families and the general public may use digital technologies when reporting to Children’s Services that Children’s Services cannot access and store, due to their own limited resources with regard to digital communication media. This issue is directly attributable to the proliferation of communication media that statutory Children’s Services struggle to deal with. Research has also explored the use of social media in child protection assessments. This issue typically refers to two practices. When caseworkers search social media for information about risk as part of a child protection assessment or when concerned parties send data from social media to caseworkers to inform or influence a child protection case. These issues concern weighing up the family’s, and the individual’s, right to privacy and the child’s rights to protection and support. In Denmark, where the present author lives, the laws are clear. For example, actions by caseworkers to access private social media sites using fake identities are illegal. Caseworkers’ accessing social media sites that are not set as private is legal. If members of the public send data regarding concern about a child with data from someone’s private social media site, this must be filed and processed like any other notification. In Denmark, this is regulated by laws, not local policies. Sage and Sage (2016) found in a US survey of 267 caseworkers working in child protection services that 20% of their sample viewed it as acceptable in some circumstances to create a fake Facebook account, containing no personal information, in order to interact with clients, while 79% thought this was never acceptable. In their study, 23% of the participants also reported that they did not know how to document information obtained from social media in service users’ case files. Sage and Sage (2016, 96) noted, that in ‘a risk-focused orientation, child welfare workers should be thorough in their family assessments, exploring any resource available, including social media’. Client privacy and confidentiality is seen as secondary to child safety from this perspective. This study is problematic seen from a Danish context, as it does not clearly differentiate between private and public settings on social media sites. Sage et al. (2017) found in their US study that caseworkers in that location experienced a lack of clarity about what was allowed with regard to the use of social media in statutory services. In a study of two English local authorities, Cooner et al. (2020) found widespread surveillance by caseworkers of the Facebook accounts of families whose setting were not set as private. They noted, for example, that Facebook was used by some social workers to check if parents were still in relationships with former partners where this contact might pose a risk to children. Cooner and colleagues (2020), similar to Byrne and Kirwan (2019), and Byrne, Kirwan, and Mc Guckin (2019), reflected on ethical issues related to caseworkers using social media sites for surveillance in relation to efforts to protect at risk children. For more information about other aspects of caseworkers’ experiences of using social media in connection with statutory services, see also the surveys by Breyette and Hill (2015) and Sage and Sage (2016). 199

Thomas Mackrill

Digital Tools That Enhance Participation Many digital tools have been developed in relation to self-help and counselling, but these are not the focus of this chapter. Relatively few have been developed for application in the statutory child protection services context. A further classic issue in statutory social work is how to involve children and families in statutory processes. Digital systems have been developed as ‘a common third’ (Ruch et al. 2017) to support such endeavours. The notion of a common third relates to the idea that rather than facing one another in meetings, caseworkers and service users can collaborate while focusing on something else that can facilitate communication and collaboration. Traditionally, such approaches have been used in statutory social work practice, for example, in relation to direct work with children where social workers use papers and drawing utensils and talk together with the child (ren) while focusing on the drawing activity. One well known standardized drawing method is the Three Houses method, which is part of the Signs of Safety© approach where children are encouraged to draw three houses, one that represents their worries, one that represents good things and a third that represents their dreams or hopes for the future (Turnell and Murphy 2014). This is a way of facilitating a conversation with children, for example, as part of a child protection assessment. An app that can be used on a tablet has been developed as a digital tool for using this method. To date, no studies of this new digital technology have been conducted. It would be interesting to see a comparative study of the digital versus the standard paper approach. A further example of a digital technology that has been developed to enhance young people’s participation in statutory processes is the work of MindOfMyOwn (https://mindofmyown.org.uk/). The first app from this initiative was a tool that aimed to support young people in preparing for meetings within statutory contexts. Young people could then use the app to share their thoughts with their caseworker. There is great need for more in-depth research in relation to all new digital tools that are used in statutory services. Within the field of counselling research, routinely monitoring client wellbeing has become an encouraged practice, that has been found to improve outcomes and reduce drop-out (Boswell et al. 2015). Such practices today usually involve digital technology where clients respond to questionnaires on tablets, and graphs showing change over time are generated that can be used as an integral part of counselling conversations. Some of these systems also involve routinely monitoring the client’s experience of the working alliance (Murphy et al. 2020) which encompasses the goals and tasks of the counselling, and the counselling relationship. While common in the counselling field, these technologies are new to statutory Children’s Services. A manual for the use of one such approach to this, ‘Feedback Informed Treatment in Statutory Children’s Services’, is available online (Mackrill et al. 2020). The manual includes video materials in Danish with English subtitles (http://fit.kp.dk/). A range of scales are available that match the age of the child. Mackrill and Steensbæk (2021) studied the practices of a Danish municipality that had implemented this approach to find out how the use of this approach added to research into involving children, young people and caregivers in statutory Children’s Services. They found that

200

Digital Technology in Statutory Services

implementing the technology involved a major change in a how the Children’s Services engaged with children and families. The use of the technology required an individual commitment from caseworkers to involve family members in each meeting and each case over time. A strong organizational commitment was also required to support this new approach. The digital technology was thus not viewed as an intervention in isolation but as one element in an overall strategy to enhance involvement in statutory processes. A further Danish action research project involved developing a routine outcome monitoring system specifically for youth statutory social work (Mackrill, Ebsen, and Antczak 2015; Mackrill and Ebsen 2018; Mackrill and Ørnbøll 2019). This system was not successfully implemented in services, but the studies of developing, implementing and using the system offer insights into the challenges of developing and implementing outcome monitoring systems for application by social workers employed in statutory Children’s Services. Rather than primarily using standardized scales, this approach involved tailoring social work actions to be responsive to the young person’s specific life context, reflecting the diversity of problems young people in frontline statutory services face. The fact that caseworkers had heavy caseloads, continuously had to deal with emergencies, and the fact that there was a high degree of staff turnover encumbered developing technology with practitioners in a statutory youth services context.

Digital Technology for Statutory Caseworker Training Digital technologies are also increasingly being used in professional education. While the use of digitally filming professional meetings for training purposes has become widespread, the use of the approach in statutory Children’s services appears to be limited. Video has also been used as part of an intervention to support behavioural change in clients. Alnes, Kirkevold, and Skovdahl (2010) conducted a study of the Marte Meo method, developed in Holland by Maria Aarts (2008), which has been used extensively to intervene in families in Holland, Ireland and Scandinavia. In Britain, a similar method, Video Interactive Guidance (Kennedy et al. 2011) is increasingly being used as an intervention. Developments in other professional disciplines may also be of potential use in social work practice. For example, the My Teaching Partner approach (Allen et al. 2011) has been developed for training teachers. In addition, two Danish studies (Antczak et al. 2017, 2018) have reported on the development of an online video supervision and feedback model for statutory youth caseworkers. An online format was chosen, to cut transport costs in relation to the use of external supervisors, and so supervision could be scheduled into caseworkers’ busy schedules. The model involved caseworkers recording a video of their meetings with their clients and sending it to an external supervisor. The supervisor then selected video clips, and an online supervisory meeting was held via a video link, where the supervisor and caseworker could see each other and selected film clips. The supervisor gave feedback based on a standardized model. The approach involved two digital technologies, the digital recording of the meeting between the caseworker and the young client, and the online digital meeting between the caseworker and the supervisor. 201

Thomas Mackrill

The studies (Antczak et al. 2017, 2019) found the caseworkers generally did not experience noteworthy problems with the technology used to record meetings, or the technology used to enable online meetings with their supervisors. Many caseworkers had imagined that recording meetings would disturb their relationship with their clients in meetings, but the caseworkers reported that this was not the case. They reported how easily they found it to forget that they were being recorded during the meetings. Although they were initially anxious about being filmed, the caseworkers valued the fact that video-based supervision offered a realistic view of what happened in meetings, which enabled critical reflection, and increased the caseworkers’ consciousness about their role when engaging with service users in meetings. Some caseworkers found the online meeting format less personal and lacking the immediacy of a face-to-face meeting, while many highlighted that the approach was efficient. It took less time and fitted better into a busy daily schedule. Antczak et al.’s (2019) interview study, which investigated how caseworkers and supervisors experienced the approach, highlighted a range of ways in which caseworkers learned from the approach. Many caseworkers highlighted that just seeing themselves with their clients on video gave them new insights about their work. Asking the caseworker to review films after being prompted to focus on something specific in the film before viewing it, was, however, experienced as more useful. The study highlighted how the caseworkers valued concrete guidance from their supervisors based on what they had seen in the film clips.

Discussion Across the board we see classic statutory social work issues such as how best to involve children and parents, while dealing with legal issues appearing under new digital guises in Children’s Services. The many digital technologies that have entered the field have added to the complexity of these issues. Children’s Services are clearly struggling to keep up with the many developments as companies promoting their latest technological solution compete for a share of a lucrative global market. On the one hand, we see that social workers based in Children’s Services are affected by the general technological developments in Society, in similar ways to how many people in society have been affected. Children’s Services are, however, also challenged by the fact that they cannot just adopt these new technologies, not just because they may not be able to afford implementing them, but also because they need to consider their use in the light of the many statutory demands. Furthermore, Children’s Services have to deal with many wellintentioned new technological systems developed specifically for them, ironically often without any worker involvement in the developmental process. This can be viewed as somewhat problematic given the massive resource imbalance between the private sector and state who advocate and develop technologies and the resources of individual Children’s Services in municipalities. Involving Children’s Services in developing technological tools requires resources from what are often limited budgets. The involvement and funding of Children’s Services’ 202

Digital Technology in Statutory Services

involvement in technological development needs to be addressed. An interesting example is predictive risk modelling, also called machine learning, to identify at risk children. A recent study (Clayton et al. 2020) created models for machine learning in Children’s Services and found that the technology failed to identify a sizably worrying proportion of children at risk, and that such models risked discouraging social workers from investigating valid concerns, potentially putting children at risk. This study was conducted by What Works for Children’s Social Care (https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/), which is a UK publicly funded body set up to study social care issues. There has been a lot of debate and speculation about machine learning in Children’s Services (see Gillingham 2016), but far more detailed research and evaluation is necessary to properly understand the impact of the application or incorporation of digital technologies in the child protection system. Many of these challenges are the same across nation states with similar statutory systems. Internationally funded coordinated approaches to dealing with these issues may be the way forward.

Conclusion We are in the early stages of understanding how technology can be useful or detrimental in Children’s Services. To understand the growing use of digital technologies in statutory family services, we need to focus on the nexus where the interests of family members, professional caseworkers, technology developers, legal experts and policy makers meet. We need to try new things out to find out what is possible. Involving statutory caseworkers as well as families in the developmental and evaluation process is essential when determining what should be used, revised discontinued or simply not permitted. Funding and the involvement of municipalities is a central concern as individual municipal statutory family services do not have the means to review, assess and develop procedures in relation to the many new technologies that affect statutory practice. We also need an organizational framework and funding at the state level that can undertake the evaluations and research required to deal with the influx of digital technology into local statutory Children’s Services.

References Aarts, M. 2008. Basic Manual (Trans by Gogol S.), 2nd ed. Harderwijk: Aarts Production. Allen, J. P., R. C. Pianta, A. Gregory, A. Y. Mikami, and J. Lun. 2011. “An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement.” Science 333: 1034–1037. Alnes, R. E., M. Kirkevold, and K. Skovdahl. 2010. “Insights gained through Marte Meo counselling: Experiences of nurses in dementia specific care units.” International Journal of Older People Nursing 6: 123–132. Antczak, H. B., T. Mackrill, S. Steensbæk, and F. Ebsen. 2017. “Online video supervision for statutory youth caseworkers – a pilot study.” Journal of Children’s Services 12: 127–137. Antczak, H. B., T. Mackrill, S. Steensbæk, and F. Ebsen. 2019. “What works in video-based youth statutory caseworker supervision – caseworker and supervisor perspectives.” Social Work Education 38: 1025–1040.

203

Thomas Mackrill Boswell, J. F., D. R., Kraus, S. D. Miller, and M. J. Lambert. 2015. “Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions.” Psychotherapy Research 25(1): 6–19. Breyette, S. K., and K. Hill. 2015. “The impact of electronic communication and social media on child welfare practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 33: 283–303. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. Byrne, J., G. Kirwan, and C. Mc Guckin. 2019. “Social media surveillance in social work: Practice realities and ethical implications.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 37(1-2): 142–158. Clayton, V., M. Sanders, E. Schoenwald, L. Surkis, and D. Gibbons. 2020. Machine learning in Children’s Services. Retrieved 5.10.20 from https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/WWCSC_machine_learning_in_childrens_services_does_it_work_Sep_2020_ Accessible.pdf. UK: What Works for Children’s Social Care. Cooner, T. S., L. Beddoe, H. Ferguson, and E. Joy. 2020. “The use of Facebook in social work practice with children and families: Exploring complexity in an emerging practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 38: 137–158. Fahnøe, K. 2015. “Konstruktion af it-systemet ‘Digitalisering – Udsatte Børn og Unge’ som løsning på problemer I den socialfaglige sagsbehandling.” Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift 92: 37–54. Gillingham, P. 2009. The use of assessment tools in child protection: An ethnomethodological study. University of Melbourne. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from http://repository.unimelb. edu.au/10187/4337. Gillingham, P. 2011. “Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we ‘just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes’?” Child and Family Social Work 16: 412–421. Gillingham, P. 2016. “Predictive risk modelling to prevent child maltreatment and other adverse outcomes for service users: Inside the ‘black box’ of machine learning.” British Journal of Social Work 46: 1044–1058. Høybye-Mortensen, M. 2015. “Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers’ room for discretion.” British Journal of Social Work 45: 600–615. Hudson, J. 2003. “E-galitarianism? The information society and new labour’s repositioning of welfare.” Critical Social Policy 23: 268–291. Kennedy, H., M. Landor, and L. Todd. 2011. Video Interaction Guidance: A RelationshipBased Intervention to Promote Attunement, Empathy and Wellbeing. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Mackrill, T., and F. Ebsen. 2018. “Key misconceptions when assessing digital technology for municipal youth social work.” European Journal of Social Work 21: 942–953. Mackrill, T., F. Ebsen, and H. Antczak. 2015. “Developing scales for smartphone applications together – youth and municipal case worker perspectives.” Advances in Social Work 16: 67–77. Mackrill, T., and J. K. Ørnbøll. 2019. “The MySocialworker app system – a pilot interview study.” European Journal of Social Work 22: 134–144. Mackrill, T., S. Nielsen, M. Kronbæk, and L. Nedegård. 2020. Feedback Informed Treatment – Manual for Statutory Children’s Services. Retrieved 5.10.20 from file:///C:/Users/thma/ Downloads/FIT_Manual_UK%20(1).PDF. Copenhagen: University College Copenhagen. Mackrill, T., and S. Steensbæk. 2021. “What can the use of Feedback Informed Treatment teach us about involving children, young people and caregivers in statutory casework?” The European Journal of Social Work 24: 696–707. Mishna, F., M. Bogo, J. Root, J. Sawyer, and M. Khoury-Kassabri. 2012. “‘It just crept in’: The digital age and implications for social work practice.” Clinical Social Work Journal 40: 277–286.

204

Digital Technology in Statutory Services Munro, E. 2011. The Munro review of child protection: Final report: A child centred system. Department for Education. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from www.education.gov.uk/ munroreview/ Murphy, M. G., S. Rakes, and R. M. Harris. 2020. “The psychometric properties of the session rating scale: A narrative review.” Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work 17: 279–299. Ruch, G., K. Winter, V. Cree, S. Hallett, F. Morrison, and M. Hadfield. 2017. “Making meaningful connections: Using insights from social pedagogy in statutory child and family social work practice.” Child and Family Social Work 22: 1015–1023. Sage, M., M. Wells, T. Sage, and M. Devlin. 2017. “Supervisor and policy roles in social media use as a new technology in child welfare.” Children and Youth Services Review 78: 1–8. Sage, T. E., and M. Sage. 2016. “Social media use in child welfare practice.” Advances in Social Work 17: 93–112. Samuel, M. 2005. “Social care professionals overwhelmed by paperwork.” Community Care 14: 8. Sarwar, A., and M. Harris. 2019. “Children’s services in the age of information technology: What matters most to frontline professionals.” Journal of Social Work 19: 699–718. Shaw, I., M. Bell, I. Sinclair, P. Sloper, W. Mitchell, P. Dyson, and J. Rafferty. 2009. “An exemplary scheme? An evaluation of the Integrated Children’s System.” British Journal of Social Work 39: 613–626. Tregeagle, S. 2016. “Heads in the cloud: An example of practice-based information and communication technology in child welfare.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 34: 224–239. Turnell, A., and T. Murphy. 2014. The Signs of Safety® Child Protection Approach and Framework: Comprehensive Briefing Paper (3rd ed.). Perth: Resolutions Consultancy. Wastell, D. 2011. Managers as Designers in the Public Services: Beyond Technomagic. Axminster: Triarchy Press. Wastell, D., and S. White. 2014a. “Beyond bureaucracy: Emerging trends in social care informatics.” Health Informatics Journal 20: 213–219. Wastell, D., and S. White. 2014b. “Making sense of complex electronic records: Sociotechnical design in social care.” Applied Ergonomics 45: 143–149.

205

17 THE DIGITIZATION OF SOCIAL WORK WITH VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND OLDER PEOPLE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC A Challenge for the Future Soňa Kalenda, Ivana Kowaliková, Alice Gojová, Adéla Recmanová, and Alena Vysloužilová

Introduction One of the processes significantly influencing social work is digitization, which may be understood as the insertion of information and communication technology (ICT) into various areas of social life (Valenduc and Vendramin 2017). The current wave of digitization is considered the third or fourth industrial revolution, being characterized by the term “Big Data.” Even in the field of social work, we are confronted with an exponential growth in the collection, storage, and processing of digitized information. The COVID-19 pandemic has exaggerated the above-mentioned trend when a significant share of social work interventions have been moved to the online environment. The digital gap has started mainly among two target groups: (1) families with vulnerable children and (2) lonely living older people. Following the previous point, we present the results of the empirical investigation, focused on the impact of the social work intervention experiment on active usage of ICT among two selected target groups, including the outcome of the intervention for their digital gap, and social exclusion.

The Digitization of Czech Social Work with Vulnerable Children and Older People Czech social work has been experiencing increasing digitization since the beginning of the 21st century. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Spring 2020) 206

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-21

Digital Social Work in the Czech Republic

Figure 17.1 Relationship between the mutual interaction of the digital and social exclusions

accelerated the use of ICT in social work interventions. During that period, the authors initiated a research study focused on the use of ICT in social work with: (1) vulnerable children and (2) older people. These two groups were selected because they are most at risk of digital exclusion in the Czech population (Friemel 2014; Kubů 2014; Vondrová 2014; MoLSA 2017; Recmanová and Vávrová 2018). As Steyaert and Gould (2009) point out, this is further reinforced by more general patterns of social exclusion (see Figure 17.1), which we see as inequality in social participation and access to resources such as education, housing, employment, health, and social care. Digital exclusion refers to the distinction between those who have access to ICT and those who do not (Gillingham 2014). According to Watling (2012), it mainly concerns socially disadvantaged and marginalized people. There is a gap between those at risk of digital exclusion and the general population, the designation of which shifts from “digital” to “informational.” Digital literacy plays an important role in the context of digital exclusion. Its development depends on an actual approach to ICT, being a set of competencies needed for the identification, understanding, interpretation, creation, communication, and efficient and safe use of digital technologies (MoLSA 2015). In this context, access to the internet can be regarded as a human right because it is necessary in order to achieve full participation in society (Perron et al. 2010). In the Czech Republic, the relationship between access to the internet and social participation can be seen in services such as the digitized public administration (e-government), healthcare (e-health), and education (e-learning). As shown in practice, full participation cannot be achieved by the two selected target groups of social work. Apart from low digital literacy, these groups often lack complete access to ICT. The CZSO (2017) states that among those who do not have access to the internet 55% of Czech households with children and 11% of households of people over the age of 65 say that the price of the devices is too high. Twenty-nine per cent of households with children and 87% of seniors state that they are not interested in the internet, and 35% of households with children and 207

Soňa Kalenda et al.

38% of seniors lack the skills necessary to use the internet. While the financial aspect plays the most significant role in families with children, for older people it is the motivational aspect, which is in accordance with international research (Friemel 2014). Low motivation is often associated with low awareness of the various resources and services that ICTs offer (Wong et al. 2015). The motivational dimension is necessary for the effective use of ICT and the development of digital literacy (MoLSA 2015). Digital literacy is considered a social norm in contemporary society, and the lack of it exacerbates digital exclusion. This can obstruct access to important educational, professional, organizational, and developmental opportunities for vulnerable children (e.g., Johnston-Goodstar, Richards-Schuster, and Sethi 2014; Wong et al. 2015) and increase the risk of intergenerational transmission of poverty (Wong et al. 2015). In the case of older people, digital exclusion stands in the way of using technology to tackle social isolation and feelings of loneliness (Mordini et al. 2009), to provide support regarding health issues or retaining their autonomy and independence (Morris et al. 2013). For social work, this era of digitalization of society creates opportunities for new interventions in the places where there are imbalances between expectations and environmental requirements, and people’s ability to cope with these expectations (Vondrová 2014). Thus, social workers who are at the forefront of solving problems associated with the unequal distribution of resources may feel the need to address the [lack of] availability of ICT among their clients (Watling 2012) or to devote themselves to increasing their clients’ digital literacy to support their digital inclusion.

Researching the Digitization of Social Work During the state of emergency declared in connection with the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the digital gap in the above-mentioned target groups widened in the Czech Republic. This situation prompted an increased demand for support from social workers in the use of ICT (Kalenda and Kowaliková 2020). During the first wave, the researchers commenced a research study to identify factors influencing digital exclusion of (1) families with vulnerable children engaged with the social activation services for families with children (hereinafter “SAS”), and of (2) older people living in their own homes who were clients of home care (hereinafter “HC”). As part of the study, the researchers provided 24 tablets with a data tariff to 24 families of vulnerable children (who had a total of 71 children aged 1–17 years) and 7 tablets to SAS social workers. They also provided 7 tablets with a data tariff to HC clients and 6 tablets to volunteers who provided assistance to the older people in using them. The study participants were selected by purposive sampling through the SAS and HC institutions. Group (1) included clients who mainly, according to the first partial results of this research (Vávrová et al. 2019), struggle with access to ICT (non-owners of PC, mobile phone/smartphone) and cannot use ICT. In autumn 2020, as part of the evaluation (6 months after the start of the experiment), the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with (1) 24 parents (20 mothers, 4 fathers) and their 5 children (aged 8–16, who were willing to research talk) and 208

Digital Social Work in the Czech Republic

10 SAS social workers, and (2) 7 older people and 6 volunteers. Due to the epidemiological situation, the interviews took place online (by telephone or using ICT). In November 2019 (before the introduction of COVID-19-related restrictions and before the start of the study), a focus group (hereinafter “FG”) was conducted with 5 HC staff (3 social service workers, 1 HC coordinator and 1 social worker). The interview data was transcribed and analysed using open coding.

Use of ICT in Families with Vulnerable Children during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Data Analysis and Interpretation This section presents the research results based on the analysis of data obtained from 3 groups of participants involved in the research study (1) vulnerable children, (2) their parents, and (3) social workers. In the following text, below the authentic statements, we present the abbreviation of the group to which the informant belongs and his/her serial number: parent (Px), social worker (SWx), child (CHx). From the statements of parents, social workers, and children, we found that the borrowed tablets were mainly used by children, mainly due to the move to online schooling during the state of emergency. “Children use the tablet the most. They do their homework there and then play games” (P6). Activities related to school preparation or online lessons were identified as the most common reason by both parents and children. “We received a link to teaching applications from the teacher” (CH3). Social workers confirmed this through their own observations: “when I came to the house, the girl was having a video call with her school” (SW1), “I saw that the boy downloaded applications and tasks to mathematics and then he showed me how to count examples” (SW1). Because of the availability of the tablets with a data tariff, many vulnerable children were able to continue to attend school regularly. “In the state of emergency, it was very beneficial for those families, as they were able to communicate with the school. Thanks to that, they stayed in touch and were engaged in distance learning” (SW4). Nevertheless, families did not always succeed in connecting to the online teaching: “the parameters of distance learning and control are difficult for those children … the client turned to me saying that they did not understand the assigned curriculum and did not pick it up in time and were not able to submit it in time” (SW3). Consistent with this, international research, too, points to problems with online teaching and preparation of children for school when using ICT (Dillon 1992; Woody, Daniel, and Baker 2010; Woody, Daniel, and Steward 2012). In the long run, online teaching and home preparation, according to the interviewed social workers, is challenging for children: “it is not enough to explain it to them only on the phone, but it is necessary to come there to join them when they have online teaching, and it is not enough for them to do that only once” (SW3). 209

Soňa Kalenda et al.

Other problems with using tablets for online education arise when a family has more children: “One tablet is not enough; they would need three tablets. I have five children, but three of them still go to school. They take turns, each one two or three hours” (P20). Also, the mere provision of the tablet did not guarantee its use for distance learning. According to social workers, in some families situations arose where the tablet was “used only for playing games, because the children go to collect the tasks the teacher gives them in paper form” (SW1). The social worker also identified the parents’ low digital literacy as a relevant factor: “if the children wanted to look for something and I was not there, the mother probably would not be able to help them” (SW2). The research also showed that many parents do not know how their children spend their free time with the tablet: “I personally do not use the tablet. I don’t even know how the children use it.” (P11). However, in interviews with the parents, an alternative perspective was evident. Those parents regularly checked the content of their children’s online activities and established clear rules at home. Some parents realize that their children know how to use tablets better than they do: “I think those children are smarter with the tablet than I am” (P11). Digital literacy of children was assessed as significantly higher by social workers, too: “In them (children) the user knowledge is better than in adults” (SW3). This corresponds to the fact that children belong to the generation of digital natives who grow up with technology, as opposed to the second category of digital immigrants (the parents), who have only encountered the digital technology during their lives (Prensky 2001; Palfrey and Gasser 2008). According to Spitzer (2017), the digital native has their home in the digital world and is permanently or most of the day online. Spitzer (2017) also identified another category, “Generation Google,” which includes younger representatives of digital natives. Rowlands et al. (2008) found that this group uses the internet mainly to communicate with friends and to download music and games. In the group of vulnerable children, this behaviour was also pointed out by the interviewed social workers. Another topic that emerged from the interviews, and in agreement with other studies (Gerhart 2017; Savci and Aysan 2017; Spitzer 2017; Haand and Shuwang 2020), was the children’s dependence on the online environment: “Nothing very beneficial, I can tell you. My daughter has become very dependent on it” (P2). Many parents are aware of these risks, but also recognize that their children need digital skills. According to the parents, with access to the tablets and the internet, the digital gap between the vulnerable children and their non-vulnerable peers was reducing. The parents of vulnerable children also emphasized in their statements that thanks to the tablets and internet connection, they could deal with a lot of everyday things by themselves: “When I didn’t have the tablet, it was much more difficult for me to do anything” (P16). We even noticed that thanks to the access to the Internet, one client found a job: “I found a job through the Internet” (P19). In the time of emergency, the tablet with the internet thus became an essential tool for communicating with institutions. According to social workers, parents most often used the tablets to search for information and contacts related to finding housing, applying for allowances, finding employment, and dealing with health issues. Tablets with the internet connection also often served families as 210

Digital Social Work in the Czech Republic

another source of communication between the client and the social worker. In some situations, it replaced personal contact: “When I needed to ask a social worker something, I had to … , now I can find a lot of things by myself and I don’t have to go to visit him – if I don’t really know something, I only send him an email” (P9). Although many parents have stated that their digital skills were sufficient to meet their needs, although according to the social workers, low digital literacy was a major, almost insurmountable barrier for some of them, and it required their regular support.

Reflections of Social Workers on the Use of ICT in Interventions with the Target Group of Vulnerable Children According to the social worker participants, the provision of a tablet with data contributed to greater efficiency of their work. They identified as the main benefits: (1) greater work flexibility: “it is an advantage. It’s faster and more accessible. When I didn’t have the tablet, I had to find out in advance the information and the things I needed to deal with acutely, and then I dealt with them when I was in the office” (SW3); (2) faster assistance: “I don’t have to go back to the office to retrieve some data from the computer, but I can do it quickly with clients on the spot” (SW4); (3) more adequate provision of assistance according to the needs of families: “we solve a lot of things with the clients and they do not have to go to our office with their children to deal with their misbehavior … They are in their environment and the work is more pleasant for them, two … When she would go with her children to the office, it was more difficult, and not so much was done, anyway” (SW2); (4) a higher level of client activation: “In the past, one simply had to go to the computer somewhere and find for the client what he needed. And then at the next meeting, to tell the client, or contact him by phone – now we’ll look at it together and he doesn’t have to call us because of everything, and they find out a lot themselves. They are not dependent on others and can find information for themselves” (SW4).

Use of ICT by Older People during the Pandemic COVID-19: Analysis and Interpretation of Data This section presents the results of the research obtained from 3 participant groups: older people, volunteers, and HC social workers. In the following text, below the authentic statements, we present the abbreviation of the group to which the informant belongs and his/her serial number: older person (OPx), volunteer (Vx), and social worker (SWx). On the tablets, the older people most often engaged in leisure activities: “I watch movies on it, I chat with friends on email, and look for photos” (OP1). “Now I don’t even solve crosswords in magazines, as I have a tablet and I’m satisfied. I completely lose all track of time. It’s a really great thing, and I’m happy. 211

Soňa Kalenda et al.

I should have got it a long time ago. The days were so long before then. It enriched my life” (OP2). Older people with health problems rated the use of the tablet very positively. Some even talked about relieving pain, thanks to the activity on the tablet: “That tablet is a complete relief for me, I’m not bored, I read, it’s such a relief from pain” (OP2). These findings correspond to Sum et al. (2009) who found that the use of the internet contributes to increased life satisfaction of older people, supports their personal development and also positively affects their subjective feelings of well-being. In contrast, some studies have found that ICT and internet access do not improve the quality of life of older people (White et al. 2002; Dickinson, and Gregor 2006). The digital skills of older people before using the tablets were different, but based on the data obtained, it cannot be said that those with previous experience were able to handle it better. This is due to the fact that in this study all older people had volunteers available for them who supported them if necessary. Based on this experience, it can be argued that the regular use of the tablet by older people was helped by cooperation with volunteers: “I did not have a big problem with handling it and I do not have even now … Of course, for the first time I did not know how to deal with it. She showed me where I had to touch, where to squeeze and what to hold. It helped me a lot that she let me do it several times” (OP4). Older people rated working with a volunteer as a benefit. Even those who had no previous experience with ICT were not afraid to use tablets thanks to them. Despite the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented further in-person cooperation between the older people and the volunteers, many of them are still in contact at least by phone. “She came to see me, when it was possible, once a week. She always showed me what else could be done with the tablet or showed me some websites where I could watch movies. She doesn’t come right now, as it’s forbidden … But we are still in contact, by phone or via email” (OP1). In addition to cooperating with the volunteers, the older people also positively rated the tablet itself, especially its size: “What I do on the tablet, such as reading the news, I can’t do on the phone. It’s small for me, so it reads better on that tablet” (OP4). These results concur with Genoe et al. (2018) who found that although ICTs serve older people as a tool to fill leisure time, there are certain barriers to their use (e.g., lack of help from other people, privacy, and security concerns). According to other authors (Carpenter and Buday 2006; Gatto and Tak 2008), older people identify the main barriers to the use of ICT as high costs of the devices, technology complexity, and lack of interest and knowledge. The older people mentioned in the interviews that when the situation allows, they want to continue working with the volunteers. Despite the fact that they have 212

Digital Social Work in the Czech Republic

the opportunity to meet the volunteers online, they prefer personal meetings even during the COVID-19 pandemic: “For me, personal contact is better, I would prefer her to come again if she could” (OP4). The volunteers also talked about the plans they had when they could meet in person: “I tried some activities on it, which I later wanted to show the senior. For example, we wanted to install an application that blocks unnecessary advertisements on the Internet” (V1). The volunteers positively evaluated the cooperation with the older person. “Until those personal meetings it was no big deal. Even when I could go see her, it was more about talking. So, the social side prevailed … I think she is happy that she can talk to me from time to time, or that I will send her some nice video or email” (V2). Some volunteers are older people who have attended courses for older people focused on ICT, so it can also be viewed as a form of peer support.

Reflections of HC Staff on the Use of ICT in Interventions with the Target Group of Older People In the following text, below the authentic statements, we present the abbreviation of the FG and the serial number of the participant (FGx). According to the focus group participants, the key task of HC is to enable older people to grow old at home: “We try to provide for the basic needs concerning health – spending time with them is no longer within our powers. We have to do the work so that they can stay in their households” (FG4). FG participants are aware that HC has its limits in providing for some needs, especially providing social contacts for older people. At the same time, they realize that their clients who have this need are often at risk of social isolation or loneliness: “If they are the people who don’t get out at all, they need to communicate with us the most” (FG1). The long-term problem of HC providers is that they do not have sufficient staff capacity: “I think it’s a matter of the system, such as motivating people to go and do the work … And when someone falls ill, we have to substitute, so these are the main problems, why it doesn’t work so well” (FG5). According to the interviewed employees, the older people who are HC clients have no experience with the use of ICT: “Our seniors are not looking for anything like that. We know of a few seniors who use computers, smartphones or tablets and have the Internet, but these are the exceptions” (FG2). “They don’t want to learn any new things anymore. For example, the client simply asks you to find out some information for him, or to call somewhere on his behalf” (FG4). “When we come to make the social investigation, we see that they have a mobile phone or a computer on their desk. Usually, they have it just for our check, they frequently can’t make a call themselves, they just pick up the phones. In households, they also often use SOS buttons” (FG3). 213

Soňa Kalenda et al.

HC employees themselves reported sharing one desktop computer, which they use only to fill in their clients’ individual plan sheets: “we fill in individual plans with clients manually on paper and then type them on the computer” (FG4). They see the benefits of accessibility to ICT when searching for information for clients: “when you are with a client and he needs to find out something, you are able to find it out right away. You don’t have to run to an office, which will take you an hour” (FG1). Some FG participants stated that they could imagine using some applications if the older people they work with owned ICT and had someone to help them use it. “For some clients, it might help to practice memory or play games, our seniors in clubs also do it, so they would probably welcome doing it on phones or tablets as well … But without the help of the family, it is still difficult for them” (FG2). Other FG participants stated that ICTs have no place in social services for older people: “For myself as HC, I can’t even imagine that I should ever offer a senior a chance to use ICT in their lives, whether it’s an application or some Internet access, in my opinion, this is not in our competence” (FG1). According to FG participants, however, there will soon be a breakthrough in the use of ICT even among seniors. “We’re probably at the breaking point right now, when this may happen soon – we take care of a group of seniors who are quite old and who don’t enjoy it that much – but in seniors who are now starting to come to that age, so for those the need to use ICT begins” (FG5). FG participants believe that ICT can be beneficial for HC clients, but only if they are supported by a person who can handle ICT and teach the older persons how to use them. “Technology is probably hard to compensate for something, they want personal contact. They want to have someone with them and talk about ordinary things and worries – that cannot be handled by any computer or anything like that. Therefore, the loneliness is the worst diagnosis. Maybe it would be enough for the next generation to give them a phone, and they will have fun even in old age” (FG3). HC employees themselves are aware that their digital skills are not at such a level that they could provide good advice to someone: “I only know some basic things; I could not give someone good advice on what to find and how to find it on a mobile phone” (FG4). During the discussion, the question arose as to whether it is possible for support in the use of ICT to be part of the work of HC staff. According to the participants, volunteers can play a key role in promoting digital skills and the use of ICT among older people who are HC clients: “Volunteers – especially the younger 214

Digital Social Work in the Czech Republic

ones who could help seniors to work with ICT” (FG3), a point which was also confirmed in this study.

Conclusion and Recommendations for the Czech Policy Makers Unlike English-speaking countries, Czech social work has long neglected the process of implementing ICT into its performance, and current reflection on the topic remains marginal. We find the beginnings of social internet counselling in 1997 and professional reflection circa 2006. In Czech social work practice, there is no overarching standard or ethical directive. Some organizations have their own procedures and internal rules related to the use of ICT, others do not address this area at all. There are no data on what ICT tools are used in social work, for what purposes (including work with individual target groups), what the needs of Czech social workers in this area are, or what difficulties they face. This study, focused on the target group of children at risk, showed that the need to use ICT accelerated during the emergency measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the research results, we identified factors influencing digital exclusion in the examined groups (see Tables 17.1 and 17.2). The two most important factors supporting digital inclusion of vulnerable children are (1) device availability and (2) internet connection, which corresponds to the finding that the ICT skills of young people with unrestricted internet access are higher than those with restricted access (Boydová 2017). The research also showed that vulnerable children (digital natives) often master ICT better than their parents (digital immigrants). Therefore, system support for the development of their digital competencies seems desirable. The low digital literacy rate of parents of vulnerable children, together with low awareness of e-safety principles, act as barriers and threats. This opens up an opportunity for planning and delivering social work interventions aimed at preventing Table 17.1 Factors influencing the digital exclusion of vulnerable children Factors supporting digital inclusion

Factors contributing to digital exclusion

Device availability (smartphone, tablet, laptop)

Absence of children’s own devices (smartphone, tablet, laptop) due to the low socio-economic status of the family Absence of unlimited internet connection due to the low socioeconomic status of the family Low digital literacy of parents of vulnerable children Absence of support for families of vulnerable children from a social worker in the field of digital literacy Threat to e-safety of vulnerable children due to low awareness of parents

Unlimited internet connection of the family Support of systemic education of vulnerable children in digital skills Interventions of social work leading to social, and therefore digital, inclusion Raising awareness of parents and children in the field of e-safety (safe use of social networks)

215

Soňa Kalenda et al. Table 17.2 Factors influencing the digital exclusion of older people Factors supporting digital inclusion

Factors contributing to digital exclusion

Accessibility an optimal device for seniors such as a tablet or laptop (when its size and ease of use are taken into account) Unlimited internet connection of the household Support by another person (volunteer, family member – child, grandchild, or peer) Social work interventions supporting digital literacy of seniors Motivation of seniors to use ICT (internal and external motivation) Raising awareness of older people in the field of e-security (safe use of social networks)

Absence of one’s own devices (smartphone, tablet, laptop) Absence of internet connection Low digital literacy of older people (digital immigrants) Low digital literacy of social workers (HC) Prejudices and stereotypes of social workers about the relationship of seniors to ICT Low awareness of e-threat prevention

the digital gap and the exclusion of vulnerable children. However, this depends on the digital competencies of social workers and legislative support (standard). The results of the research showed that the factors supporting digital inclusion of older people include the availability of optimal equipment and connection. Accordingly, De La Fuente Robles and MartÍn Cano (2019) recommend that the technology industry should offer products and services focused on the needs of older people. Otherwise, they warn against technophobia, which will lead to the rejection of the use of ICT. Vaportzis, Clausen, and Gow (2017) state that older people are willing to adopt new technologies and learn to use them, but they are concerned about the ambiguity of the instructions for their use. From the above and also from our research, it follows that the support by another person in the use of ICT is essential for older people. International research further proves that ICT can be used to increase the quality of life of this target group. For example, digital activities can improve seniors’ cognitive abilities (Vaportzis, Martin, and Gow 2016), help strengthen social relationships, and reduce feelings of loneliness (Czaja et al. 2016). In conclusion, social work has a highly important role in supporting the development of digital skills in social groups at risk. Following this approach, the planning of social work intervention should contain not only the screening of the digital needs of different groups of clients, but also technical and methodical support in order to fulfil these needs. Only if we meet these preconditions, can we successfully prevent digital (and related social) exclusion of vulnerable social groups.

Acknowledgments The research was carried out within the project “Smart technologies for the improvement of quality of life in cities and regions” (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_049/ 0008452). 216

Digital Social Work in the Czech Republic

References Boydová, D. 2017. Je to Složitější. Sociální Život Teenager Na Sociálních Sítích. [It’s More Complicated. Social Life of Teenagers in Social Networks]. Praha: Akropolis. Carpenter, B. D., and S. Buday. 2006. “Computer use among older adults in a naturally occurring retirementcommunity.” Computers in Human Behavior 23: 3012–3024. Czaja, J. S., W. R. Boot, N. Charness, and W. A. Rogers. 2016. “Improving social support for older adults through technology: Findings from the PRISM randomized controlled trial.” The Gerontologist 58(3): 467–477. CZSO (Czech Statistical Office). 2017. Využívání Informačních a Komunikačních Technologií V Domácnostech a Mezi Jednotlivci. [Use of information and communication technologies in households and among individuals]. Praha: ČSÚ. De La Fuente Robles, Y. Mª., and Mª d. C. Martin Cano. 2019. “E-social work and at-risk populations: Technology and robotics in social intervention with elders. The case of Spain.” European Journal of Social Work 22(4): 623–633. Dickinson, A., and P. Gregor. 2006. “Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the wellbeing of older adults.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64(8): 744–753. Dillon, A. 1992. “Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature.” Ergonomics 35(10): 1297–1326. Friemel, T. N. 2014. “The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors.” New Media & Society 18(2): 313–331. Gatto, L. S., and H. S. Tak. 2008. “Computer, internet, and e-mail use among older adults: Benefits and barriers.” Educational Gerontology 34: 800–811. Genoe, R., C. Kulczycki, H. Marston, S. Freeman, C. Musselwhite, and H. Rutherford. 2018. “E-leisure and older adults: Findings from an international exploratory study.” Therapeutic Recreation Journal 52(1): 1–18. Gerhart, N. 2017. “Technology addition: How social network sites impact our lives.” International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 20: 179–194. Gillingham, P. 2014. “Electronic information systems and social work: Who are we designing for?” Practice Social Work in Action 26(5): 313–326. Haand, M., and Z. Shuwang. 2020. “The relationship between social media addiction and depression: A quantitative study among university students in Khost, Afghanistan.” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25(1): 780–786. Johnston-Goodstar, K., K. Richards-Schuster, and J. K. Sethi. 2014. “Exploring critical youth media practice: Connections and contributions for social work.” Social Work 59(4): 339–346. Kalenda, S., and I. Kowaliková. 2020. “The digital exclusion of vulnerable children: Challenge for sustainability issues in Czech social work practice.” Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal 12(23): 1–25. Kubů, P. 2014. “Informační gramotnost [Information literacy].” In Sociální Gerontologie [Social Gerontology], edited by R. Čevela, L. Čeledová, Z. Kalvach, and P. Kubů, 156–182. Praha: Grada Publishing. Mordini, E., D. Wright, K. Wadhwa, P. De Hert, E. Montovani, J. Thestrup, G. Van Steendam, A. D’amico, and I. Vater. 2009. “Senior citizens and the ethics of e-iclusion.” Ethics and Information Technology 11(3): 203–220. Morris, E. M., A. Brook, K. Miller, E. Ozanne, R. Hansen, A. J. Pearce, N. Santamaria, L. Vega, M. Lond, and C. M. Said. 2013. “Smart-home technologies to assist older people in live well at home.” Journal of Aging Science 1(1): 1–9. MoLSA (Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs). 2015. Strategie digitální gramotnosti ČR na období 2015 až 2020. [The strategy of digital literacy in the Czech Republic for the period of 2015–2020]. https://www.mpsv.cz/strategie-digitalni-gramotnosti-cr-na-obdobi2015-2020 (accessed January 27, 2021). MoLSA (Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs). 2017. Digitální gramotnost. Zpráva o stavu a výuce digitální gramotnosti a komparace se zahraničím. [Digital literacy. A report on the

217

Soňa Kalenda et al. state and teaching of digital literacy and a comparison with other countries]. https://www. mpsv.cz/documents/20142/225517/Digitalni_gramotnost__-_Zprava_o_stavu_a_vyuce_ digitalni_gramotnosti_a_komparace_se_zahranicim.pdf/f633dd0f-e5df-c19f-7cfa38291b31ceb4 (accessed August 30, 2020). Palfrey, J., and U. Gasser. 2008. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books. Perron, B. E., H. Taylor, J. E. Glass, and J. Margerum-Leys. 2010. “Information and communication technologies in social work.” Advances in Social Work 11(1): 67–81. Prensky, M. 2001. “Digital natives, digital immigrants.” On the Horizon 9(5): 1–6. Recmanová, A., and S. Vávrová. 2018. “Information and communication technologies in interventions of Czech social workers when dealing with vulnerable children and their families.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 876–888. Rowlands, I., D. Nicholas, P. Williams, P. Huntington, M. Fieldhouse, B. Gunter, R. Withey, H. R. Jamali, T. Dobrowolski, and C. Tenopir. 2008. “The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future.” Aslib Proceedings 60: 290–310. Savci, M., and F. Aysan. 2017. “Technological addictions and social connectedness: Predictor effect of internet addiction, social media addiction, digital game addiction and smartphone addiction on social connectedness.” The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 30: 202–216. Spitzer, M. 2017. Digitální Demence. [Digital Dementia]. Brno: Host. Steyaert, J., and N. Gould. 2009. “Social work and the changing face of the digital divide.” British Journal of Social Work 39: 740–753. Sum, S., R. M. Mathews, M. Pourghasem, and I. Hughes. 2009. “Internet use as a predictor of sense of community in older people.” Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society 12(2): 235–239. Valenduc, G., and P. Vendramin. 2017. “Digitalisation, between disruption and evolution.” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 23(2): 121–134. Vaportzis, E., G. M. Clausen, and J. A. Gow. 2017. “Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: A focus group study.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1687. Vaportzis, E., M. Martin, and J. A. Gow. 2016. “A tablet for healthy ageing: The effect of a tablet computer training intervention on cognitive abilities in older adults.” The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 25(8): 841–851. Vávrová, S., A. Recmanová, I. Kowaliková, A. Gojová, and A. Vaňharová. 2019. “Using ICT in social work focused on e-exclusion groups.” In 10th ICEEPSY–International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology: The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 9. 10. 2019, Barcelona, 369–381. Vondrová, V. 2014. “Digitální exkluze: Dimenze sociální exkluze v informační společnosti. [Digital exclusion: Dimensions of social exclusion in the information society].” Sociální práce/Sociálna práca 14(3): 81–101. Watling, S. 2012. “Digital exclusion: Potential implications for social work education.” Social Work Education 31(1): 125–130. White, H., E. McConnell, E. Clipp, L. G. Branch, R. Sloane, C. Pieper, and T. L. Box. 2002. “A randomized controlled study of the psychosocial impact of providing internet training and access to older adults.” Aging and Mental Health 6: 213–221. Wong, Y. C., K. M. Ho, H. Chen, D. Gu, and Q. Zeng. 2015. “Digital divide challenges of children in low-income families: The case of Shanghai.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 33: 53–71. Woody, W. D., D. B. Daniel, and C. A. Baker. 2010. “E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks.” Computers & Education 55: 945–948. Woody, W. D., D. B. Daniel, and J. M. Stewart. 2012. “Students’ preferences and performance using e-textbooks and print textbooks.” Computers in Education 1: 43–58.

218

18 DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK AND DISABILITY SERVICES Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles, María del Carmen Martín Cano, and Enrique García Cortés

Introduction Currently the video game industry exceeds that of music and cinema combined. Apart from its main objective, in which this industry seeks to promote leisure, it has also become clear that some types of video games, such as serious games, can help to promote socialisation or soft skills in some groups, including those who experience situations of social exclusion. One of these groups is people with disabilities. People with disabilities often experience socialisation problems due to the social pressure they continue to receive from society, as well as the infinite number of barriers they continue to face in different areas of life, which prevent them from having equal opportunities and a dignified life in fundamental areas such as training, employment, and leisure. With the aim of improving the conditions of people with disabilities, this chapter will present findings from research which was carried out to ascertain how video games can benefit their lives, not only considering the perspective of the user but also that of the social workers who often help them in their integration into society. Furthermore, the survey aimed to study the extent to which social workers utilise disruptive and exponential growth technologies such as video games and mixed reality as well as how mechanisms such as gamification can fit into social work practice and the extent to which serious games are regarded as useful in helping people with disabilities.

Background and Current Situation The digital age has brought about a very important revolution in all areas, and social intervention has been no exception. Because of this, given the social and technological context confronting today’s social professions, we are facing new challenges that social workers have to address.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-22

219

Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles et al.

Beyond the professional setting, personal life is already strongly influenced by the incursion of information and communication technologies (ICTs). By way of example, in providing services to people with disabilities, social work places an emphasis on the skills and abilities that can be developed using ICT as powerful tools for providing equal opportunities, and, therefore, for improving the quality of life of this group. ICT offers access to a wide range of available resources, including serious games, virtual reality, and/or augmented reality, which seek not only to entertain, but to train and to enhance the collaborative, communication, social, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills of users. These games are being increasingly used as a training and social intervention tool to improve capacities and abilities, especially soft skills, and therefore, to promote well-being. Likewise, accessing experiences through virtual, augmented, or mixed reality technologies can help people understand or face certain situations, even if the situation itself is not real, and without having to resort to the lessons learned from a real-life experience (Martín-Gutiérrez and MenesesFernández 2014). Augmented reality shows the elements of the real world combined with those produced by a computer, which helps those who are experiencing them to acquire the required knowledge through the application itself (Blas Padilla et al. 2019). Virtual reality is also being implemented in education, and not solely for recreational purposes, through what are known as serious games that involve learning or acquiring skills (Paredes 2018). These skills are what are known as soft skills or skills linked to the personality necessary to interact every day with the world around us in different aspects of life. Virtual reality and serious games can help foster creativity, responsiveness, adaptability to new situations, improve attention to detail or encourage the ability to collaborate. At the same time, they have a positive impact and add a specific purpose to people’s daily lives. In the study discussed in this chapter, these games will be oriented to the acquisition of new skills, values, and awareness of the social problems of people with disabilities, with a special emphasis on women with disabilities. Serious games make it possible to convey a message that helps to educate people on issues related to equality, encourage social action, promote empowered learning, awareness of social problems, and critical thinking (Gómez García, 2014; Morales and San Cornelio 2016), while respecting gender perspectives in every phase. This gender perspective has been considered since it is believed that video games can promote gender equality by eliminating the stereotypes imposed by society and allowing everyone to enjoy the same environment without any distinction, so it is important to know the interest or the knowledge of these aspects that have been investigated separately by gender. They are also products that improve social ties, develop identity, solve problems, and promote decision-making skills (MartínezSelva and Sánchez-Navarro 2009). As a result, the project discussed in this chapter focuses on the idea of promoting the use of serious games based on the application of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality technologies as tools for professionals to include in social interventions. 220

Digital Social Work & Disability Services

It is essential that social professionals familiarise themselves with the new content generated by social reality in relation to disability, respecting the gender perspective, including the changes in the resources available as a result of COVID-19: subsistence income, care for victims of domestic violence, education, the workplace, and other relevant contexts. The final aim of the research was to promote soft skills through gamification techniques, relying on counselling to improve the process and motivation in awareness/training, while also bearing in mind that gamification uses the resources of video games to make learning more enjoyable (Paredes 2018). Use can be made of incentives and rewards during the game, which influences the creation of a motivation model. Gamification tries to take advantage of the motivational power of games with the aim of promoting participation, persistence, and achievements (Richter, Raban, and Rafaeli 2015). Our proposal is framed within the need to train specialised personnel and professionals who work with people with disabilities. Government agencies must promote the training of professionals and staff who work with people with disabilities to adequately provide the various services that people with disabilities require, both at the identification, diagnosis, and assessment level, as well as in terms of education and social services. Agencies in this field need to develop specialisation and refresher programmes for these professionals, whether of a general nature or specialised to serve different disabilities, as well as specific care models to achieve maximum personal development, based on the scope of the various professions, in keeping with the different professional skills. In the Spanish context, training at present is insufficient, as was made clear in the announcement of the General Directorate of Disability Support Policies, a Spanish government department, which identified the need to improve staff training and government services, within a sector that is more in demand every day and where technological change is constant. This is also taking place in an environment that was singled out by the Report of the Office for Disability Care (Royal Board on Disability 2019), since citizen complaints regarding disability care have increased in the last 12 years by 1,400%. Another point to remember is that this objective is included within the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), specifically, in Goal 10 “for the equal rights of citizens”, and in the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In this regard, applied research in this area is considered essential and should serve as a thermometer of how society responds to people with disabilities (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Sustainable Development Goals). Research of this type is suitable for the use of S-Cube (O’Byrne and Moizer 2014), which uses a platform called EUTOPIA that incorporates a 3D graphic tool for online multiplayer educational role-playing games. The EUTOPIA platform has previously been used to develop other serious games, such as an online mediation tool for use in community settings affected by conflicts (Dell’Aquila et al. 2017). Games promote training on soft skills by letting users benefit from the practice of “learning by doing” through role-playing games in which they use 221

Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles et al.

avatars as their characters. The online nature of the platform allows players to overcome geographic and resource barriers to training. The most recent research trends have proposed developing approaches for evaluating the user experience (UX) in serious games that address the training needs of people who work in social enterprises. Accordingly, in the field of social intervention, the aforementioned evaluation approaches should be applied to different contexts involving serious games in order to validate and generalise the process. This requires more tests with various games and diverse populations so as to confirm the usefulness of the proposals (Moizer et al. 2019). These tools seek to achieve specific learning outcomes and to develop skills, knowledge, attitudes, or behaviours that are relevant to the topic(s) of interest in this field of study (Susi, Johannesson, and Backlund 2007).

The Potential of Technology as a Training Revolution Due to its unique ability to visually convey abstract concepts and present 3D information in context with real objects (Westerfield, Mitrovic, and Billinghurst 2015), augmented reality is a novel technology that offers new and appealing ways to learn effectively (Kysela and Štorková 2015). It allows for the conceptual enhancement of real educational scenarios, which contributes to student motivation (Ayerbe et al. 2014). Given the growing popularity around the world of mobile devices and the new user interface, the use of augmented reality is becoming a potentially important form of education (Chamba-Eras and Aguilar 2017). When this technology is used properly, it allows the user to become “immersed” in the topic of interest and to actively participate in the learning process (Albrecht et al. 2013; Eishita, Stanley, and Mandryk 2014; Kysela and Štorková 2015). The predominant subject areas in the studies that have been carried out on the applications of augmented reality in training have been medicine, computer science, and social sciences (Jaramillo et al. 2018). It is essential that social professionals familiarise themselves with the new skills – related to universal accessibility and design for all – that seek to provide for the inclusion of persons with disabilities from the perspective of gender, in order to create physical, social, and virtual environments that are user friendly. We are also witnessing new trends where humanisation is key, appealing to personal values such as contact, emotion, and solidarity. This is a very important starting point if we are to acknowledge diversity and break down barriers between professionals and users with disabilities. For all of these reasons: 1 There is an undeniable need to improve the skills of professionals in this sector, where technology is constantly changing and where the level of care given to people with disabilities should be higher. 2 There are new techniques that enable life-long learning based on the use of serious games, virtual reality and/or augmented reality techniques.

222

Digital Social Work & Disability Services

3

4

The integration of both aspects – the identification of the needs of users and professionals and the implementation of new techniques – has to be based on a clear methodology that relies on a scientific investigation of the current situation. The project outlined in this chapter incorporates a methodology (and applies it) based on examples that implement these tools, with a prototyping and analysis scheme and methods for improving and scaling new versions.

Methodology After studying some of the issues related to video games, we became interested in ascertaining the opinions of both students and practising social work professionals, in order to corroborate, or not, the different perspectives contained in the literature consulted. A.

Procedure and participants

The study population consisted of students majoring in social work at two public universities in Spain (the University of Jaén and the University of Alcalá) and of practising social work professionals from different geographical locations in Spain. Potential participants were invited to participate in the study by email and received an invitation message that described the purpose of the study and included a link (via Google Survey) to the questionnaire. The online surveys were returned between 1 December and 23 December 2020, and required approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. A total of 210 people completed the questionnaires, all of which were included in the final analysis (100% response rate). B.

Measurements

To evaluate the use of and attitudes towards video games, the questionnaire prepared by Alfageme and Sánchez (2003) was used. It consists of 20 items, as shown in Table 3.1 in that publication. Also, as a complementary tool, the authors used their own questionnaire involving the following items: (1) Level of technology, (2) Operating system used, (3) Have you ever had an experience with virtual reality?, (4) Have you ever had an experience with augmented reality?, (5) Have you ever had an experience with mixed reality?, 6) Do you know what gamification is?, (7) Do you think this technique can be applied to social work?, (8) Do you commonly use technology in procedures or interventions related to your profession?, (9) Do you consider soft skills important?, (10) Do you think that social work and education procedures should be upgraded?, (11) What role do you think video games can have in social work in general?, (12) What role do you think mixed reality can play in social work in general?

223

Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles et al.

C.

Ethical considerations

The questionnaires were anonymous, so as to guarantee the confidentiality and reliability of the data. Only the research staff had access to the study data. The first page of the survey included an informed consent form that explained the procedures, risks, and benefits of the study. Participants gave their consent to participate by clicking “Yes, I agree to participate” at the end of the consent form, and then proceeded to complete the online survey.

Results Most of this study’s participants were women, at 83.81% (n = 176), compared to 16.19% (n = 34) for men. Of these, 71.43% (n = 150) were people under 25 years of age, 19.05% (n = 40) ranged from 25 to 40 years of age, and 9.52% (n = 20) were over 40 years old. Of the total sample, 61.52% (n = 129) were social work students and 38.48% (n = 81) were practising professionals. Focusing on the level of technology, 38.58% (n = 81) had user-level knowledge, 51.43% (n = 108) were advanced users, and only 7.62 (n = 16) were expert users. The Android operating system was the most used at 73.81% (n = 155), compared to IOS at 26.19% (n = 55). Of the people surveyed, 68.09% (n = 143) reported spending over 10 hours a week on the computer, and 26.67% (n = 56) spent more than 30 hours a week on the computer. Regarding the use of and attitudes towards video games, the most significant results indicate that 70% (n = 147) of the people surveyed do not use video games, compared to 30% (n = 63) who do. Ninety-six per cent (n = 60) of the participants who play them do not do so more than 20 hours a week, with the range between 1 and 5 hours a week being the category that obtained the highest response percentage at 62.90% (n = 40). The most used video games were arcades games (platforms, mazes, sports, shooters) at 30.71% (n = 20), followed by strategy games at 28.35% (n = 18), board games at 21.26% (n = 13), and simulations in last place at 19.69% (n = 12). Video games with general themes were the most used at 37.10% (n = 24) compared to other themes 25.81% (n = 16), sports 19.35% (n = 12), violence 9.68% (n = 6), and just 8.06% (n = 5) for educational games. While playing, 54.84% (n = 35) of respondents reported that they do not stay with the same game and 45.16% (n = 28) do. Approximately 41.94% (n = 27) play with friends of both sexes, although almost the same percentage (40.32%) indicate that this depends largely on the video game. Only 12.90% (n = 8) play alone. Regarding the most important skills that video games enhance, the three most mentioned were attention, with 21.90% of the votes (n = 46), creative skills 15.23% (n = 32) and psychomotor skills 14.76% (n = 31). As to whether or not they had experience with virtual, augmented and mixed reality, low percentages were reported at 39.05% (n = 82), 21.43% (n = 45), and 17.14% (n = 35), respectively. 224

Digital Social Work & Disability Services

Regarding the technique of gamification, only 44.63% (n = 94) of the respondents were familiar with it, and of them, a high percentage, 73.55% (n = 69), believe that this technique can be applied to social work, versus 26.45% (n = 25) who do not. Highly significant is the fact that 94.21% (n = 198), practically all of those surveyed, use or would use technology in social work interventions. It is also significant that a high percentage, 85.95% (n = 180), consider it very important to have soft skills. On a different topic, 81.82% (n = 172) indicated that they think that the procedures used in social work and education should be upgraded to embrace new technologies, such as video games, mixed reality, among others, in the work they do every day, compared to 18.18% (n = 38) who do not. Regarding the role that mixed reality can have in social work, although most of the respondents were unaware of it, those who have had experience in this regard are of the opinion that it can offer the contributions.

Discussion As the data collected show, most of the participants have a certain level of familiarity with technology – the Android operating system being the most used – spending more than 10 hours a week on computers. However, only a third of the sample reported using video games. In this regard, we see a significant difference in relation to the study conducted by Alfageme and Sánchez (2003), where approximately 50% of the respondents reported using them, a contradictory finding perhaps due to the difference in the ages of the people surveyed. It should be noted that people who use video games have a very positive opinion of them, believing them to enhance a wide range of skills, most notably attention, creative skills, and psychomotor skills, thus confirming findings of various studies (Alfageme and Sánchez 2003; Kickmeier-Rust et al. 2008; Gómez García 2014; Hamari et al. 2016; Morales and San Cornelio 2016). It is very important to point out the fact that a high percentage of the sample deemed it necessary to use technology in professional settings, as well as to acquire soft skills as part of their development, meaning these aspects also apply when training future professionals. As pointed out earlier, this would entail upgrading the procedures employed in social work to embrace new technologies. In short, confirming the hypotheses of the various studies consulted, the general goals of technology-based training entail consolidating both basic research and research applied to social intervention by developing an integrated system for improving the skills of professionals through the use of techniques based on serious games and virtual and/or augmented reality.

Proposal To improve the relationship between these new technologies and the exponential growth and interventions in the world of social work, we propose the following project that will try to improve these results by promoting new training for the social 225

Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles et al.

workers of the future. To help the participants internalise these novel approaches by the end of the project, we propose using, in the first place, design thinking, since this methodology seeks to develop new forms of intervention, but from an interdisciplinary perspective that brings professionals together through teamwork. This is a practical and creative approach to solving problems, since the key to using this method is that it identifies opportunities and fixes setbacks. The characteristics necessary for implementing this methodology are empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism, and collaboration. Secondly, we hope to create innovative training tools that make training more accessible and relatable and that, most of all, shorten learning times. The design thinking method consists of the following five phases: 1

2

3

4

Empathise: Learn from the user for whom the intervention proposal, in the social work context, is being designed. The key aspect of empathy is putting oneself in the place of another. Empathy is based on human interaction between the social professional and the people they serve. Theoretical knowledge about the professional relationship, the problem being addressed, and the characteristics of the target audience are particularly helpful (Arruda and Alba 2007). To break new ground in the intervention, we need to, through empathy, confront those needs that address the lack of universal accessibility and design for all. Donabedian (1990) proposed that the quality of care should be measured using three components – technical care, the handling of the interpersonal relationship and the environment in which the care is given – all of it underpinned by designing an intervention that shows respect for everyone. Define: Establish a starting point based on the needs of the end users. Thanks to the experience of supporting relevant end-of-degree projects and other works carried out from 2010 to 2017 by the ONCE Foundation and the University of Jaen related to Curricular Training in Universal Accessibility and Design for All, intended for students majoring in different degrees, we already have established definitions to begin to outline this need. However, it is essential that the scope of action is extended to other educational levels, where direct and continuous training is also required on these issues of accessibility and technologies by users with disabilities and social workers. Devise: Generate ideas and come up with creative solutions, with creativity being defined as the ability to find methods and objectives to perform tasks in a new or different way in order to satisfy a purpose. This is part of a mental process – imagining, visualising, or conceiving something with clarity and later originating or formulating an unconventional idea. The ability to be up to date should be manifested in an attitude of searching for new ways of investigating reality so as to be closer to it, of identifying new problems and the creative search for solutions, of applying new educational and didactic formulas that respond to the needs of two different groups: people with disabilities (the end users) and social professionals (the producers). Prototype: Make the proposal tangible to show it to the end user. Now it is time for several professionals from the academic and professional field 226

Digital Social Work & Disability Services

5

(professional associations) and social representatives (trade unions) to show the possibilities offered by this new form of intervention with these technologies. Testing: Testing this new training proposal (prototype based on serious games, virtual reality, and/or augmented reality) with social professionals to learn from their feedback. This phase is fundamental and requires the combined effort of all those involved in this process. It is a necessary premise for the real and effective application of universal accessibility and design for all.

On the practical side, we will analyse the different aspects of digital content (Law and Sun 2012), such as: 1

2

3

4

The gaming experience: It is difficult to describe and quantify what a gaming experience is, since it is not part of one experience, but of many, although challenge and skill development seem to be fundamental to gaming (Hamari et al. 2016). Learning experience: Games should provide players with clear objectives to help them focus on the tasks of the game, and incorporate feedback to provide a learning opportunity (Buil, Catalán, and Martínez 2018). Adaptability: Serious games with adaptive characteristics allow the gaming experience to adapt to the abilities and pace of users, in this case, people with disabilities (Tsikinas and Xinogalos 2020). Current students (future social workers) must understand and be able to use these tools by the end of their training programme (Kickmeier-Rust et al. 2008). Usability: The characteristics of usability include the user-friendliness of the interface, user control within the gaming environment, avoiding errors, and satisfaction with the game’s interactive features (Hersh and Leporini 2012).

Finally, the results obtained in the design, development, and validation phase of the prototype will be incorporated using the Unity engine. This software will be used, as it is compatible with the major platforms, thus ensuring it can reach the largest possible audience. Native support is now available for Oculus Rift, Steam VR/Vive, Playstation VR, Gear VR, Microsoft HoloLens, and Google’s Daydream View. It also features ultra-high frame rates thanks to a highly optimised stereoscopic rendering pipeline and tools that further optimise its content, with rapid iterative development, built-in support for various platform-specific functions, plus a versatile VR/AR API, and most of all, close collaboration with major device manufacturers.

Conclusion From our hypothesis, our main purpose was to find out what was the relationship of social work employees and people with disabilities with exponential technologies such as video games or mixed reality (which includes virtual reality and augmented reality). After the study presented in this article, we have discovered that people who work in the field of social work believe that the procedures and the way of carrying 227

Yolanda María de la Fuente Robles et al.

out some interventions must be updated. Similarly, people with disabilities, fighting for their right to equal opportunities, want technologies to offer them new forms of interaction for their leisure, educational, and work environment. For all these reasons, it is concluded that instruction on new ways of working with emerging technologies, such as video games (serious games) and mixed reality, should be introduced to students who will practise social work in the future in order to prepare them to improve the inclusion of groups at risk of exclusion such as people with disabilities.

References Albrecht, U. V., K. Folta-Schoofs, M. Behrends, and U. von Jan. 2013. “Effects of mobile augmented reality learning compared to textbook learning on medical students: Randomized controlled pilot study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 15(8): e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2497. PMID: 23963306; PMCID: PMC3758026 Alfageme González, M. B., and P. A. Sánchez Rodríguez. 2003. “Un instrumento para evaluar el uso y las actitudes hacia los videojuegos.” Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación 20: 17–32. Arruda, A., and M. d Alba. (eds.). 2007. Espacios Imaginarios Y Representaciones Sociales. Aportes Desde latinoamérica. Anthropos/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa. Ayerbe, C., N. Lazaric, M. Callois, and L. Mitkova. 2014. “The new challenges of organizing intellectual property in complex industries: A discussion based on the case of Thales.” Technovation 34: 232–241. 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.001. halshs-00974973 Blas Padilla, D., E. Vázquez Cano, M. Morales Cevallos, and E. López Meneses. 2019. “Uso de apps de realidad aumentada en las aulas universitarias.” Campus Virtuales: Revista Científica Iberoamericana de Tecnología Educativa 8(1): 37–48. Buil, I., S. Catalán, and E. Martínez. 2018. “Exploring students’ flow experiences in business simulation games.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 34(2): 183–192. 10.1111/jcal. 12237 Chamba-Eras, L., and J. Aguilar. 2017. “Augmented reality in a smart classroom. Case study: SaCI.” IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje 1-1. 10.1109/RITA.2017. 2776419 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). [Online] Available at: https:// www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-withdisabilities.html Dell’Aquila, E., D. Marocco, M. Ponticorvo, A. di Ferdinando, M. Schembri, and O. Miglino. 2017. “Eutopia: Transferring psycho-pedagogical role play to the multiplayer digital stage.” In Educational Games for Soft-Skills Training in Digital Environments: New Perspectives, edited by E. Dell’Aquila, D. Marocco, M. Ponticorvo, A. Di Ferdinando, M. Schembri, and O. Miglino, 63–88. Springer International Publishing. Donabedian, A. 1990. La Dimensión Internacional de la Evaluación Y Garantía de la Calidad. 32: 113–117. http://saludpublica.mx/index.php/spm/article/viewFile/5280/5424 Eishita, F. Z., K. G. Stanley, and R. L. Mandryk, 2014. “Iterative design of an augmented reality game and level-editing tool for use in the classroom.” IEEE Games Media Entertainment:1–4. Gómez García, S. 2014. “Cambiar jugando. La apuesta de los serious games en la educación por la igualdad entre los y las jóvenes (1).” Revista de Estudios de Juventud 106: 123–132. Hamari, J., D. J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, J. Asbell-Clarke, and T. Edwards. 2016. “Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 54: 170–179. 10.1016/ j.chb.2015.07.045

228

Digital Social Work & Disability Services Hersh, M. A., and B. Leporini. 2012. “Accessibility and usability of educational games for disabled students.” In Student Usability in Educational Software and Games: Improving Experiences, edited by C. Gonzalez, 1–40. IGI Global. Jaramillo Henao, A. M., G. J. Silva Bolívar, C. A. Adarve Gómez, S. M. Velásquez Restrepo, C. A. Páramo Velásquez, and L. L. Gómez Echeverri. 2018. “Aplicaciones de Realidad Aumentada en educación para mejorar los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje: Una revisión sistemática.” Espacios 39(49): 15. Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., C. Hockemeyer, D. Albert, and T. Augustin. 2008. “Micro adaptive, non-invasive knowledge assessment in educational games.” In Proceedings - 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, DIGITEL 2008, 135–137. 10.1109/DIGITEL. 2008.10 Kysela, J., and P. Storková. 2015. “Science direct using augmented reality as a medium for teaching history and tourism.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 174: 926–931. 10. 1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.713 Law, E. L.-C., and X. Sun. 2012. “Evaluating user experience of adaptive digital educational games with Activity Theory.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 70(7): 478–497. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.007 Martín-Gutiérrez, J., and M. D. Meneses-Fernández. 2014. “Augmented reality environments in learning, communicational and professional contexts in higher education.” Digital Education Review 26: 22–35. Martínez-Selva, J.M., and J.P. Sanchez-Navarro. 2009. “Decision making and the emotional brain.” In Encyclopedia of Psychology of Decision Making, 197–235. New York. Moizer, J., J. Lean, E. Dell’Aquila, P. Walsh, A. Keary, D. O’Byrne, A. Di Ferdinando, O. Miglino, R. Friedrich, R. Asperges, and L. S. Sica. 2019. “An approach to evaluating the user experience of serious games.” Computers and Education 136: 141–151. 10.1016/ j.compedu.2019.04.006 Morales, J., and G. San Cornelio. 2016. “La jugabilidad educativa en los serious games.” Paperback 10: 23. O’Byrne, D., and J. Moizer. 2014. S-Cube Project: Training Soft Skills in Social Enterprises Using Virtual Environments for Role Play. University of Plymouth Press. Paredes, G. 2018. “Los serious games como herramientas educo-informativas para el diseño de la conciencia social.” In Gamificación en Iberoamérica: Experiencias Desde la Comunicación y la Educación, edited by Á. Torres-Toukoumidis, and L. M. Romero-Rodríguez, 303–327. Universidad Politécnica Salesiana. Richter, G., D. R. Raban, and S. Rafaeli. 2015. “Studying gamification: The effect of rewards and incentives on motivation.” In Gamification in Education and Business, edited by T. Reiners and L. C. Wood, 21–46. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3319-10208-5_2 Royal Board on Disability. 2019. Presented in the 2017 report from the Office of Disability Services. Royal Board. Spanish Centre for Documentation on Disability. Accessed on 6 December 2020. https://www.cedd.net/es/actualidad/noticias/presentado-el-informede-la-oficina-de-atencin-a-la-discapacidad-2017/0-379/# Susi, T., M. Johannesson, and P. Backlund. 2007. Serious Games – An Overview. Sweden: School of Humanities and Informatics, University of Skövde. Sustainable Development Goals. [Online] Available at: https://www.undp.org/sustainabledevelopment-goals Tsikinas, S., and S. Xinogalos. 2020. “Towards a serious games design framework for people with intellectual disability or autism spectrum disorder.” Education and Information Technologies 25(4): 3405–3423. 10.1007/s10639-020-10124-4 Westerfield, G., A. Mitrovic, and M. Billinghurst. 2015. “Intelligent augmented reality training for motherboard assembly.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 25: 157–172. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40593-014-0032-x

229

19 THE USE OF FACEBOOK IN SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE WITH FAMILIES Safeguarding or Surveillance? Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner

Introduction In a 15-month ethnographic study conducted over 2016–2018, the authors of this chapter were members of a research team that studied social work and child protection practices in two local authority sites in England (Ferguson et al. 2019; Ferguson et al. 2020). Several academics and two research fellows were based in the offices of the social work teams. Observation included office routines and practices, computer use, staff interactions and relationships, supervision sessions as well as social worker’s direct practice on home visits and multiagency meetings. Social media use, specifically use of Facebook, was not an intended focus for the study, rather its use in social work practice emerged during our fieldwork. While some earlier research had shown that such practices occurred (Sage and Sage 2016a; Lim 2017; Ryan and Garrett 2018), our long-term ethnographic approach enabled us to gain new insights into how Facebook was used in ongoing casework with families and why it was used. Our findings show that Facebook use by children’s social workers took three main forms. Some social workers actively examined service users’ Facebook pages and some resisted any such usage. We further advanced the understanding of this phenomenon by identifying a further group of social workers who were unwillingly “drawn into” acting on Facebook information presented to them by others, such as their managers (Cooner et al. 2020). As part of our work exploring this phenomenon, we examined the existing literature on social media surveillance by social care agencies. Trottier (2011), discussing surveillance generally, notes that: “Social media are now central to the visibility of personal information. They fuel contemporary identity construction through micro-level relations. A pervasive and situated engagement means that users 230

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-23

The Use of Facebook in Social Work

maintain their reputations through everyday interactions” (p. 60). Prior to Facebook, many investigative agencies faced limits to the more intimate personal information about the lives of individuals and families, as it unfolded behind closed doors, but as Trottier (2011, 63) outlines, this information in now in public, visible on social media sites and represents access for state and other agencies to take “advantage of a staggering amount of personal information”. Our study was important because there was deemed to be a lack of research on how social media might be used to inform social work practice decisions, especially in child protection (Sage and Sage 2016a). Our analysis of longitudinal, observational and interview data about the use of Facebook in long-term social work practice with children and families added to the developing body of knowledge (Cooner et al. 2020).

Literature In our review of the literature, it was apparent that regular use of Facebook had already been identified in several studies. In an Irish mixed methods study Ryan and Garrett (2018) reported that child protection social workers were using information gleaned from Facebook, and from a more extensive US survey of child protection social workers, Sage and Sage (2016a) found that social workers were reasonably comfortable viewing service user social media data. Sage and Sage (2016a) reported 59% respondents had searched for a missing service user on Facebook; 54% had searched Facebook to explore risk factors. Furthermore 55% believed that it was acceptable to conduct a curiosity search on Facebook for service users with 43% indicating that they have done so and a further 13% indicating that they did this either daily or multiple times in the day. Only 20% stated that they had never used social media to look for client information. Both Sage and Sage (2016a) and Breyette and Hill (2015) encountered respondents who knew of a social work practice of creating fake social media identities to monitor clients. Two articles argued that ethical codes and policies alone are never enough to curb ethically questionable practice (Voshel and Wesala 2015; Sage and Sage 2016b), rather that, individual practitioners still need to exercise personal judgement. Sage and Sage (2016b) emphasise that “policy cannot replace critical thinking, clinical considerations, or address all ambiguous practice situations” (p. 83). In addition, guidelines may not be well understood or even known. In Ireland, Ryan and Garrett (2018) found that none of the government employed social workers they interviewed were aware of any guidelines for social media use. In our study, English legislation that in some situations proscribed the use of social media by professionals, namely the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) (RIPA) (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources Amendment, Order 2010) was not well known. Under this act the single viewing of social networking sites by state agents (such as social workers) as part of an investigation is not classed as surveillance and does not require RIPA authorisation. However, repeated viewing of Facebook pages of service users without their consent would fall under the definition of surveillance and likely requires consent (Cooner et al. 2020). 231

Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner

Recent Literature Since our study was conducted the volume of literature addressing social worker use of social media in practice has increased, notably including a recent flurry of research on the use of technology during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mishna et al. 2020; Pink, Ferguson, and Kelly 2022; Mishna et al. 2021a,b,c). Use of social media during the pandemic has been problematised by several authors and Pink, Ferguson, and Kelly (2021, 6) argue that the pandemic has “accelerated uses of digital media and technologies in child protection social work, raising such concerns both about social work itself and the young people impacted by social inequalities, and who are most likely to be supported by child protection social workers”. Many authors have called for further investigation of the complexities of the relationship between the profession and social media as usage becomes everyday even as it crosses the personal and public divide (Byrne et al. 2019; Cooner et al. 2020; Megele and Buzzi 2020; Mishna et al. 2021b; Nordesjö, Scaramuzzino, and Ulmestig 2021; Thornton-Rice and Moran 2021).

Ethics and Professional Codes across World Pascoe (2021) explored the codes of ethics of nine national professional social work bodies and found seeking information on service users on social media received less attention than risks of the poor representation of social workers on such platforms. For reasons of brevity three contexts will be addressed here.

Aotearoa New Zealand Social Media Policy While the professional association in Aotearoa New Zealand focuses more on representation of the profession, the statutory regulator, the Social Workers Registration Board (Social Workers Registration Board, nd, (SWRB)), does address accessing information about service users (Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers 2019). The SWRB Code of Conduct (undated) for social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand connects use of social media to conduct searches to several related principles (SWRB n.d.). The code advises social workers that the New Zealand Privacy Act 1993 should be considered paramount in making decisions about using social media to find out information about clients and a key principle is that information collected should be connected to a function or activity of the agency and it is necessary to collect that information for that purpose. In online searches, the code states: “information must not be collected by means that are unfair or intrude unreasonably” (The Privacy Act, Principle 18). “If you’re doing an online search of a client without their consent, you may be breaching the Privacy Act 1993 and perhaps other ethical responsibilities. It could undermine the professional relationship, which is based on trust and confidence, as you hold the burden of the ‘secret’ (SWRB n.d., 29)”. Furthermore, the code advises social workers considering investigating the online activities of service users to discuss the issue in professional supervision (p. 29). “Emergencies may

232

The Use of Facebook in Social Work

justify searching for information about clients online but the actions taken and the reasons for it should be fully recorded” (p. 30).

United Kingdom Social Media Policy Whilst the legal context has been outlined earlier in the chapter, more recently, the British Association of Social Workers’ (BASW) Digital Capabilities: Ethical Considerations statement (BASW 2020) highlights the complexity of professional ethics, use of power and social media platforms and offered this cautious statement: Social workers have a responsibility to consider the use of social media as part of safeguarding investigations but need to be mindful of the ethical implications. It is important to work with those professionals who are best placed to undertake the task of scrutinising social media and to ensure it is in the service user’s best interest.

USA Social Media Policy By way of contrast the professional bodies in the United States offer this guidance in the very comprehensive National Association of Social Workers Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, Clinical Social Work Association Standards for Technology (2017). Standard 3.09: Using Search Engines to Locate Information about Clients (p. 38) states: “Except for compelling professional reasons, social workers shall not gather information about clients from online sources without the client’s consent; if they do so, they shall take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the found information”. Table 19.1 summarises some recommendations that have been developed from our reading of the literature and from codes of ethics/codes of conduct that we have consulted (for example, NASW 2017; BASW, 2020; SWRB n.d.) that we present as having general utility for social workers everywhere to consider, regardless of their own local codes and local legislation, which may change over time, as they are grounded in professional ethics. The ethical issues traversed in discussions in the literature have coalesced around several themes, reflecting our research findings. Firstly, is social media monitoring justified by safeguarding concerns, where vulnerable children and young people are concerned? Second, do issues of privacy and consent override the advantages of access to that bird’s-eye view afforded by Facebook viewing? Finally, given social media are constructed spaces, where individuals curate their content. How do people who would generally resist using social media in practice face ethical decisions that arise when something is observed that can’t be “unseen”? How reliable is the information gleaned? Furthermore, social media posting is often performative and individuals may exaggerate or misrepresent actual events through images

233

Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner Table 19.1 Ethical use of social media: some broad principles Consent

Privacy

Unintended viewing of service user social media

Exceptions

Corroboration

Documentation

Supervision

Before using social media platforms to gather information social workers should obtain the service user’s informed consent unless an exception can be justified where vulnerable persons might be at risk. Social workers should respect the privacy of client information posted on online social networks and not communicate with people who use services through these platforms without their consent. Intentionally gathering information about people who use services via social media without consent should only be done if there is an emergency or specific reason that the information cannot be obtained from the service user or from appropriate third parties. If a social worker unintentionally comes across information about a client through uninvited sharing by a third party, the social worker should avoid gathering further information once the identity of the client becomes evident. Where accidental exposure occurs, as a general rule social workers should make this known to the service user. Exceptions to intentional but unconsented information gathering on social media may be necessary in emergencies, for instance, there is serious, imminent risk to the service user or others and there is no speedy alternative. Consideration should be given to whether it might be more appropriate for police or other protective services professionals to conduct such a search. It is important to verify online information gathered about service users as information on social media may be false or inaccurate and details/dates etc. misleading. Verification can be done by checking the accuracy of the information with the service user, or other appropriate sources. Social workers who search online for information about service users for compelling professional reasons should record the search and findings and the justification for doing so. Consideration of the benefits and consequences of surveillance of services users’ social media content should occur in supervision.

(boyd 2011) casting doubt on the veracity of information for assessment or decisionmaking. As boyd (2011, 506) states People develop different strategies to manage realities in which they are observed. While there is little doubt that surveillance affects people’s behaviour … people are also quite creative in finding ways to manage being watched so as to achieve privacy.

234

The Use of Facebook in Social Work

The following section explores these three aspects in relation to practice with children and families that we observed during the fieldwork.

Use of Facebook in Practice with Children and Families A significant finding from our research (Cooner et al. 2020) was that it was not unusual for workers and managers to mention an office Facebook account. These were not fake accounts used to surreptitiously befriend families by pretending to be someone else, but rather they were general local authority accounts that tended to be used in the different ways outlined below.

Monitoring as Safeguarding – a Pragmatic Stance In our research there were social workers who made conscious decisions not to look at the social media profiles of service users to gather information about them. These practitioners drew on issues such as respecting the rights of service users’ privacy. They also highlighted the principles of human dignity, transparency and trust as important principles that guided their decision-making in this area. These social workers tended also to be more critical about the validity of the information that service users posted online and questioned the accuracy of the posts and thus the impact it could potentially have on their decision-making processes. Our analysis of the data highlighted that the conditions under which they would consider “monitoring” Facebook posts were quite complex. Some were practical, such as gaining the skills and knowledge to use the social media platform. They argued that any information gathered would have to be balanced against assessments carried out in their face-to-face encounters. Other arguments were based on the ethical principles of ensuring that service users were made aware that they would be observing their social media accounts. However, following our research, Thornton-Rice and Moran (2021) consider the concept of “digital reflexivity”. This concept considers the complex interplay between balancing valid reasons to access information on social media to keep service users safe against considerations of privacy that may have an impact on the working relationship. This tended to raise much more complex issues that are explored below.

Surveillance – a Critical Stance Our observations and analysis of the data outlined how social workers accessed parent’s social media accounts for the purposes of covert surveillance. The arguments for this behaviour tended to be underpinned by several factors. Some were organisational in nature. For example, many social workers were carrying very high caseloads, access to information via Facebook on families was considered an efficient method of saving time and protecting the child. This uncritical surveillance and use of information posted by families tended to alleviate the unbearable feelings of uncertainty about the safety of children (Ferguson 2018). A lack of adequate resources and effective emotional support in supervision tended to underpin this 235

Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner

behaviour. Social workers also argued that if the information posted by families was in the public domain, then there should be no barrier to accessing it to inform their work with families. The problem with this approach is that families were intentionally kept in the dark about the fact that their Facebook information was being used to inform the approaches adopted by the social workers. There was a fear that if they became aware that this information was being accessed that the families may set stronger privacy settings. There was a worry then that they would lose access to a rich and easily accessible seam of information. Within the agency, our research showed that there were also others who were actively complicit in this surveillance culture, for example managers and conference chairs encouraged this form of information gathering. A strong ethical argument to justify this behaviour was based on a set of utilitarian principles, basically that whilst the professionals knew that accessing and using this information without the service user’s knowledge and consent was problematic, if it resulted in the safety of the child being achieved, then the ends justified the means. Another interesting finding to emerge from the research was the contradiction at times to the ethical stance taken by social workers. When asked if they befriended work colleagues on Facebook a number stated that they did not because they wanted to keep their work and personal lives separate. They stated that they locked everything down to ensure that no one was able to access their information. There was a clear contradiction about rights to privacy by social workers who tended to take a “practical” position in relation to surveillance of service users accounts.

Social Workers Caught in the Middle A major finding from our research was the concept of social workers being “drawn in”. This refers to situations where social workers faced the dilemma of whether to look or not at a service user’s online social media accounts based on Facebook information sent to them by third parties, including their managers. Social workers who for ethical reasons did not actively look at the social media accounts of families were placed in a very difficult position. Many found themselves in a profound quandary when presented by screenshots from Facebook for example showing someone interacting with a child when they were meant to have no contact. Other situations arose when managers were undertaking Facebook surveillance of families and forwarding information from Facebook and asking their social workers to follow up on the information sent. In these situations, the social workers found it difficult not to follow up on the information for fear of something bad happening to the child or family member they were working with. There were also the issues of power at play that could potentially put them in conflict with their manager. In these situations, in many cases social workers who did not want to use Facebook ended up having to, particularly when attempting to verify the information sent to them. Even when they accessed the information, there was no way of verifying the accuracy of the information posted online. In some instances, they then had to act on the information and ask the family without having to reveal where the information came from because others such as the manager worried about the loss 236

The Use of Facebook in Social Work

of access to this material. It was a tricky situation to be in because the workers were aware that they could be reprimanded for not acting on the information, but also for acting on the information. The research illustrated a clear call from social workers and their managers for guidance from regulatory bodies about what is and is not acceptable in this area of social work. Social workers want to learn about and be guided so that they are clear about what they should and should not do in relation to the situations outlined above. It is clear that there is a need for definitive guidance and training about the legal and ethical implications of the situations outlined.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have acknowledged that the use of social media for information gathering and surveillance is fraught with ethical tensions and guidance is not uniform across codes of practice in various jurisdictions. We hope that the broad principles outlined in Table 19.1 come some way towards offering some guidance for consideration and fully expect that an ongoing review and development of codes will lead to greater clarity. In conclusion we want to draw a distinction again between innovative positive use of information and communication technology, including social media and the more contested practice of surveillant usage. Just as the codes can focus almost exclusively on risk to the profession’s reputation, social service agencies can also get caught up in anxiety about organisational risk. We call for balance in professional codes and agency guidelines to avoid the stifling of potentially positive innovations in social media use in social work practice. As Harris (2021, 10) has argued, social work values and research should drive our innovation and responses to new technologies: Social workers cited core values, such as client self-determination, as driving their practice, particularly when specific guidance on the use of technology was limited. There is an opportunity for further research, exploring the ways social work can embed technology within theories of, and for, contemporary social work practice. Social work–led understandings of technology can better prepare social workers to critically navigate changing terrain and develop social work–led technology for practice.

References Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. 2019. Code of Ethics. https://www. anzasw.nz/code-of-ethics/. BASW. 2020. “Digital capabilities: Ethical considerations,” available online at: https://www. basw.co.uk/digital-capabilities-ethical-considerations (accessed May 3, 2021). boyd, D. 2011. “Dear voyeur meet flâneur … sincerely, social media.” Surveillance & Society 8(4): 505–507. Breyette, S. K., and K. Hill. 2015. “The impact of electronic communication and social media on child welfare practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 33(4): 283–303.

237

Liz Beddoe and Tarsem Singh Cooner Byrne, J., G. Kirwan, and C. Mc Guckin. 2019. “Social media surveillance in social work: Practice realities and ethical implications.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 37 (2-3): 142–158. Cooner, T. S., L. Beddoe, H. Ferguson, and E. Joy. 2020. “The use of Facebook in social work practice with children and families: Exploring complexity in an emerging practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 38(2): 137–158. Ferguson, H. 2018 “How social workers reflect in action and when and why they don’t: The possibilities and limits to reflective practice in social work.” Social Work Education 37(4): 415–427. Ferguson, H., J. Leigh, T. S. Cooner, L. Beddoe, T. Disney, L. Warwick, and G. Plumridge. 2019. “From snapshots of practice to a movie: Researching long-term social work and child protection by getting as close as possible to practice and organisational life.” British Journal of Social Work 50(6): 1706–1723. Ferguson, H., L. Warwick, T. S. Cooner, J. Leigh, L. Beddoe, T. Disney, and G. Plumridge. 2020. “The nature and culture of social work with children and families in long-term casework: Findings from a qualitative longitudinal study.” Child & Family Social Work 25(3): 694–703. Harris, S. 2021. “Australian social workers’ understandings of technology in practice.” Australian Social Work 75(4): 420–432. Lim, S. S. 2017. “Youth workers’ use of Facebook for mediated pastoralism with juvenile delinquents and youths-at-risk.” Children and Youth Services Review 81: 139–147. Megele, C., and P. Buzzi. 2020. Social Media and Social Work: Implications and Opportunities for Practice. Bristol University Press: Policy Press. Mishna, F., E. Milne, M. Bogo, and L. F. Pereira. 2020. “Responding to COVID-19: New trends in social workers’ use of information and communication technology.” Clinical Social Work Journal 49(4): 484–494. doi: 10.1007/s10615-020-00780-x. Mishna, F., J. E. Sanders, J. Daciuk, E. Milne, S. Fantus, M. Bogo, … M. Lefevre. 2021a. “#socialwork: An international study examining social workers’ use of information and communication technology.” British Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcab066. Mishna, F., J. E. Sanders, K. M. Sewell, and E. Milne. 2021b. “Teaching note—preparing social workers for the digital future of social work practice.” Journal of Social Work Education: 1–8. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2021.1912676. Mishna, F., J. Sanders, S. Fantus, L. Fang, A. Greenblatt, and M. Bogo. 2021c. “#socialwork: Informal use of information and communication technology.” Clinical Social Work Journal 49: 85–99. National Association of Social Workers Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, Clinical Social Work Association. 2017. Standards for Technology. Washington DC: Authors. Accessed https://www.socialworkers.org/includes/newIncludes/ homepage/PRA-BRO-33617.TechStandards_FINAL_POSTING.pdf. Nordesjö, K., G. Scaramuzzino, and R. Ulmestig. 2021. “The social worker-client relationship in the digital era: A configurative literature review.” European Journal of Social Work 25(2): 303–315. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2021.1964445. Pascoe, K. M. 2021. “Considerations for integrating technology into social work practice: A content analysis of nine professional social work associations’ Codes of Ethics.” International Social Work, 0020872820980833. doi: 10.1177/0020872820980833. Pink, S., H. Ferguson, and L. Kelly. 2022. “Digital social work: Conceptualising a hybrid anticipatory practice.” Qualitative Social Work 21(2): 413–430. doi: 10.1177/14733250211 003647. Ryan, D., and P. M. Garrett. 2018. “Social work ‘logged on’: Contemporary dilemmas in an evolving ‘techno-habitat’.” European Journal of Social Work 22(1): 32–44. Sage, M., and T. E. Sage. 2016b. “Social media and e-professionalism in child welfare: Policy and practice.” Journal of Public Child Welfare 10(1): 79–95.

238

The Use of Facebook in Social Work Sage, T. E., and M. Sage, 2016a. “Social media use in child welfare practice.” Advances in Social Work 17(1): 93–112. Social Workers Registration Board. (undated). Code of Conduct. Wellington, NZ: Author. Accessed at https://swrb.govt.nz/for-the-public/code-of-conduct/. The Privacy Act. New Zealand. 1993. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/ 0031/latest/LMS23223.html. Thornton-Rice, A., and N. Moran. 2021. “The invisible frontier: Practitioner perspectives on the privacy implications of utilising social media in mental health social work practice.” British Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcab184. Trottier, D. 2011. “A research agenda for social media surveillance.” Fast Capitalism 8(1): 59–68. Voshel, E. H. and A. Wesala. 2015. “Social media and social work ethics: Determining best practices in an ambiguous reality.” Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 12(1): 67–76.

239

20 TECHNOLOGY AND CHILDREN A Role for Social Work? Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin

Introduction Digital landscapes have not been the traditional sites of fieldwork for social work practitioners. While the internet has enabled online social work research, networking and multi-lateral collaboration, it could be argued that the preference for in-person, face-to-face interaction remains a disciplinary norm for many social work contexts. This chapter explores the possibilities of digital social work practice with children. Firstly, it will explore some of the main theoretical and empirically informed debates about risks, opportunities, impacts and outcomes for children’s welfare in a digital world. It will argue that oppositional and dichotomous positions about children’s online interactions may not be helpful to social workers, who engage with the lived experiences of children and young people. Secondly, this chapter will discuss sites of innovative social work practice with children and young people in the online world. Irish-based examples of remotebased direct work with children, which arose in response to the COVID-19 health pandemic, will also be discussed. Thirdly, the chapter will critically discuss some of the professional development issues which can arise for practitioners engaging in online practice with children and young people including training, guidance, transparency and accountability.

Children and Young People in an Online World The advent of the digital era – the internet, technology, smart devices, social media platforms and apps – has resulted in children and young people being invested in a social world beyond their immediate micro-systems. Shifflet-Chila et al. (2016) argue that the ecosystemic environment in which adolescents explore autonomy and identity now “includes cyberspace as both a system, and a means to interact with many other systems” (364). Digital society (Hansen et al. 2017) must, therefore, be 240

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-24

Technology and Children

recognised as a fluid system that operates as a systemic space but also as a dynamic, communication mediator between the micro-, mezzo- and macro-levels in children’s lives. Social media platforms and the internet are used extensively by children and young people for personal interaction, private discussions, gaming, research, data repositories, activism and for producing creative outputs. Children and adolescents may place equal, and sometimes more, value on digital relationships than real-life networks. Gustavsson and MacEachron (2015) have noted that this can be particularly true for fostered-youth, who face placement disruptions in their real lives. They argue that “the internet offers an opportunity for stability of interpersonal connections and a repository of self-history that is potentially safe from the vicissitudes of their foster care status” (408). Similarly, young sexual and gender minority cohorts can find meaningful relationships, social support and intimacy through online networks (DeHaan et al. 2013). Research has indicated the importance that young people place on feeling buffered from victimisation, stigma and bullying by being tethered to a community, even a virtual one. Large-scale US-based research (Ybarra et al. 2015) reported that LGBT+ young people were more likely than non-LGBT+ youth to have online friends and to appraise these friends as better than their in-person friends at providing emotional support. Other authors have noted how digital skills and knowledge support young people’s educational and future employment trajectories (Ló pez Pelá ez et al. 2020). The internet is not universally advantageous for children and young people. There is a growing bank of research highlighting the negative developmental impact of screen-time for children, which “shows more and more correlation between increased screen time and poorer social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes, as well as physical changes to the brain” (Williams 2020, 1). Concerns about coercive control, sexual extortion, grooming, exploitation, trafficking, online bullying, victimisation, commercialisation and commodification of children and young people are merited given the global trends reported by organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF 2018, 2021) and Europol (2017). Children spent longer online in 2020 due to COVID-related social distancing restrictions, which resulted in a 77% increase of “self-generated” abuse material (IWF 2021). This demonstrates how children’s exploratory sexual development can be exploited when played out on social media and the internet. While arguments for the monitoring of children’s use of technology can be conceptualised as paternalistic and controlling, social workers in mental health, child protection and welfare and medical settings are attuned to “legitimate concerns about and potential negative effects of IT, such as threats to child safety, cyberbullying, inappropriate content, exposure to violence, internet “addiction”, displacement of physical activity, social isolation, sleep disturbance, vision problems, musculoskeletal problems, and obesity” (Fitton et al. 2013, 401). Issues of access, social inequality and digital poverty also need to be considered when considering children’s experience of the online world, and how this might influence the delivery of digital social services. Kalenda and Kowaliková (2020) have discussed how information and communication technology (ICT) has infiltrated 241

Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin

almost all aspects of society, government and state administration but many groups are prevented from full and equal participation in society because they do not have access to digital hardware, software and online connectivity. They use the term “e-exclusion” to describe this dimension of social exclusion. E-exclusion can serve to further amplify the social disadvantaging of children and young people who are already marginalised due to socio-economic status or other minority experience. The impact of digital and connectivity disadvantage on children was also highlighted during lockdown responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (Kalenda and Kowaliková 2020). Children who would otherwise receive additional supports in schools and community-based social services, were deprived of those supports because they did not have ICT-access. For example, a report by the Office of the Children’s Ombudsman in Ireland (2020) emphasised unique, and sometimes insurmountable, challenges faced by children in asylum-seeking families during lockdown periods due to digital poverty. The advent of a digital society has evoked debates about the agency and autonomy children and young people should possess in the online world. These debates are often set as dichotomies where concern for safety is constructed as intrusive adult-based governance of childhood, and narratives that limitless childhood access to technology is constructed as permissive, passive and risky to their secure socialisation. Livingstone and Third (2017) have troubled these polarised debates about children’s digital rights and highlighted how nation-state and supra-national responses can “other” children by constructing them as almost universally vulnerable in contrast to adults who are seen as “knowers” and digitally “insusceptible”. Given the ubiquitous nature of the internet, there is an impetus for social services, often state actors, to consider the professional, ethical and practice implications of technologically assisted practice with children.

E-Social Work Social work has an established tradition of face-to-face fieldwork practice, originally labelled “friendly-visiting” (Putnam 1887). with individuals and communities. The social work discipline has been subject to rapid procedural changes in a digital world. The creep of internet-enabled communication technology and social media into social work practice was heralded by Mishna et al. (2012) nearly a decade ago, when they contended that “Individual practitioners and the social work profession as a whole must accept that the choice to allow cyber technology to infiltrate into traditional therapy is to some degree out of the hands of practitioners or organizations” (285). E-social work, digital social and remote-social work are synonyms for practice that is assisted by, mediated through, or delivered via ICT. The use of real-time, audio-video communication technologies and tools to enable contact between social workers and service-users has its origins in telehealth procedures that focused on telephone-based therapies in health-care and therapeutic work in the early 2000s, with Kirwan and Byrne (2021) noting that “social work’s engagement with people through ICT can best be described as a gradual build-up” (55). While the digitalisation project in social services has been 242

Technology and Children

correlated with wider neo-liberal preoccupations in retracting welfare provisioning such as standardisation outsourcing, quality assurance and governance (Martinell Barfoed 2019), other writers have suggested that e-social work ensures a disciplinary relevance in the twenty-first century (Hansen et al. 2017; Mishna et al. 2017; Simpson 2017; Ló pez Pelá ez et al. 2020). The challenges of disciplinary relevance are particularly important when online social work with children and young people is considered.

Technology, Social Work and Children The social work discipline has a history of concerning itself with the welfare of children and youth by exploring, examining, assessing and intervening in their lives. The focus of practice has primarily centred on children’s physical contexts and social environments. The digital era demands a technological proficiency of social work practitioners to “stay in touch” (Simpson 2017) with children and young people, who are digital natives and place value on their virtual environments. In other words, social workers need to know about the “complexity of online life” (Hansen et al. 2017) to understand the potential risks children may encounter online, and to carry out comprehensive assessments of children’s eco-systems. Skills in online social work practice are also necessary as a means of communication with young serviceusers. This extends beyond the mechanics of using social media apps to acquiring communication strategies for building and maintaining rapport with children and young people online. Relationship-based work is arguably the integral foundation for effective social work interventions. Spitz (2019, 402) has aptly commented that “despite changing social and political climates and technological innovation, human connection remains at the foundation of social work”. While social workers may have a disciplinary preference for forming connections in person, technology has been found to facilitate and enhance connection with young people (see Chan and Ngai 2019) for a discussion about utilising social media in online youth services in Hong Kong). Irish-based research by Somerville and Brady (2019) found that social workers working in child and adolescent mental health consider it important for practitioners in that context to have knowledge and awareness of social networking sites. Simpson’s (2017) UK-based study about the importance of communication in relationship-based social work highlighted how young service users considered knowledge and skills in social media use to be vital for contemporary social workers. Technology can be a means of maintaining rapport between child and social worker – it fills the gap between face-to-face interactions, facilitates connections and supports the interpersonal relationship between social worker and child. Discussing the importance of a social presence in relationship-based practice, Simpson (2017, 93) argues that “mobile communications technologies may play a significant role in creating and maintaining social presence”. Nevertheless, building and maintaining a meaningful online professional relationship with young service-users is complex and requires both time, effort and training to ensure that online interactions do not become informational (van de Luitgaarden and van der Tier 2018).

243

Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin

Direct work with children and young people has been a site of technology-based innovation within the social work discipline. Examples of the use of technology with children and young people include digital “outreach” in bereavement and in mental health work, work with LGBT+ youth, and with care-experienced youth (Colon and Sinanan 2010; Gustavsson and MacEachron 2015; Alford et al. 2019). Over a decade ago, Colon and Sinanan (2010) reported how allowing bereaved youth to use (the now-extinct social networking site) MySpace.com enlightened and helped counselling sessions by giving practitioners insights into the adolescents’ self-narratives. In the Netherlands, online social work interventions are provided via email or anonymous chat to young people (aged 10–21 years) who experience a variety of psycho social problems (for example, Klik voor Hulp as discussed by van de Luitgaarden and van der Tier 2018). Alford et al. (2019) have reported on the use of smartphone technology in foster care in Nevada USA to build relational competence among careexperienced adolescents. While they found that there was some potential for misunderstandings between social services, caregivers and young people, the research also demonstrated how technology amplified the voices of young people in care, provided a vehicle of connecting them with significant people in their lives and for maintaining social relationships. It could be argued that public-sector social services focus their resources on frontline service delivery and do not routinely have the financial capacity and advanced technical support systems to enable the creation of bespoke, tailored apps and social media resources for engaging young people. In effect, the digital era has embedded synergies between public sector social care and private sector technology companies to enable “agile” (Jeyashingham 2020) service provision to children and families. One example of public-private “partnerships” in the United Kingdom is Mind of My Own, an app-based service provided to over 100 social services, health and school settings to enable children and young people (including children with disabilities and additional learning needs) to communicate their views to social workers and other practitioners.

Accelerated Pivots to Online Practice – COVID-19 Digital and technological sensibilities within social work have shifted from peripheral to central concerns for the profession. Reamer (2017) has argued that social work ethics entered a new evolutionary stage by examining the ethical implications for practitioners and agencies using digital technology in the delivery of social services. This ethical turn rapidly changed in pragmatic transformations of service delivery in 2020 in response to the advent of the COVID-19 health pandemic. When it became apparent that the impacts of the pandemic would be global and chronic with devastating consequences for individuals and families, communities and economies, social work practitioners and organisations had to re-orient the delivery of their services overnight. Ló pez Pelá ez et al. (2020, 825) have noted that “organisational transformations that would normally have taken decades are now being implemented in a matter of weeks”. The well-established disciplinary norms of homevisits, community-based clinical work and even office-based assessments were seriously impacted by the public health measures aimed at reducing community 244

Technology and Children

transmission of infection. While some social services in Ireland struggled to provide staff with suitable hardware, technical support and practice guidance for working online, other sites of practice demonstrated a responsive flexibility to service provision. Examples of practitioner-led forays into online social work have been highlighted by the @uccsocialwork Online Social Work Practice webinar series convened by University College Cork, Ireland (Burns and Ó Súilleabháin 2020a, 2020b, 2021). These include: •

•

•

•

The use of Padlet and tablet devices to organise an online youth-club for children and young people experiencing homelessness in Cork city, Ireland. This initiative is provided by Springboard (a community-based family support service funded by the national child and family agency, TUSLA) and the Good Shepherd Services (a charity aimed at supporting women and children experiencing homelessness). Services moved online when their bricks-and-mortar youth service had to be closed. Practitioners now provide support and education through art, fun and fitness via secure devices provided by the services. The provision of tablets to children addresses any potential concerns of “e-exclusion” and “digital poverty” (Kalenda and Kowaliková 2020) and has minimised online risks because security controls ensured compliance with safeguarding policies. The use of social media such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, Skype, SMS text messages, voice notes, video messages and apps in remote-based direct work with children and young people by social workers/guardians ad litem employed by Barnardos Ireland, a charity organisation, which provides a range of child and family welfare supports. These independent professionals, tasked with establishing the wishes and feelings of children in regard to care proceedings about them before the courts, have adapted their usual in-person interviews with children to shorter, online sessions to ensure that children’s voices can still be a part of care proceedings despite lockdown measures. The use of podcasts as an online support and advocacy resource celebrating children and young people with care-experience. The Care Experience Podcast is produced and presented by a care-experienced young adult and an advocacy officer from the supporting charity, EPIC (Empowering Children in Care). This podcast aims to raise awareness and fight stigma about alternative care, and has served to maintain connections with young people in care and adult care-leavers, who may find COVID-related lockdowns more challenging because of disrupted or less secure kinship networks and supports. The use of Signal (social media app) and online video calls via Microsoft Teams by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) to provide one-to-one e-therapeutic support to children and young people (aged 5–18 years). During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, all therapeutic support provided by this charity was delivered entirely online. The charity has noted that connectivity can limit the quality of some engagement. However, positive feedback from service-users, who have found e-therapy convenient, secure, private, easy to use and accessible, has led the ISPCC to announce that online service delivery will continue as one mode of practice post-COVID. 245

Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin

These exemplars demonstrate the flexibility and adaptability of social services and the communities and cohorts served by social workers. Perhaps too, it demonstrates that pragmatism in the face of a pandemic can have enduring impacts on the delivery of services. The digitalisation process has indeed accelerated and transformed social work practice with children – it is not a matter of reverting back to in-person, bricks and mortar service provision once widespread vaccination processes are implemented and the risk of COVID-19 dissipates. It is, therefore, timely to consider the ethical and practical issues that social work services should consider when implementing sustainable e-social work procedures and processes.

Ethical and Practice Issues Kirwan (2019, 124) has extolled “the benefits for social workers of being versant in new technologies”, but the exercise of robust professional boundaries is equally recommended in the wider literature (McAuliffe and Nipperess 2017; Reamer 2017; Mattison 2018; Cooner et al. 2020), and by regulatory and professional bodies including the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (2018), CORU (the Irish regulatory body for allied health and social care professionals) (2019), and Social Work England (the regulatory body for social workers in England) (2021). The importance of clear professional and organisational boundaries is particularly relevant because aspects of service-users’ lives, previously not readily known to social workers, are available through social media and digital platforms (Cooner et al. 2020). Arguably, the traditional ethical question about whether social work is informed by care or control (Thompson 2000) expounds in the digital landscape. Studies have highlighted concerns about social workers’ and care-givers’ surveillance of service-users via social media apps (Gustavsson and MacEachron 2015; Alford et al. 2019; Albertson et al. 2020; Cooner et al. 2020). The monitoring of fosteredyouths’ behaviour by geo-location services, while seemingly well-intentioned, goes to the heart of the debates about young people’s rights to a digital citizenship, to privacy, agency and autonomy. There is a careful balance to be found between using technology as a platform to support communication and relationship-building and as a site of monitoring and regulating young people’s behaviours. This balance can be identified by social work practitioners attending to ethical codes of conduct informed by principles of accountability and transparency. While regulatory bodies have established guidelines for e-social work (see BASW 2018 as an example), the accelerated move to online practice due to COVID-19 has meant that many social work organisations are grappling with establishing practice norms and procedures for their specific settings. Many writers have examined the ethical challenges of e-social work (including Mishna et al. 2012; Hansen et al. 2017; Reamer 2017; Mattison 2018) and these have relevance in teasing out ethical e-social work practices with children and young people. Firstly, social workers need to practice within the operational and regulatory frameworks set down by their employers and their wider socio-legal context. Engaging with children and young people via ICT and social media should only take place with permission from employer agencies and should be subject to supervisory oversight. Social workers 246

Technology and Children

need to attend to issues of informed consent and informed assent (pitched at a developmentally appropriate level) when engaging children and young people in the online world. Explicit discussion about the role and purpose of the intervention should take place with all parties (child, care-givers, practitioner and other relevant stakeholders) with regular reviews and evaluations built into the planning from the outset. In light of concerns of potential voyeurism and surveillance, social workers and young service-users should articulate and mutually agree the boundary-limits of their online contact and methods of communication. This should also attend to issues of confidentiality and privacy for both parties. Breaches of these boundaries should be taken very seriously and, in the case of professional breaches, may require disciplinary action. Reamer (2017) notes that the maintenance of high-quality records of social work practices is especially important in the context of e-social work. Decisions about data protection, storage and retention should ensure compliance with legislative protocols (e.g. General Data Protection Regulation in EU countries) before online interactions between social workers and young people takes place. Finally, Hansen et al. (2017) highlight the importance of including young people in the development and creation of apps and technology for use in youthbased social work. This reiterates the need for participatory models of practice when working with children and adolescents.

Conclusion There can be no equivocating about the integral role that technology will continue to play in the development and further professionalisation of the social work discipline. While “friendly-visiting” formed the basis of social science in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it appears that technologically based practice will form the basis of social workers’ social science experimentation in this century. Given the acceleration of the digitalisation of the discipline (Ló pez Pelá ez et al. 2020) since COVID-19, debates about the efficacy of e-social work will likely continue as the third decade of the twenty-first century unfolds. The acceleration towards digital social work with children and families was, in effect, pragmatic, based on an outlook which deemed the continuation of remote-based, online service provision better than a termination of social work interventions. A return to entirely in-person practice post-COVID-19 is highly unlikely given that the digitalisation pre-dated the pandemic. This is particularly important for work with children and their families, where risks and safeguards need to be balanced with practice innovation. Key messages from research and practice indicate that social work education and sites of practice need to facilitate novice and experienced practitioners to learn about how children and young people navigate their digital environments. Social workers need to learn how to communicate with children in online, remotes spaces, and online modes of service provision need to be informed by the lived expertise of children and young people. Online social work with children should be informed by participatory, emancipatory and partnership sentiments where ethical issues of consent, assent, privacy, confidentiality, data management, record-keeping and boundaries are addressed in an open and transparent manner. Most importantly, the continued 247

Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin

forays into digital practice with young service-users must also allow for continued interrogation by social workers of the capacity of online platforms to enhance the efficacy and effectiveness of practice. Academic-practitioner partnerships and initiatives, such as @uccsocialwork Online Social Work Practice Series (Burns and Ó Súilleabháin 2020a, 2020b, 2021) discussed in this chapter, provide enriching spaces to social workers to share and consider practice innovations, evidence-based strategies and practice-oriented knowledge. Overall, the future direction of digital social work with children and young people requires a commitment from the discipline to engage in continuous professional development and reflection.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to the Irish-based practitioners and organisations who gave their expressed consent to outline their pivot to online practice in this chapter. I would also like to thank Dr Kenneth Burns, my co-producer on the @uccsocialwork Online Social Work Practice webinar series, where these practitioners first showcased their online innovations during the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

References Albertson, K., J. Crouch, W. Udell, A. Schimmel‐Bristow, J. Serrano, and K. Ahrens. 2020. “Caregiver‐endorsed strategies to improving sexual health outcomes among foster youth.” Child & Family Social Work 25: 557–567. Alford, K., R. Denby, and E. Gomez. 2019. “Use of smartphone technology in foster care to build relational competence: Voices of caregivers and implications for prudent parenting.” Journal of Family Social Work 22: 209–230. BASW (British Association of Social Workers). 2018. BASW Policy: Social Media. Birmingham: BASW. Retrieved from https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/ Social%20Media%20Policy.pdf (accessed 26 January 2021). Burns, K., and F. Ó Súilleabháin. 2020a. Showcasing Practice Initiatives, @uccsocialwork Online Social Work Practice Webinar, University College Cork, Ireland, 14 January 2021. Burns, K., and F. Ó. Súilleabháin. 2020b. COVID-19 Is Not Going Away: What Next for Remote Social Work Practice? @uccsocialwork Online Social Work Practice Webinar, University College Cork, Ireland, 10 September 2021. Burns, K., and F. Ó Súilleabháin. 2021. A New Year of Online Innovative Social Work Practice: Where to Next? @uccsocialwork Online Social Work Practice Webinar, University College Cork, Ireland, 14 January 2021. Chan, C., and S. S-Y. Ngai. 2019. “Utilizing social media for social work: Insights from clients in online youth services.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 157–172. Colon, M., and A. Sinanan. 2010. “My space or yours.” Bereavement Care 29: 21–23. Cooner, T. S., L. Beddoe, H. Ferguson, and E. Joy. 2020. “The use of Facebook in social work with children and families: Exploring complexity in an emerging practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 38: 137–158. CORU, Social Work Registration Board Standards of Proficiency for Social Workers V2. Dublin: CORU Social Work Registration Board. 2019. Retrieved from https://www.coru.ie/fileseducation/swrb-standards-of-proficiency-for-social-workers.pdf (accessed January 26, 2021). DeHaan, S., L. Kuper, J. Magee, L. Bigelow, and B. Mustanski. 2013. “The interplay between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: A mixed-methods study with LGBT youth.” The Journal of Sex Research 50: 421–434.

248

Technology and Children EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ 2016 L 119/1. Europol. 2017. Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2017 (iOCTA). https://www. europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-reports/internet-organised-crime-threatassessment-iocta-2017 (accessed January 26, 2021). Fitton, V., B. Ahmedani, R. Harold, and E. Shifflet. 2013. “The role of technology on young adolescent development: Implications for policy, research and practice.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 30: 399–413. Gustavsson, N., and A. MacEachron. 2015. “Positive youth development and foster care youth: A digital perspective.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 25: 407–415. Hansen, H., S. Björktomta, and A. Svalastog. 2017. “Digital society generates new challenges on Child Welfare Services.” Croatian Medical Journal 58: 80–83. Internet Watch Foundation. 2018. Trends in online child sexual exploitation: Examining the distribution of captures of live-streamed child sexual abuse. https://www.iwf.org.uk/sites/default/ files/inline-files/Distribution%20of%20Captures%20of%20Live-streamed%20Child %20Sexual%20Abuse%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 26 January 2021). Internet Watch Foundation. 2021. ‘Grave threat’ to children from predatory internet groomers as online child sexual abuse material soars to record levels. https://www.iwf.org.uk/news/% E2%80%98grave-threat%E2%80%99-children-predatory-internet-groomers-online-childsexual-abuse-material-soars (accessed 26 January 2021). Jeyashingham, D. 2020. “Entanglements with offices, information systems, laptops and phones: How agile working is influencing social workers’ interactions with each other and with families.” Qualitative Social Work 19: 337–358. Kalenda, S., and I. Kowaliková. 2020. “The digital exclusion of vulnerable children: Challenge for sustainability issues in Czech social work practice.” Sustainability 12: 9961 (accessed 26 January 2021). Kirwan, G. 2019. “Editorial: Networked relationships in the digital age – messages for social work.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 123–126. Kirwan, G., and J. Byrne. 2021. “The history of technology in social work.” In Social Work in Digital Societies: Challenges for Innovative Research and Practice, edited by D. Alonso Gonzalez, A. Arias Astray, and A. Alonso Puelles, 19–32. Spain: McGraw-Hill. Livingstone, S., and A. Third. 2017. “Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda.” New Media & Society 19: 657–670. Ló pez Pelá ez, A., A. Erro-Garcé s, and E. J. José Gó mez-Ciriano. 2020. “Young people, social workers and social work education: The role of digital skills.” Social Work Education 39: 825–842. Martinell Barfoed, E. 2019. “Digital clients: An example of people production in social work.” Social Inclusion 7: 196–206. Mattison, M. 2018. “Informed consent arrangements: Standards of care for digital social work practices.” Journal of Social Work Education 54: 227–238. McAuliffe, D., and S. Nipperess. 2017. “E-professionalism and the ethical use of technology in social work.” Australian Social Work 70: 131–134. Mind of My Own. 2022. https://mindofmyown.org.uk/ (accessed 13 July 2022). Mishna, F., M. Bogo, J. Root, J.-L. Sawyer, and M. Khoury-Kassabri. 2012. “’It just crept in’: The digital age and implications for social work practice.” Clinical Social Work Journal 40: 277–286. Mishna, F., S. Fantus, and L. B. McInroy. 2017. “Informal use of information and communication technology: Adjunct to traditional face-to-face social work practice.” Clinical Social Work Journal 45: 49–55.

249

Fiachra Ó Súilleabháin Office of the Ombudsman for Children in Ireland. 2020. Life in lockdown: Children’s views and experiences of living in direct provision during the Covid-19 pandemic. Dublin: OCO. Putnam, M. C. 1887. “Friendly visiting.” Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Charities and Correction. Retrieved from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu. edu/eras/civil-war-reconstruction/friendly-visitors-1887/ (accessed 13 July 2022). Reamer, F. 2017. “Evolving ethical standards in the digital age.” Australian Social Work 70: 148–159. Shifflet-Chila, E., R. Harold, V. Fitton, and B. Ahmedani. 2016. “Adolescent and family development: Autonomy and identity in the digital age.” Children and Youth Services Review 70: 364–368. Simpson, J. E. 2017. “Staying in touch in the digital era: New social work practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35: 86–98. Social Work England. 2021. Professional standards. Social Work England.org.uk. https://www. socialworkengland.org.uk/standards/professional-standards/ (accessed 26 January 2021). Somerville, L., and E. Brady. 2019. “Young people and social networking sites: Exploring the views and training opportunities of CAMHS social workers in Ireland.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 141–155. Spitz, J. 2019. “The teacher-learner relationship: Considerations for social work in the digital age.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 39: 402–413. The Care Experience Podcast. 2022. https://thecareexperience.libsyn.com/ (accessed 13 July 2022). Thompson, N. 2000. Understanding Social Work. Basingstoke: Macmillan. van de Luitgaarden, G., and M. van der Tier. 2018. “Establishing working relationships in online social work.” Journal of Social Work 18: 307–325. Williams, C. 2020. “Screen time and mental health: No easy solutions.” The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter (CABL) 36(1): 5–6. Ybarra, M. L., K. J. Mitchell, N. A. Palmer, and S. L. Reisner. 2015. “Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth.” Child Abuse & Neglect 39: 123–136.

250

PART 3B

Digital Social Work Methods

21 DIGITAL STORYTELLING IN SOCIAL WORK Chitat Chan

Introduction As digital technologies have been popularized, social work practitioners have increasingly adopted digital production tools in their frontline practices. Digital storytelling (DST), a kind of storytelling activity interwoven with digitized images, texts, sounds, and other digital elements, has been associated with social work practices in therapeutic or community settings (Sage et al. 2018, Chan and Sage 2021). In social work, the term DST has different meanings: it can refer to a specific type of story production, a general term covering different sorts of storytelling activities using digital productions, and a mode of narrative practice utilizing digital media production. This chapter introduces these various strands of DST practice, explores their limitations and possibilities, and discusses their implications for social work practice.

DST as a Specific Type of Story Production Some writers and researchers use the term “digital storytelling” (DST) to refer to a specific media production genre – a digital video lasting a few minutes. One of the earliest and most widely cited references is Lambert’s Digital Storytelling Cookbook. There are also other publications that introduce how to create digital productions (e.g., Ohler 2013; Alexander 2017), and edited books showing anecdotal application examples (e.g., Hartley and McWilliam 2009). Among these various manual-type publications, Lambert’s work is the most widely cited in the social work literature (Chan and Yau 2019). Lambert first published his Digital Storytelling Cookbook in 2006, and the latest edition (the 4th Edition) was published in 2010 (Lambert 2010). This Cookbook has been widely cited by publications related to DST and has helped popularize the definition that DST is about producing personal stories of three to five minutes, with

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-26

253

Chitat Chan

images and sound. Lambert is a co-founder of the Center for Digital Storytelling in Berkeley, California, and that Center was renamed StoryCenter in 2015. While the term DST has been getting more popular across the globe, the term “digital” has occupied increasingly less strategic value in the organization’s branding as digital technologies have become less uncommon. The Cookbook suggests an approach involving seven steps, namely: i) owning insights, ii) owning emotions, iii) finding the moment, iv) seeing the story, v) hearing it, vi) assembling it, and vii) sharing it. Nonetheless, apart from the term DST, neither the short video genre nor the seven-step process has been consistently applied in DST practices documented in the literature. Some researchers have reviewed the use of DST in human services (De Vecchi et al. 2016; Botfield et al. 2017; de Jager et al. 2017), covering a diverse range of genres and methods that do not necessarily present a coherent set of practices. For example, photographs with texts were used in Walsh, Rutherford, and Kuzmak (2010), and videotaped oral histories were used in Burgess, Klaebe, and McWilliam (2010). Both were considered as DST practices (de Jager et al. 2017). Current reviews of DST offer both thematic benefits (e.g., empowerment) and risks of using DST (e.g., revisiting experiences may traumatize the participants, as noted in de Jager et al. 2017), but they are not able to speak to the efficacy of DSTs due to the lack of experimental design studies. For example, De Vecchi et al. (2016) reviewed 15 articles, Botfield et al. (2017) reviewed 28 articles, and de Jager et al. (2017) reviewed 25 articles. Among all these reviewed studies, there are only two quasi-experimental design studies (Coleman, Ramm, and Cooke 2010; Goodman and Newman 2014), and there is no randomized controlled trial verifying how the short media genre and the seven-step process have helped achieve intervention outcomes.

DST as an Umbrella Term In fact, the term DST is frequently used as an umbrella term covering different digital production activities, it may be referred to (or combined with) different terms or theories. The term DST has gained increasing popularity partly because media productions are now “digital” in one way or another, and the term “storytelling” is broad enough to cover a wide range of narrative-based activities. Various media practice traditions coexist in social work. As these traditions go digital, their forms and scopes largely overlap. All cover some sort of DST elements. For example, phototherapy is perhaps the oldest media practice that has gone digital. Phototherapy refers to therapy techniques that use clients’ snapshots and family photos as catalysts for therapeutic conversations and healing. The history of photo-based methods dates back to the 1970s, when therapists used Polaroid instant photos to facilitate the therapeutic process (Nelson-Gee 1975). A review of photobased psychosocial interventions can be found in DeCoster and Dickerson (2014), where we can see many of those reviewed practices significantly utilized digital tools and digital images (Weiser 2004; Levin et al. 2007; Brinkman et al. 2011; DeCoster and Lewis 2013). 254

Digital Storytelling in Social Work

Another example is photovoice, a process by which people can identify, represent, and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique (Wang and Burris 1994; Wang et al. 1998). A review of photovoice practices can be found in Catalani and Minkler (2010), where we can notice that some of which specifically used digital tools and the Internet (Bader et al. 2007). A further example is youth media practice. This refers to a field of practice in which young people use media production as a vehicle for youth development, youth leadership, and community change. A review of range of youth media programs can be found in Johnston-Goodstar, Richards-Schuster, and Sethi (2014), where we can see that the forms of production widely included digital video, radio, web-based media, and print formats. Compared with discussions that exclusively emphasize the term DST, photovoice, phototherapy, and youth media practices have a long history and are more theorized in terms of their change-making strategies (reviewed in Chan and Sage 2021, also in Miller Scarnato 2018). For example, phototherapy suggests the use of visual cues to enable individuals to develop insights related to personal matters, noting that diverse meanings can be derived from reinterpreting and reframing experiences. Photovoice suggests a strategy that can support collective individuals to advocate for their agendas in broader contexts using photographs. Youth media practice offers a pedagogy that enables individuals to develop critical reflection about dominant social discourses. Chan and Yau (2019) have, therefore, suggested that DST in social work can be rationalized as a general term covering different sorts of storytelling activities that use digital media production. They have identified some common characteristics among DST practices: i ii iii iv v vi vii viii

DST refers to the use of digitized images, texts, sounds, and other interactive elements. DST usually involves service users, who are not technical experts, sharing their stories with others. DST usually refers to a wide range of genres such as time-based short media clips, interactive texts, and photo essays. DST involves user-friendly media production and editing tools, both hardware (e.g., mobile phones) and software (e.g., free photo editing apps). DST is distributed via diverse platforms, including websites, social media (e.g., YouTube), and offline screening. DST adopts both group and individual formats. DST can serve different purposes and have different program designs. DST may involve facilitators using specific work models.

Chan and Sage (2021) have further suggested that practitioners and researchers can adopt a set of parameters for describing and comparing different DST practices. They have suggested that the use of DST in social work should include a change-making orientation and clearly define the roles of participant and practitioner, alongside the choices of tools and products. Components of DST in social work can include 255

Chitat Chan

i. goal, ii. roles of service users, iii. roles of facilitators, iv. expected outcomes, v. media forms and genres, vi. production tools, vii. program processes, and viii. distribution and feedback networks. Proper comparisons and integrations may help advance the use of media practice for social work interventions through the purposeful choice of objectives and DST intervention components. As such, seeing DST as an umbrella term can offer some clarity for classification and accommodate a broad range of theoretical approaches.

DST as a Mode of Narrative Practice Utilizing Digital Media Narrative practice (NP) refers to a paradigm of collaborative practices inspired by social constructionism and poststructuralism, it aims to assist and empower individuals via their own narratives. There are various narrative practice traditions: some focus on skills and structures in therapeutic conversations (White 2007), and some focus on community narratives as social action (Freeman 2011). A core feature shared by these various NP conventions is that they are concerned with how stories are storied rather than how “facts” are unearthed. As Riessman and Quinney (2005) noted, narrative is “sequence and consequence” that distinguishes narrative from other forms of discourse, because “events are selected, organized, connected, and evaluated as meaningful for a particular audience” (Riessman and Quinney 2005, 394). NP has been increasingly recognized in social work (Freeman 2011; Lenette, Cox, and Brough 2015), and it is one of the most frequently cited theoretical sources among DST practices. Chan and Sage (2021) have suggested that it is logical and useful to see DST as a mode of NP that uses digital media, because this can help practitioners to inherit and extend those established techniques developed in the NP paradigm. For example, Davis (2005) was one of the earliest authors who explicitly indicated a close link between NP and DST. He made reference to White’s narrative practice, noting that when a person becomes separated from their stories, they are able to experience a sense of personal agency, because when they break from their performance of their stories, they experience a capacity to intervene in their own lives and relationships. Davis particularly identified the importance of medium, noting that storytelling involves more than the use of words, but that the intonation, gestures, expressions, and accents of the storyteller all have a role to play. He has pointed out that parts of the telling in DST do not require the participation of the storyteller, and, therefore, DST stands as “a representation apart from the teller” that is “an object for reflection and critique”. This idea echoes with the idea of “therapeutic documents” in NP, which basically means that “documents” (which can occur in diverse forms, such as letters, drawings) can assist short-term memory and enable people to be “more active in determining the arrangement of information and experience, and in the production of different accounts of events and experience” (White and Epston 1990, 37). Chan, Ngai, and Wong (2012) discussed the potential of using digital photos to externalize a problem and scaffold a conversation in NP. One of the most frequently noted NP techniques is scaffolding conversation, which begins with low-level 256

Digital Storytelling in Social Work

distancing tasks, such as naming and characterizing the problem, and builds to highlevel distancing tasks such as inviting clients to revisit their core values and making plans to address their problems. The clinical account recorded the utterances in the consultation process and plot changes throughout the consultation. The findings showed that among the client’s utterances reflecting distancing tasks, most of them were associated with the photographs selected by the client, and that reflections and integrations of ideas were facilitated by arranging, editing, and rearranging those digital photos. Wood et al. (2015) reported an innovative narrative therapy project in Australia. The project incorporated DST in combination with narrative therapy practices to document and reclaim stories of survival and resilience, and to enable people to talk about future hopes. Narrative therapy conversation skills such as re-authoring, remembering, outsider witnesses, and definitional ceremonies were applied in that project. Narrative practitioners have long pointed out the value of mediated communications. White (2007) has also pointed out that the Internet can enable clients and/or outsiders to participate in therapeutic conversations from a distance (e.g., live video chats). Alternatively, clients and outsiders can also use audio/video recordings to communicate asynchronously and even anonymously (White 2007, 216–218). Chan (2019) designed an NP-based DST project to develop young participants’ critical and reflective mindsets. Using ethnocultural identity as a heuristic production theme, participants shared photos on social media, chatted online and offline with facilitators, and finally produced their digital photo stories. Chan (2019) specifically applied some re-authoring conversation techniques (White 2007). NP presumes a story contains two landscapes: the landscape of action (LOA), and the landscape of identity (LOI), which respectively refers to the sequence of concrete events within the plot, and the protagonist’s consciousness developed along with the plot. Zigzagging between these two landscapes constitutes a reflective dialogic structure of understanding that disrupts taken-for-granted storylines. This is because overlooked life events can potentially be drawn together again, and protagonists can develop new meanings. Facilitators in the DST project asked about events (related to LOA) and asked about beliefs (related to LOI) alternatively. Evaluation results indicated that participants increased their critical thinking disposition and created a diverse range of preferred identities on social media.

Implications for Social Work Advancing the Role of Social Workers in Technology-Supported Interventions While new technologies have contributed to social work practice, they also have posed some new challenges to the profession. As social work evolves technologically, this may raise questions about the extent to which some technology-based professional practices really need the involvement of a professional. Chan and Holosko (2016) have noted that some technology applications may eventually weaken the professional’s role because ICT has helped standardize and regulate how an 257

Chitat Chan

intervention is implemented: for example, online communications have become automated, computer-based training has become structured, and online learning tasks have become systematically assigned. In addition, many technology-based experimental studies present a type of “black box”, where the associated skills and processes are not rigorously discussed. As such, it is not clear whether these practices could provide frameworks to guide social work practice at a working level, and whether the skills involved can be transferred to other practice contexts. However, while some of these technology-supported interventions require only minimal professional input (e.g., content-driven e-learning or mobile apps), some use technology as a supportive component (e.g., online mutual aid groups facilitated by social workers). DST is a kind of professional-led and technologically enhanced intervention, and may potentially create a platform that can continually absorb suitable technology uses and maintain social workers’ professional roles. As noted above, various strands of change-making theories, particularly NP, have provided a pool of working-level skillsets that have already ensured the role of human change agents. There are organizational skills and questioning skills that align with social work practice and which can be applied across settings. Storytelling, as a communicative act, has a direct link to innovations related to communication. Therefore, DST can serve as a hub, integrating technology uses within a theoryinformed and professional-led context. For example, visual communication can support cognitive processes that may not be easily achieved in textual communication (Burn and Parker 2003; Kress 2009), such as comparing size, importance, or centrality. Some practice accounts show that asking reflective questions based on images can enable clients to distance themselves from their expressions and help them to make informed judgments (Chan, Ngai, and Wong 2012). Another example is the use of non-real-time communication. Studies show that asynchronous communication on social media can allow partitioned but continual feedback loops which create a sense of continual engagement and induce a social disinhibition effect which helps service users open themselves more easily (Shi 2016). Also, some DST practitioners noted that they could make use of time gaps to buy time and provide participants with appropriate feedback (Chan and Holosko 2020). A further characteristic feature is that digital media texts are editable, and can enable participants to continually revise, elaborate, and prioritize their expressions during the intervention process. That is, all stories are allowed to be changed until the last moment of creation. Buckingham (2003) has long suggested a mediaproduction-based education approach in which teachers could enable students to i) make their existing knowledge explicit in forms of media texts, ii) generalize from that knowledge, and iii) go beyond that knowledge.

Actualizing Social Workers’ Unique Dual Focus Mission In social work, individuals’ psychosocial wellbeing and macro-level social change are two fundamental hallmarks that represent a dual-focus orientation (Weick 1999; Dulmus and Sowers 2012; Yan et al. 2012). This characteristic is crucial for social 258

Digital Storytelling in Social Work

work in establishing its uniqueness among human service professions, as it makes social work different from other intervention-oriented disciplines, which either focus on social functioning (e.g., counseling) or social change (e.g., social activism). Unfortunately, there has been considerable debate about whether this dual-focus approach is sufficiently applied in actual practices. Critics suggest that the social work knowledge base is too individually focused, or too environmentally focused (Bloom and Klein 1997). DST can potentially address this longstanding micro-macro practice gap in the profession. In some ways, the Internet has already blurred the micro-macro boundary (Livingstone 2005, West, Lewis and Currie 2009). For example, expressing personal voices on one’s social media account also implies expressing voices in a public domain. Some examples demonstrate how DST can contribute to bridging such a micro-macro practice gap. An example is a project reported by Beltrán and Begun (2014) related to the cultural strengths of Māori women. This project had the dual focus of therapeutic healing through developing individual stories of resilience, and building community strength through sharing the digital stories. Participants described the process as a transformative healing tool to reconcile present cultural issues in the context of past trauma. They noted that the group experience was safe, supportive, and connected, and DST was a useful tool for protecting Indigenous cultural knowledge and promoting positive personal and group mental health. Lenette, Cox, and Brough (2015) used a case study of a small group of lone mothers with refugee backgrounds to illustrate in what way DST could function as a social work tool. They have noted that narratives can constitute counter-narratives, therefore they allow service users to have their views of their own circumstances. Lenette and colleagues have suggested that DST can act as a pathway to produce counter-narratives at a broader community level, because documenting personal life stories digitally creates the opportunity to construct broader social narratives about experiences of relocation and settlement. Similarly, Gubrium et al. (2019) have argued that DST can serve as a critical narrative intervention, whereby participants’ engagement in the storytelling process enables them to collaboratively interrogate and address prior trauma. These collective and mediated storytelling activities can foster a sense of social support and solidarity, and this can help recalibrate those stigmatizing conversations at a broader society level. Likewise, many other community-based DST projects strive to use the narrative experience of a person who has survived adversity such as a disease, mental health struggle, or chronic illness as a way to promote health-seeking activities (Cueva et al. 2015; Wilson, Hutson, and Wyatt 2015). These types of DST projects are often linked to theoretical concepts of critical reflection and participatory action, and, therefore, serve both the individual and community simultaneously.

Concluding Remarks This chapter offers some initial ideas and examples showing how DST can inform social work interventions. A key message here is that DST can help develop 259

Chitat Chan

technology-enhanced interventions that are led by social work professionals. These DST practices are not merely some hands-on productions or computer programs, but processes and designs which require professional input from social work practitioners. DST is neither driven by technologies nor service users alone, rather it is a platform facilitating meaningful co-construction of new narratives. Digital media per se does not automatically create practice innovations. Instead, both the technology and the practitioners have co-constructed the possibility of digital media use. It is social workers’ skills and conceptualizations that bring DST alive. The idea of using DST as a practice approach is not new, but it is still in its infancy at an operational level due to the lack of research in this area. This review is a minor step in filling this knowledge gap by offering some definitional and theoretical clarity. Further debate and research are earnestly required.

References Alexander, B. 2017. The new digital storytelling: Creating narratives with new media—revised and updated edition. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Bader, R., R. Wanono, S. Hamden, and H. A. Skinner. 2007. “Global youth voices: Engaging Bedouin youth in health promotion in the Middle East.” Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante’e Publique 98 (1): 21–25. Beltrán, R., and S. Begun. 2014. “‘It is medicine’: Narratives of healing from the Aotearoa Digital Storytelling as Indigenous Media Project (ADSIMP).” Psychology and Developing Societies 26 (2): 155–179. doi: 10.1177/0971333614549137. Bloom, M., and W. C. Klein. 1997. Controversial issues in human behavior in the social environment. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Botfield, J. R., C. E. Newman, C. Lenette, K. Albury, and A. B. Zwi. 2017. “Using digital storytelling to promote the sexual health and well-being of migrant and refugee young people: A scoping review.” Health Education Journal 77 (1):735–748. doi: 10.1177/ 0017896917745568. Brinkman, W.-P., E. Vermetten, M. v. d. Steen, and M. A. Neerincx. 2011. “Cognitive engineering of a military multi-modal memory restructuring system.” Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation (JCR) 4 (1): 7–132. Buckingham, D. 2003. Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge, England; Malden, MA: Polity Press. Burgess, J., H. Klaebe, and K. McWilliam. 2010. “Mediatisation and institutions of public memory: Digital storytelling and the apology.” Australian Historical Studies 41 (2):149–165. doi: 10.1080/10314611003716861. Burn, A., and D. Parker. 2003. Analysing media texts, continuum research methods. New York, NY; London, Englans: Continuum. Catalani, C., and M. Minkler. 2010. “Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health.” Health Education and Behavior 37 (3):424–451. doi: 10.1177/1090198109342084. Chan, C. 2019. “Using digital storytelling to facilitate critical thinking disposition in youth civic engagement: A randomized control trial.” Children and Youth Services Review 107: 104522. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104522. Chan, C., and M. J. Holosko. 2016. “A review of information and communication technology enhanced social work interventions.” Research on Social Work Practice 26 (1): 88–100. doi: 10.1177/1049731515578884. Chan, C., and M. J. Holosko. 2020. “Utilizing youth media practice to influence change: A pretest-posttest study.” Research on Social Work Practice 30 (1): 110–121. doi: 10.1177/ 1049731519837357.

260

Digital Storytelling in Social Work Chan, C., K.-H. Ngai, and C.-K. Wong. 2012. “Using photographs in narrative therapy to externalize the problem: A substance abuse case.” Journal of Systemic Therapies 31(2): 1–20. doi: 10.1521/jsyt.2012.31.2.1. Chan, C., and M. Sage. 2021. “A narrative review of digital storytelling for social work practice.” Journal of Social Work Practice 35 (1): 63–77. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2019.1692 804. Chan, C., and C. Yau. 2019. “Digital storytelling for social work interventions.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Social Work, edited by E. Mullen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Coleman, L., J. Ramm, and R. Cooke. 2010. “The effectiveness of an innovative intervention aimed at reducing binge drinking among young people: Results from a pilot study.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 17 (4): 413–430. doi: 10.3109/0968763 0802572599. Cueva, M., R. Kuhnley, L. Revels, N. E. Schoenberg, and M. Dignan. 2015. “Digital storytelling: A tool for health promotion and cancer awareness in rural Alaskan communities.” International Journal of Circumpolar Health 74 (1). doi: 10.3402/ijch.v74.28781. Davis, A. 2005. “Co-authoring identity: Digital storytelling in an urban middle school.” THEN: Technology, Humanities, Education, & Narrative 1 (1): 1. de Jager, A., A. Fogarty, A. Tewson, C. Lenette, and K. M. Boydell. 2017. “Digital storytelling in research: A systematic review.” Qualitative Report 22 (10): 2548–2582. De Vecchi, N., A. Kenny, V. Dickson-Swift, and S. Kidd. 2016. “How digital storytelling is used in mental health: A scoping review.” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 25 (3): 183–193. doi: 10.1111/inm.12206. DeCoster, V. A., and J. Dickerson. 2014. “The therapeutic use of photography in clinical social work: Evidence-based best practices.” Social Work in Mental Health 12 (1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/15332985.2013.812543. DeCoster, V. A., and S. Lewis. 2013. “A photographic activity to express readjustment to life after combat.” International Journal of Arts & Sciences 2 (1): 31–39. Dulmus, C. N., and K. M. Sowers. 2012. The profession of social work guided by history, led by evidence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Freeman, E. M. 2011. Narrative approaches in social work practice: A life span, culturally centered, strengths perspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd. Goodman, R., and D. Newman. 2014. “Testing a digital storytelling intervention to reduce stress in adolescent females.” Storytelling, Self, Society 10 (2): 177–193. doi: 10.13110/ storselfsoci.10.2.0177. Gubrium, A., A. Fiddian-Green, S. Lowe, G. DiFulvio, and J. Peterson. 2019. “Digital storytelling as critical narrative intervention with adolescent women of Puerto Rican descent.” Critical Public Health 29 (3): 290–301. Hartley, J., and K. McWilliam, eds. 2009. Story circle: Digital storytelling around the world. Chichester, England; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Johnston-Goodstar, K., K. Richards-Schuster, and J. K. Sethi. 2014. “Exploring critical youth media practice: Connections and contributions for social work.” Social Work 59 (4): 339–346. doi: 10.1093/sw/swu041. Kress, G. 2009. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, England; New York, NY: Routledge. Lambert, J. 2010. Digital storytelling cookbook. 4th ed. Berkeley, CA: Digital Diner Press. practice type_V. Lenette, C., L. Cox, and M. Brough. 2015. “Digital storytelling as a social work tool: Learning from ethnographic research with women from refugee backgrounds.” British Journal of Social Work 45 (3): 988–1005. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct184. Levin, T., B. M. Scott, B. Borders, K. Hart, J. Lee, and A. Decanini. 2007. “Aphasia talks: Photography as a means of communication, self-expression, and empowerment in persons with aphasia.” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 14 (1): 72–84. doi: 10.1310/tsr1401-72.

261

Chitat Chan Livingstone, S. 2005. “Mediating the public/private boundary at home: Children’s use of the internet for privacy and participation.” Journal of Media Practice 6 (1): 41–51. doi: 10.1386/ jmpr.6.1.41/1. Miller Scarnato, J. 2018. “Media production as therapy: A systematic review.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 36 (4): 241–273. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2018.1539368. Nelson-Gee, E. 1975. “Learning to be: A look into the use of therapy with polaroid photography as a means of recreating the development of perception and the ego.” Art Psychotherapy 2 (2): 159–164. doi: 10.1016/0090-9092(75)90017-4. Ohler, J. B. 2013. Digital storytelling in the classroom: New media pathways to literacy, learning, and creativity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Riessman, C. K., and L. Quinney. 2005. “Narrative in social work: A critical review.” Qualitative Social Work 4 (4): 391–412. doi: 10.1177/1473325005058643. Sage, M., J. B. Singer, A. LaMarre, and C. Rice. 2018. “Digital storytelling: Tools, techniques, and traditions.” In Digital social work: Tools for practice with individuals, organizations, and communities, edited by L. Goldkind, L. Wolf, and P. P. Freddolino, 90–108. New York: Oxford University Press. Shi, P. 2016. “A supplementary intervention to deradicalisation: CBT-based online forum.” In Combating violent extremism and radicalization in the digital era, edited by M. Khader, L. S. Neo, G. Ong, M. E. Tan, and J. Chin, 410–424. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. Walsh, C. A., G. Rutherford, and N. Kuzmak. 2010. “Engaging women who are homeless in community- based research using emerging qualitative data collection techniques.” International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 4 (3): 192–205. doi: 10.5172/mra. 2010.4.3.192. Wang, C. C., and M. A. Burris. 1994. “Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation.” Health education quarterly 21 (2): 171–186. doi: 10.1177/1090198194021002 04. Wang, C. C., W. K. Yi, Z. W. Tao, and K. Carovano. 1998. “Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy.” Health Promotion International 13 (1): 75–86. doi: 10.1093/ heapro/13.1.75. Weick, A. 1999. “Guilty knowledge.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 80 (4): 327–332. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.2015.96.11. Weiser, J. 2004. “Phototherapy techniques in counselling and therapy—using ordinary snapshots and photo-interactions to help clients heal their lives.” Canadian Art Therapy Association Journal 17 (2):23–53. doi: 10.1080/08322473.2004.11432263. West, A., J. Lewis, and P. Currie. 2009. “Students’ Facebook ‘friends’: Public and private spheres.” Journal of Youth Studies 12 (6): 615–627. doi: 10.1080/13676260902960752. White, M. 2007. Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. White, M., and D. Epston. 1990. Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Wilson, D. K., S. P. Hutson, and T. H. Wyatt. 2015. “Exploring the role of digital storytelling in pediatric oncology patients’ perspectives regarding diagnosis: A literature review.” SAGE Open 5 (1): 1–10. doi: 10.1177/2158244015572099. Wood, C., M. Fredericks, B. Neate, and D. Unghango. 2015. “The stories we need to tell: Using online outsider-witness processes and digital storytelling in a remote Australian Aboriginal community.” International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work (4): 40–54. Yan, M.-c., M.-s. Tsui, W. C. K. Chu, and C.-m. Pak. 2012. “A profession with dual foci: Is social work losing the balance?” China Journal of Social Work 5 (2): 163–172. doi: 10.1080/17525098.2012.680943.

262

22 THE INTERFACE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE Challenges and Opportunities for Social Work Practice Stephanie Holt, Lynne Cahill, and Ruth Elliffe

Introduction The last 30 years have witnessed significant advancement in technology with the growing capacity of the Internet creating multiple cyberspaces and digital communication methods opening up new ways for social and interpersonal relationships to develop. From the advent of the first smartphones in the 1990s, Henry, Flynn, and Powell (2020, 1829) assert that ‘rapid technosocial change’ and the digital revolution have resulted in digital technologies becoming enmeshed in all aspects of personal and social lives. Notwithstanding the extensive and evident benefits that have come with the era of digital technology, Henry et al. (2020) also draw our attention to the capacity for these same technological advancements to open up opportunities for a whole range of cyber crimes. While there has been significant international attention to cybersecurity threats and crime, less focus has been paid to the myriad of ways in which perpetrators use technology ‘to inflict old harms in new ways’ (Yardley 2021, 1479). Further criticism of the empirical base in this area is provided by Dragiewicz et al. (2021) who assert that much of the existing research is emerging from the UK and the US, largely focused on school and university convenience samples (e.g., Reed, Tolman, and Ward 2016; Barter et al. 2017). Harris and Woodlock (2018) similarly stress that while research to date has illuminated the particular issues associated with dating violence in younger age cohorts, the broader evidence on what they term ‘digital coercive control’ is much thinner. A final concern is raised by Havard and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-27

263

Stephanie Holt et al.

Lefevre (2020) who consider that professional lack of awareness of the interface between technology and domestic violence and abuse (DVA) may result in missed opportunities to identify and respond, particularly within the context of risk assessment processes. Mindful of the current gaps in knowledge and the criticisms highlighted above, this chapter draws on relatively recent literature and research, providing an informed understanding of the emerging role that technology plays in DVA. The chapter commences with a brief but important discussion on terminology and definitional issues, locating that discussion within the context of coercive control and intersectional approaches to understanding DVA. A considered overview of the nature, prevalence, and impact of technology-related abuse within intimate relationships is provided before the challenges and opportunities that this can present for social work practice are outlined. The chapter concludes this summation with the implications for policy, social work practice, and future research.

Defining and Conceptualising Domestic Violence and Abuse Over time our understanding of the presentation, dynamics and impact of DVA has developed, resulting in an evolving understanding and defining of what is it that society needs to address. This has not been a straightforward journey, with definitions and understanding of DVA varying across studies, regions, and cultural settings (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 2014). Indeed, the debates on how to define abuse and violence in intimate relationships have a long history, with little empirical consensus on which term to use and when to use it (Dragiewicz et al. 2018). The term ‘domestic violence’, while worn smooth with use (McIntosh 2002) and criticised for, among other things, its gender neutrality, broadly refers to the intimate context within which one partner is abused by another, involving both men and women as victims and same-sex partner violence. The term is also criticised for its narrow emphasis on physical acts of violence with Stark (2007) advocating for this form of violence to be understood as a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviours. Specifically, Stark recognised coercive and controlling behaviours as ‘ongoing rather than episodic’, and the effects as ‘cumulative rather than incident-specific’ (2007, 12). As a theoretical framework, therefore, Coercive Control encompasses physical forms of abuse alongside strategies and tactics to control and instil fear, including isolation, ‘gaslighting’, and of interest to this chapter, surveillance (Woodlock 2017). Echoing this, and with reference to Myhill and Hohl’s (2016) analysis of risk assessments in England and Wales, Robinson, Myhill, and Wire (2018) further note that factors correlating with coercive control, including perpetrators’ controlling, stalking and sexually coercive behaviour, in addition to victim experiences of isolation and fear, formed the most constant pattern of abuse. This appreciation of the centrality of coercive control to the experience of DVA has gathered momentum and is established in policy and legislation (Robinson et al. 2018; Stark and Hester 2019) in many jurisdictions. However, while Stark’s ‘formulation’ of coercive control has been highly influential (Douglas et al. 2019, 552), 264

Technology and Domestic Violence and Abuse

he did not invent the concept. Indeed, the centrality of power and control to the experience of DVA was fundamental to feminist-advocate understandings of domestic violence since the 1970s (Schechter 1982; Sheppard and Pence 1988). Despite this foundational feminist theorising of domestic violence as a pattern of male domination and coercive control, and a broad consensus that understanding the significance of coercive controlling behaviour is critical to effective responses, Robinson et al. (2018, 33) conclude that ‘the evidence establishing whether practitioners do in fact ‘get it’ is relatively scant’. ‘Getting it’, however, is critical to an informed understanding of technology-assisted abuse, with Stark (2007) arguing that the ordinary, every-day and cumulative experiences of coercive and controlling abuse are at least, if not more, important for practitioners and responders to appreciate the impact of those coercively controlling tactics and behaviours. Supporting this assertion, Nevala’s (2017, 1792) analysis of data from the first EUwide survey on violence against women FRA (2014) found that coercively controlling abusive behaviour involved more serious forms of violence. The gendered nature of coercive control specifically, and DVA more generally, also deserves recognition. Experts assert that coercive control is a gendered theory (Stark 2007; Harris and Woodlock 2018), arising from institutional and structural gender inequality (Hester 2010) with survivors predominantly women (Myhill 2015). Importantly, while we acknowledge that domestic violence can be perpetrated by women against men, and also in same-sex relationships, and that the victims can be children and adults of any gender; for the purpose of this chapter, and as stated elsewhere, DVA is understood as a form of gender-based violence – that is, violence directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. Significantly, DVA is widely recognised as the most common form of violence against women (FRA 2014), where violence and abuse are more often understood and recognised as consisting of patterns of ongoing, repeated abusive behaviour, and less often as a single discrete event. Intimate partner homicide is increasingly considered in research and policy efforts, motivated by the finding that 39% of homicides of women worldwide are due to intimate partner violence, compared to 6% of male homicides (Stöckl et al. 2013). Dawson’s (2017) review of Canadian Homicide Reviews between 2013 and 2015 concluded that the top four risk factors included a history of violence in the couple’s relationship (71%), actual or pending separation (67%), obsessive behaviour by the perpetrator (48%) and a victim who had an intuitive sense of fear towards the perpetrator (44%). Critical to our positioning of DVA as a gendered phenomenon, and of clear interest to social work practice, is the importance of understanding how DVA is experienced through an intersectional lens. Intersectionality is a concept used in feminist and critical social theory to highlight the many cumulative and overlapping ways in which discrimination, marginalisation and inequality may be experienced by women in varying ways and various contexts, across their lifetime (Crenshaw 1989, 1991). Of particular relevance to this, gender, specifically being female, intersects with multiple adversities and particular life experiences—including but not limited to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, minority status, migrant status, 265

Stephanie Holt et al.

homelessness and disability—and that this discrimination and marginalisation can occur at all ages across a woman’s lifespan. Increasingly, therefore, those concerned with DVA emphasise how such abuse is experienced by and impacts diverse people in diverse ways (Lippy et al. 2020). Extending this line of thought, Douglas et al. (2019, 551) posit that the intersection of gender, race, and economic and legal status can produce and enhance vulnerability to violence and abuse. Adding geographical location and specifically rural areas into the mix, Harris and Woodlock (2018) argue that ‘rurality’ brings with it particular vulnerabilities, especially where poor transport infrastructure and socioeconomic disadvantage can, for example, be an obstacle for those wishing to leave by reducing support options and increasing risk. Paradoxically, the ‘spaceless’ feature of technology (Harris and Woodlock 2018, 538) is not restricted by distance and can be used to track and trace women’s movements and communications, creating a sense of the perpetrator’s ‘omnipotence and omnipresence’ (Stark 2012, 25). Concluding this section which recognises the dilemma inherent in terminology, this chapter will use the term ‘domestic violence and abuse’ (DVA), positioning the discussion against the backdrop of The Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe 2011), where domestic violence is defined as ‘all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim’.

Defining and Conceptualising Technology-Assisted Abuse (Digital Coercive Control) Described as a ‘phenomenon by many names’ (Henry et al. 2020, 1830), technology-assisted abuse is a new and emerging concept (Fernet et al. 2019), the boundaries of which are unclear (Brown and Hegarty 2018), with definitions and conceptualisations reported as having ’minimal uniformity’ (Taylor and Xia 2018, 988). Brown and Hegarty (2018) reported 17 terms representative of what they called Digital Dating Abuse (DDA). Taylor and Xia (2018) identified 25 terminologies for Cyber Partner Abuse (CPA) following their review of 37 studies comprised of mixed samples of adult, adolescent, and emerging adult (college sample) populations, with ‘cyber dating violence’ being the most frequently cited term. Likewise, Fernet et al. (2019) identified 30 terms out of 33 studies exploring cyber intimate partner victimisation on adolescent girls and women. Similar to the conceptual pitfalls identified with emerging adult samples, numerous terms have been developed to describe the concept of fully adult samples that are used interchangeably. For example, ‘Digital dating abuse’, (Henry, Flynn, and Powell 2019), ‘Intimate partner stalking’ (Bennett Cattaneo, Cho, and Botuck 2011), ‘Cyberstalking’ (Sheridan and Grant 2007; Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, and Cratty 2011), ‘Facebook partner monitoring’ (Darvell, Walsh, and White 2011), ‘domestic violence perpetrated through ICTs’ (Dimond et al. 2011), ‘Cybervictimisation in online dating’ (Jerin and Dolinsky 2001), Post-relationship Contact & Tracking (PRCT)’ (Lee and O’Sullivan 2014), ‘Interpersonal Electronic 266

Technology and Domestic Violence and Abuse

Surveillance’ (IES) (Tokunaga 2011), and ‘the Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence & Stalking’ (Woodlock 2017). Terms referencing online stalking cite repeated harassment and threats via digital technologies to make a victim feel afraid and/or threatened. Studies demonstrate behaviours characterised by compiling online information, device hacking, online impersonation, false accusations, repeated contact to monitor, intimidate, harass, and threaten a person via mobile, email, or social media platforms (Sheridan and Grant 2007), what Lyndon et al. (2011) describe as obsession pursuit and obsessional relational intrusion. Studies exploring sexual violence cite ‘technology-facilitated sexual assault’, ‘image based sexualabuse’, and online sexual harassment (Henry et al. 2019). ‘Minimal uniformity’ does not end with the terminology applied to this field. In an exploration of Digital Dating Abuse (DDA) measures, a review of the literature from 1990 to 2016 identified 22 instruments measuring the phenomenon (Brown and Hegarty 2018). Taylor and Xia (2018) found that 18 studies from 37 papers, developed instruments to measure the phenomenon. However, the most recent review of the field suggests researchers are adapting existing measures (18) rather than developing new instruments (6) (Fernet et al. 2019). The lack of consensus in the existing literature with terminology, missing definitional data, and variability in measures make research results difficult to compare. For example, Fernet et al. (2019) found 15 out of 33 studies, representative of mixed emerging adult and fully adult samples, did not provide definitions. The authors concede that due to the small number of adult samples (9), and significant gaps in prevalence rates detected (25% blended and face-to-face learning which is web enabled. Within each modality, educators must then choose design options across nine dimensions such as pedagogy, synchrony, interactive, pacing, the role of students and feedback approach. These design choices are then overlaid with decisions about technologies, applications and digital tools. For example, if educators opt for the use of polls during synchronous in-person classes as a means of incentivising interaction between students, the educator must still then choose an application with which to conduct the poll. Then of course the educator will need to design the questions and responses to use in the poll, decide where in the synchronous class to position the poll, check that the classroom has adequate wifi to facilitate access to the poll during class, and give the students instruction on how to respond to a poll. All of these actions are carried out before deploying the poll and then perhaps using the results to drive an in-class discussion. It is not difficult to see how the process of making digital pedagogy decisions, choosing technologies and preparing for implementation, mean that a fully online higher education course can take up to nine months to prepare (Hodges et al. 2020). Furthermore, it requires a considerable amount of skill by the educator, supported by other professionals such as instructional designers, graphic designers and videographers. Of course, these were not the conditions in place during the early day/s of the Covid-19 pandemic (and they continue to be elusive in many contexts) and it is, therefore, not surprising that the outcome, in many instances, cannot be classified as high-quality digital education but rather an emergency pivot to remote teaching. The Irish higher education quality regulator, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (2020), noted that staff and students had little or no time to adapt when the pandemic arrived, and the approaches used necessarily focused on maintaining the continuity of teaching, often by attempting to maintain existing learning outcomes and to emulate face-toface practices using technology. A key priority was the retrofitting of end-of-year examinations and assessments for implementation online, many of which had been originally designed and ratified for face-to-face and on-campus contexts (Johnston and O’Farrell 2020; Quality and Qualifications Ireland 2020).

320

Social Work Education and Digitalisation

Developing Educators’ Digital Education Skills The European Union (EU) Digital Education Action Plan 2021–2027 (European Commission 2020) calls for EU member nations to build on the lessons from the Covid-19 crisis and the resulting unprecedented level of engagement with digital learning (Flynn et al. 2021). The Action Plan identifies a range of measures that will help education broadly to move beyond the emergency remote teaching phase towards robust digital education. These actions include enhancing digital skills and competencies and fostering a high-performing digital education ecosystem. In higher education, this could start with the development of educator and student digital education skills supported by institutional policies and resources. The European Union’s Skills Agenda (European Commission 2016) details the importance of digital literacy in all occupations and encourages Member States to equip citizens with digital skills relevant to the labour market. The EU’s European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (Redecker 2017) outlines the meaning of digital competency for educators if they are to enhance and innovate education at all levels (Flynn et al. 2021). This ‘DigCompEdu’ framework contains 22 competences in 6 areas including the use of digital technologies in teaching, learning and assessment, use of technology for professional interactions, the creation of digital resources and facilitating students’ digital competence. Using digital technologies in education does not just require technical skills, that is how to use a particular digital tool or software, it requires digital pedagogy competence. Educators need to know when and how to use technology in education and feel equipped to make robust design decisions and implement them to promote student interaction and learning. This requires an orientation towards the digital skills necessary for participation in work and society (Ryhtä et al. 2020) and a willingness to help students acquire the reflection and analysis necessary for digital literacy (Robbins et al. 2016). Competence in digital pedagogy is a combination of skills. According to Ryhtä et al.’s (2020) research with social and health care educators, it requires pedagogical competence, digital competence and ethical competence. Pedagogical competence is a prerequisite for competence in digital pedagogy (Redecker 2017; Ryhtä et al. 2020). The challenge this creates for educators, whose own education and learning experience did not include digital pedagogies, is clear and points to the need for continuing professional development for educators on digital pedagogy (Ryhtä et al. 2020). Clary et al. (2022) highlight that social work educators, themselves mainly educated using traditional, face-to-face pedagogies, are unlikely to be early adopters of technology. Nonetheless, they highlight the role of field and classroom educators in being aware of the technologies in use in social work agencies and driving forward the integration of technology use in education including consideration of ethics, eprofessionalism and ensuring that students are comfortable with their skill level regarding telehealth modes of practice before they enter the field. Lack of knowledge about digital education design was one of the barriers to technology use in the classroom identified by social work educators (Diaconu et al. 2020) but institutional support and the time required to develop online courses and then monitor students’ engagement were also pinpointed as important and relevant factors.

321

Julie Byrne

Conclusion Accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of digital technologies is transforming higher education. The digitalisation of learning processes has the potential to support the digitalisation of social work practice. Just as we recognise in social work practice the importance of process in achieving outcomes, so too in social work education, how students learn can reinforce what they learn. The adoption of digital pedagogies in social work education lays a strong foundation for digital social work practice by developing digital skills and shaping the professional identity of the social worker as one that is technologically competent. Despite these advantages, there are aspects of social work education that prove difficult to reimagine in digital modes. Asynchronous and remote learning threatens to undermine the empathic relationship base of the profession and its interpersonal nature. Student connectedness is impacted by online learning and connectedness is important for socialisation, social identity and the aptitude for social perspective awareness, so central to the effective practice of the profession. The expectation that practice placement takes place face-to-face is also well embedded and in-person placement is, traditionally at least, positioned as key to developing feelings of preparedness for practice notwithstanding the shift to digital social work practice. The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a widespread emergency pivot to remote teaching which revealed many of the benefits of technology use in education but which did not embed the principles and practices of high-quality digital education. At this point, the social work classroom is in transition as the benefits and challenges of technology use have been revealed but the road ahead is far from certain. If social work education is to move beyond this transition, the ongoing development of educator digital education skills supported by institutional policies and resources is necessary.

References American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare. 2021. Progress and plans for the grand challenges. Baltimore: University of Maryland. Arslan, G. 2021. “Loneliness, college belongingness, subjective vitality, and psychological adjustment during coronavirus pandemic: Development of the College Belongingness Questionnaire.” Journal of Positive School Psychology 5(1): 17–31. Attewell, P. 2001. “Comment: The first and second digital divides.” Sociology of Education 74(3): 252. Blakemore, T., and K. Agllias. 2020. “Social media, empathy and interpersonal skills: social work students’ reflections in the digital era.” Social Work Education 39(2): 200–213. Bygstad, B., E. Øvrelid, S. Ludvigsen, and M. Dæhlen. 2022. “From dual digitalization to digital learning space: Exploring the digital transformation of higher education.” Computers & Education 182: 104463. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. Campbell, M., M. Detres, and R. Lucio. 2019. “Can a digital whiteboard foster student engagement.” Social Work Education 38(6): 735–752.

322

Social Work Education and Digitalisation Canada, K., R. Freese, R. Bailey, and D. Fitch. 2022. “Evaluating learning outcomes and assessing social work skill development: Comparing online vs. in-person education.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 40(1): 47–57. Chan K., and N. Zary. 2019. “Application and challenges of implementing artificial intelligence in medical education: Integrative review.” JMIR Medical Education 5(1): e13930. Clary, K., E. Nason, K. Selber, and K. Smith. 2022. “Developing a roadmap for harnessing technology in social work: Training the next generation of social workers.” Smith College Studies in Social Work 92(2): 111–132. Crompton, H., M. Bernacki, and J. A. Greene. 2020. “Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education.” Current Opinion in Psychology 36: 101–105. Diaconu, M., L. D. Racovita, D. Carbonero Muñoz, and S. J. Faubert. 2020. “Social work educators’ perceived barriers to teaching with technology: The impact on preparing students to work with younger clients.” Social Work Education 39(6): 785–812. European Commission. 2016. A new skills agenda for Europe – Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. 2020. Digital education action plan 2021-2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/digitaleducation-action-plan_en Flynn, S., M. Munro, J. Byrne, D. Hamill, R. Lowney, K. Molloy, D. Moloney, C. O’Callaghan, M. O’Connor, M. O’Reilly, C. Scrochi, and S. Stone. 2021. “Digital learning and teaching post COVID-19: Learning from the enhancing digital teaching and learning (EDTL) approach.” In Emerging issues in educational development IV: Changing times, changing context, edited by M. Keane, C. McAvinia, and Í. O’Sullivan, 86–96, Ireland: EDIN. Galpin, K., N. Sikka, S. L. King, K. A. Horvath, S. A. Shipman, N. Evans, … K. Rheuban: AAMC TelehealthAdvisory Committee. 2021. “Expert consensus: Telehealth skills for health care professionals.” Telemedicine and e-Health 27(7): 820–824. Gehlbach, H. 2004. “A new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach to conceptualizing an aptitude.” Educational Psychology Review 16(3): 207–234. Hehir, E., M. Zeller, J. Luckhurst, and T. Chandler. 2021. “Developing student connectedness under remote learning using digital resources: A systematic review.” Education and Information Technologies 26: 6531–6548. Hodges, C., S. Moore, B. Lockee, T. Trust, and A. Bond. 2020. “The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning.” Educause Review, March 27. https://er. educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergencyremote-teaching-andonline-learning Jewell, J. R., B. Anthony, and A. Murphy. 2021. “Utilizing technology in social work education: Development of the technology effectiveness and social connectedness scale.” Journal of Social Work Education 57(2): 372–382. Johnston, J., and C. O’Farrell. 2020. “Rewriting the (exam) script? Assessing student learning in an unusual end of year context.” All Ireland Journal of Higher Education 12(2), 1–13. Khoong, E. C., N. A. Rivadeneira, R. A. Hiatt, and U. Sarkar. 2020. “The use of technology for communicating with clinicians or seeking health information in a multilingual urban cohort: Cross-sectional survey.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 22(4): e16951. Kirwan, G., and C. Mc Guckin. 2014. “Digital natives or digitally naïve? E-professionalism and ethical dilemmas among newly graduated teachers and social workers in Ireland.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 32(1-2): 119–132. Martin. F., and B. Oyarzun. 2017. “Distance learning.” In Foundations of learning and instructional design technology, edited by R. E. West. EdTech Books. Martin, F., D. Polly, and A. Ritzhaupt. 2020. “Bichronous online learning: Blending asynchronous and synchronous online learning.” Educause Review, September 8, https://er.

323

Julie Byrne educause.edu/articles/2020/9/bichronous-online-learning-blending-asynchronous-andsynchronous-online-learning McFadden, P., E. Russ, P. Blakeman, G. Kirwan, J. Anand, S. Lähteinen, G. A. Baugerud, and P. Tham. 2020. “COVID-19 impact on social work admissions and education in seven international universities.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1154–1163. Means, B., M. Bakia, and R. Murphy. 2014. Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when and how. New York: Routledge. Michaeli, D., G. Keough, Q. Strotzer, and T. Michaeli. 2021. “Digital medical education and students’ mental health: Effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany.” The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice 17(4): 305–322. Mitchell, B., D. Sarfati, and M. Stewart. 2021. “COVID-19 and beyond: A prototype for remote/virtual social work field placement.” Clinical Social Work Journal, 50(1): 3–10. Morley, C., and J. Clarke. 2020. “From crisis to opportunity? Innovations in Australian social work field education during the COVID-19 global pandemic.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1048–1057. Perle, J. G. 2021. “Training psychology students for telehealth: A model for doctoral-level education.” Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6, 456–459. Quality and Qualifications Ireland. 2020. Annual Report 2020. Dublin: Quality and Qualifications Ireland. Reamer, F. G. 2019. “Social work education in a digital world: Technology standards for education and practice.” Journal of Social Work Education 55(3): 420–432. Redecker, C. 2017. European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Robbins, S., J. Coe Regan, J. Williams, N. Smyth, and M. Bogo. 2016. “From the editor: The future of social work education.” Journal of Social Work Education 52(4): 387–397. Ryhtä, I., I. Elonen, T. Saaranen, M. Sormunen, K. Mikkonen, M. Kääriäinen, C. Koskinen, M. Koskinen, M. Koivula, M. Koskimäki, M. Lähteenmäki, O. Wallin, T. Sjögren, and L. Salminen. 2020. “Social and health care educators’ perceptions of competence in digital pedagogy: A qualitative descriptive study.” Nurse Education Today 92: 104521–104521. Sinha, G., and C. Larrison. 2021. “Social work and technology: Text mining three decades of scholarly literature.” Journal of Social Work 21(4): 891–912. Truong, C., K. Tanni, and J. Qian. 2022. “Video observed therapy vs directly observed therapy in patients with tuberculosis.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 62(3): 450–458. Van Laar, E., A. van Deursen, J. van Dijk, and J. de Haan. 2017. “The relation between 21st century skills and digital skills, a systematic literature review.” Computers in Human Behavior 72: 577–588. Watling, S. 2012. “Digital exclusion: Potential implications for social work education.” Social Work Education 31(1): 125–130. Wayne, J., M. Bogo, and M. Raskin. 2010. “Field education as the signature pedagogy of social work education.” Journal of Social Work Education 46(3): 327–339.

324

28 REFLECTIONS ON EMERGENCY REMOTE ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING GROUP WORK EDUCATION DURING COVID-19 South Africa Roshini Pillay

Introduction COVID-19 has required a new mode of teaching which, in this chapter, will be called Emergency Remote Online Teaching and Learning (EROTL). This mode of EROTL cannot be compared to online learning which is well planned and developed in a manner that requires careful instructional design, as often this aspect of selection and meticulous planning of course design is not present in EROTL (Hodges et al. 2020). In this chapter, I offer my reflections on the local aspects of teaching in a historically advantaged contact institution in Johannesburg in the province of Gauteng, South Africa. I show how these contextual realities have impacted the EROTL in courses I teach on group work education to undergraduate social work students. The authentic eLearning framework is provided as a backdrop to how I teach group work. Tacit design decisions are made explicit to illustrate how the nine elements, including affect or socio-emotional learning, were used. Finally, I state some of the benefits and constraints of EROTL and suggest some future trends in online learning for group work education. The next section introduces the features of the South African higher education context, as learning is part of a bigger system.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-33

325

Roshini Pillay

The South African Context On 15 March 2020, when the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, declared a National State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education institutions were forced to move their teaching programmes online. Most students in on-campus residences were sent home. Later, on 23 May 2020, a ministerial directive was issued to use Information Communication Technologies to support student learning and prevent the loss of the 2020 academic year (Council on Higher Education 2020). The use of EROTL was seen as a pragmatic alternative to doing nothing while noting that this type of learning had highlighted many social justice and equity concerns that already existed in the onlinelearning context. EROTL added greater complexity and ambiguity to an already contested education space where calls for reduction in student fees and decolonisation of the curriculum were made by students and educators (Naicker 2016). It is uncontested that the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the digital divide and has placed many challenges on teaching and learning for both students and educators (Behari-Leak and Behari 2020; Mhlanga and Moloi 2020; Atkins et al. 2021). South Africa is a country where inequality and high unemployment also impact student engagement (Amadasun 2020; Behari-Leak and Behari 2020; Atkins et al. 2021). Moreover, as learning and teaching occur in an ecosystem that includes spaces, resources and so many more factors (Hodges et al. 2020), information on the context is provided. South Africa, in the year 2021, is still trying to unshackle itself from the weight of its apartheid past and is regarded as the most unequal country in the world according to the Gini Coefficient (Statistics South Africa 2017). Factors that constrain EROTL are the digital divide, the lack of suitable devices, the high cost of data and low bandwidth speeds for students and educators. These factors contribute to making the South African higher education context very complex, politicised and uncertain as there are both first world and third world conditions present in society (Czerniewicz 2020). Students who are from the lower income category are most disadvantaged and these students require special accommodations to counterbalance the educational inequalities they experience. The students I teach are from various socio-economic backgrounds and I am cognisant of their uneven access to technology, devices and internet connections which impacts on the teaching and learning process (Broekman, Enslin, and Pendlebury 2002). Furthermore, the spaces for learning where students were based during the pandemic are different. There were some students living in overcrowded homes who had to assume various domestic and child-care responsibilities. These realities of unequal access have prompted my desire to offer teaching that will support synchronous but more especially asynchronous methods. Another situational factor that supported the use of asynchronous methods was frequent electricity cuts (called “load shedding”) from the national energy supplier, Eskom (Makgetla 2020). These factors explain why pivoting to online teaching under COVID-19 conditions has been difficult in South African higher education.

326

Reflections on EROTL Group Work Education

Aspects for Consideration Before Teaching Using EROTL Measures to offer EROTL began by developing and implementing a simple needs analysis of the student population, as no learning and teaching would be possible if students did not have devices or data. The findings of the needs analysis confirmed both diversity and unequal access. The university I am employed at was able to offer loans of approximately 5,000 devices to students who needed them (University of the Witwatersrand 2020), but this was not the case in all South African institutions of higher learning. In addition to devices, 30 Gigs of data (10 gigs of data for daytime and 20 Gigs for nighttime) were made available to each student. Many of the onlinelearning sites were selected to be zero rated which means that students would be able to access these sites at no cost to themselves and is a benefit to all students but especially students who are unable to afford the cost of data. Globally, Hurricane Katrina and now COVID-19 have taught social work educators and students how to quickly move into the digital space (Olcoń, Gilbert, and Pulliam 2020). Working through disasters requires social work educators to reevaluate how they taught before the COVID-19 pandemic and look critically at how teaching and learning changed in response to the pandemic. The entire ecosystem that supports teaching and learning was disrupted and gaping holes have been revealed but there are some shards of light and new learning opportunities have emerged suggesting the value of the elements of authentic eLearning in EROTL. My reflections in this chapter are based on a PhD study I undertook in 2017 (Pillay 2017) as well as the COVID-19 teaching experiences that are fresh in my mind. I also draw on my experiences of being part of an online support group created by the International Association of Social Work with Groups under the stewardship of Ann Bergart. This online support group encouraged mutual aid as it comprised various social work educators teaching group work across the globe who were also traversing this online, digitised learning space with trepidation. In addition, I belong to a local support group of social work educators. My membership of these groups has offered both local and international perspectives of teaching during COVID-19.

Group Work Education I teach group work based on the ideals of social work with groups. These ideals include mutual aid, democratic group participation, creative programme activities, advocacy and social action (Sullivan, Mesbur, and Lang 2009). Thus group work education requires an integration of theory with field instruction. The teaching of group work theory often requires the creation of a safe space where students can learn through activities such as role modelling and facilitation. These activities that mimic how a group worker will use these social work skills in the real world are important (Pillay 2017). Learning is a social and cognitive process and social work education, especially the group work intervention, requires people to collaborate to achieve mutual aid and peer learning (Shulman 2008; Hodges et al. 2020). Effective learning occurs when students work collaboratively on tasks and activities and can

327

Roshini Pillay

debate amongst each other and with the educator to deepen knowledge creation (Biggs and Tang 2011). Historically, social work education and group work education have been mainly conducted in a face-to-face space; thus, pivoting online was a challenge and required thoughtful planning. In the next section, I will show how authentic eLearning was used to support my course design process.

The Use of Authentic eLearning Authentic eLearning is a method that can be used to bring real-world experiences into the teaching space (Herrington and Parker 2013). Historically, the roots of authentic e-learning stem from cognitive apprenticeship where learning occurs through activity that is guided by a more expert other (Collins, Brown, and Holum 1991). This expert could be an educator or a more knowledgeable peer. By students working together with peers on a project, they can learn from each other. This type of collaboration is also an essential component of social work with groups. Another seminal theory from which authentic eLearning has developed is that of situated learning (Lave and Wenger 2003). The theory of situated learning explains how learning develops out of legitimate peripheral participation. A rich online-learning environment can be developed so that there is active engagement and collaboration between the educator and the student. Course design using authentic eLearning has been found by Bhagat and Huang (2018) to create more interesting and interactive courses. Moreover, teaching social work graduates using technology is one way to prepare them for the complex challenges that await them as they enter the workplace, where competence in the use of technology is now essential part of praxis. Notwithstanding, the central view that I held firmly was that, regardless of the medium through which a course is taught, quality pedagogy results in better learning (Driscoll 2005). I acknowledge that conditions during the pandemic have made it more challenging to consider how pedagogical theory such as authentic eLearning can support course design decisions. Challenges included students who had insufficient data, unstable internet connections that limited synchronous communication, overcrowded learning spaces and the inability of students to selfregulate (Matarirano, Gqokonqana, and Yeboah 2021). However, to sacrifice educational design during a disaster results in a watered-down course that does not support student learning in the best way possible. Authentic eLearning elements and authentic learning elements are similar, except that in authentic eLearning, technology is used as a vehicle to support learning (Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver 2010). Authentic eLearning coheres with social work as both these processes consider real-life problems and finding suitable solutions (Bhagat and Huang 2018). Authentic eLearning comprises the development of an authentic context that reflects how knowledge is used in the real world, thus offering students the opportunity to develop the requisite skills for conducting group work. The next step is the development of an ill-defined complex authentic task that students can explore different paths to finding a solution. 328

Reflections on EROTL Group Work Education

Figure 28.1

Requirements for the group assignment

Next, an example is provided of the complex task, given to second-year undergraduate students in a 12-week course on Meso Practice. Firstly, the class was spilt into groups. During this task, students had to choose a social issue which is similar to a wicked real-world challenge that the social worker will conduct group work to address. Examples of such social issues are substance abuse, gender-based violence and life skills for teenagers. The assignment required students to meet in their online groups and develop the assignment. Students needed to include various elements in the assignment. These are illustrated in Figure 28.1. For the purposes of the assignment, this task is worked on by the students over a long period and included iteration based on educators and peer feedback. Another dimension is the provision of access to expert performance and the modelling of processes which includes multiple sources of information from textbooks to web-based resources within a learning management system (LMS) (Herrington and Parker 2013). In addition, the authentic task offers students the opportunity to examine the social issue and to consider multiple roles and perspectives while working in groups: playing the roles of group leader and group member is a way of facilitating this element. Working in groups encourages the collaborative construction of knowledge. 329

Roshini Pillay

Online Discussion Forums An online discussion forum is part of an LMS whereby students and the educator can communicate both synchronously and asynchronously to enhance interaction, engagement, articulation and share information (Sun et al. 2018). Students contribute to discussion threads and extend and cocreated knowledge beyond the walls of the space they inhabit. This process of working and thinking together had significant value for collaboration (Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2010). How the activities and topics are created is important to stimulate student engagement and a social presence so that students are curious to embark on journeys of self-discovery that are shared (Anderson 2004). As social work education is a practicing profession, it requires an integration of theory with practice (Teater 2011), so the activities have to be similar to those undertaken in practice. More information on these activities will be discussed later in the chapter under the elements of authentic eLearning.

Use of Breakout Groups Synchronous methods used to achieve collaboration occur using breakout groups on online platforms to simulate the small group experience. A social presence and rapport amongst students are created in these breakouts especially when activities such as icebreakers are used. Chandler (2016) confirms that breakout groups encourage collaborative learning and active participation by students, and the group dynamics can be observed by the educator who may offer real-time guidance, scaffolding and support. Limitations of breakout groups with cameras on are the lack of stable bandwidth speeds, high data usage and educator skill in using breakout rooms. Next, I discuss the elements of authentic eLearning drawn on in my course.

Examples of the Authentic eLearning Elements The nine elements that have been identified by Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2010) are listed as follows in no particular order and I have added the tenth one on socio-emotional learning. Included in the list are examples of how I have incorporated these design considerations into the courses I taught during 2020 and 2021. 1

Real-world contexts reflecting the richness of the environment and how information is used in practice. Therefore, the South African context and social conditions are essential when designing the course. One example of how I attempted this in my courses was to set students an exercise to develop a poster that can be used to market a group work project which will address a specific social issue. The poster activity gave students the opportunity to interrogate the social issue they selected, such as substance abuse, and how visual artefacts can be used to engage citizens on an issue and market social work services. Poster design is an activity that can be required by graduates and supported collaboration.

330

Reflections on EROTL Group Work Education

2

3

4

5

6

7

Provide authentic tasks and activities– design consideration around this element may include an activity such as the development of the group proposal on the group’s chosen social issue. Information in the proposal included the various stages of group formation and reporting on the group dynamics. Moreover, all students were to assume the leader and observer roles in the meeting they held. Student reports on their assessment of these roles were posted on the online discussion forum so that the educator could provide scaffolded support. Provide access to expert performance and modelling of processes. This element originates from an apprenticeship model of learning whereby knowledgeable peers as well as experts in the field teach. The educator also models to make tacit knowledge visible through examples and case studies. Invited practitioners, YouTube videos and electronic journal articles give students access to experts. Provide multiple roles and perspectives. When students work collaboratively on a task, knowledge builds and develops during the research process using various information sources including the World Wide Web. There is no one prescribed textbook and various sources of information including asking people in their community for information on the social issue are recognised. These engagements provide students with multiple lenses on the social issue and the ability to appraise knowledge both individually and as a group. These engagements develop higher order critical thinking skills. Support collaborative construction of knowledge is a critical component of group work. This design element is achieved by placing students in a class group so that experiential learning may occur within a safe space. The role of group leader and group observer is rotated, and students begin each online group with an icebreaker that is linked to the social issue they have chosen. Working on activities that are usually conducted when practising group work online gives students confidence in professional use of self (LaRocque et al. 2017). In addition, student posts on the social issue and the administration of the task on the discussion forum are ways to encourage collaboration (Brickell, Herrington, and Harper 2005). Greater collaboration was fostered by asking students to read and comment on the forum posts uploaded by other group members. Promote reflection so that abstraction can be formed. This design consideration is achieved by requesting students to keep a reflective diary to scribe on the connections they make between the group process and their thinking about any groupwork concepts and the social issue. Reflections are also developed in the discussion forums where students comment on the information posted by other group members. The observers’ and leaders’ reports on the group process support reflection. Promote articulation so that tacit knowledge is made explicit. The example provided to encourage articulation was asking students to design annotated PowerPoint presentations on the group’s chosen social issue and a description of their group dynamics. The PowerPoint slides were then placed on the LMS. In addition, if there is a stable internet connection, students can conduct the presentation on an online platform. In the real world, social workers often deliver presentations 331

Roshini Pillay

8

9

to various audiences and this process of presenting develops the students’ skills in verbalising their perspectives. Articulation is also encouraged in the discussion forums where students debate different perspectives around the social issue and the administrative of the task. Provide coaching and scaffolding by the educator at critical times. The educator needs to be available to students through live online lessons and by monitoring the comments on the discussion forums, giving students feedback on the group leaders’ and observers’ reports. Scaffolding requires the educator to offer advice when needed and to retreat when students are working well. As the educator, I offered various avenues for online consultation including email. Provide authentic assessment that is seamless and occurs throughout the course. Based on the foregoing whereby various activities (see figure 28.1) made up the final group assignment, a test was not used as a formative assessment. Marks were awarded for individual and group activities. In groupwork, a challenge is getting members to contribute; therefore, students were asked to rate each other and state their actual contribution in the assignment.

An additional element is affect, which I have added to the list adapted from Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2010). This element of affect is the promotion of socio-emotional learning. Affect is non-verbal cues including aspects of emotion such as laughing, crying, shouting and even blushing (Wetherell 2012). It refers, in this context, to the emotional reaction students have to a situation. An activity used in the course was the development of a digital timeline in which students charted their own milestones and shared these with the group. Student narratives regarding their trials and tribulations in their life are examples that drew a powerful affective response. Students learn how to work with strong emotions and realise their significance when seeing how strong emotion can alter the group dynamics. Additionally linking the social issue to a song, object or poem encouraged socio-emotional learning. Some of the social issues chosen by the students included gender-based violence, substance abuse and the stigma around Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex or Questioning identity. This online activity of linking the social issue to an artefact drew a plethora of responses on the forums. For example, there were posts comparing identity to a Rubik’s cube that is flexible and has various colours like the gay pride flag. Other students developed a rap song to show the various emotions a person with a social issue such as substance abuse experiences. In a platform that is devoid of physical connections, these activities were able to elicit in students a type of socio-emotional learning that was both meaningful and authentic. I have offered the reader examples of activities that result in the development of praxis based on the ten elements of the authentic eLearning framework which mimics the type of work that a graduate social worker undertakes. Educators may incorporate and amend these activities in their course design. In groupwork education, there is a need to develop digital instructional mechanisms so that students can work collaboratively online to experience (in the head and in the body) being a group leader, group observer and group member. 332

Reflections on EROTL Group Work Education

The Benefits of EROTL Reverting to teaching many students in a huge lecture hall using a PowerPoint presentation should not be the only option. Understanding the context of the students and the environment is of value. For example, South Africa boasts a high smartphone penetration which was over 91.2% in 2019, while mobile users increased overall (Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA 2020)). Thus, teaching that supports mobile learning whereby students may use their smartphones to connect to online classes can be an option in this environment. Another benefit of EROTL was seeing students to use various online platforms to create groups and foster small group collaboration. Moreover, EROTL increased the students’ skills in technology and in conducting online groups. The use of breakout rooms increases the ability of the educator to drop into the various online groups and scaffold information. The recording of the lectures allows students to review the information in their own time. The use of technology in social work education can be a collegiality relationship-building process and the development of a community of practice between social work educators. It is essential that social work students develop 21st-century technology-based intervention skills that help them to prepare for an unknown future, which requires the use of critical thinking, advanced problem solving, superior communication and groupwork skills (Barnett 2014; Spector 2018).

Constraints of Technology Many social work educators have not been trained in teaching with technology and there is a need for upskilling to design courses that incorporate online pedagogy. Kirwan and Mc Guckin (2014) confirm that online teaching does require greater planning as the “process and texture of the human interaction” (123) is different from face-to-face teaching. EROTL is time and resource intensive. Additionally, unstable internet, insufficient data and inadequate learning spaces are constraints. I think that a very careful selection of the types of digital modalities should be made for teaching purposes as some social media platforms can be very distracting such as Twitter and Facebook. While these platforms have been used by many educators with good results, the amount and variety of content can be distracting and prevents the engagement in deep work (Newport 2016). Another type of ethical challenge of using social media sites for teaching is that of boundary blurring between educator and student and the potential change in the relational dynamics from a professional one to a more personal one. During EROTL, I did not enjoy talking to circles on a screen (representing students) and I was unable to make it compulsory for students to switch on their cameras due to data and bandwidth constraints. This lack of participation in synchronous classes by students means that the educator has limited real-time feedback. While there are methods of getting feedback such as getting students to take an online poll such as Mentimeter.com or requesting students write their comments in the Chat section, it is not the same as in the face-to-face space (Kohnke and Moorhouse 2020). An online environment reduces visual and verbal interaction and

333

Roshini Pillay

rapport between peers and the educator. Another challenge is that students can get exhausted from too much screen time and shorter live session should be considered. The constraints elucidated in this section require thought when designing, monitoring and assessing courses.

Future Trends The identified benefits of technology flow from the view that the traditional, faceto-face, lecture-type format for learning has limited value and knowledge retention rates are low for students wanting blended and more flexible forms of learning (Bain De Los Santos, Kupczynski, and Bain 2016). Bates (2020) recommends the development of hyflex courses which are defined in the Wits Teaching and Learning plan (University of the Witwatersrand 2021) as the most flexible mode of delivery where there is hybrid flexibility. A hyflex mode of learning gives students greater choice on how they want to engage in learning on a day-by-day basis: blended or online, synchronous or asynchronous. It requires careful design and incorporates the authentic eLearning design principles discussed earlier in the chapter. As with blended and online modes, in hyflex courses, the LMS provides the platform for making educational resources available to students, assessing student learning, promoting interactions among students, online tutors and academics and posting course and scheduling information. Courses delivered in hyflex mode include face-to-face interactions for students who are able to come to campus and attend face-to-face lectures, tutorials and discussion sessions. These teaching and learning engagements could be made available synchronously or asynchronously to students who need to learn remotely through livestreaming or recording. Nevertheless, there are certain limitations for field instruction as well as clinical and laboratory work in a hyflex and online mode of delivery. For example, physical contact and the development of skills in an actual workplace which are integral components in social work education can be lost in exclusive online modes. Workplace learning is so essential in developing social work students’ skills that these engagements should not be lost. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us new lessons and there is a need to harness this learning during EROTL and apply the best practices as we move into the future. In course design, social work educators need to be both creative and consider the situational realities because when students enter the real world they may be required to conduct online groups. Various emerging technologies should be explored as these technologies may contribute to making authentic eLearning more effective. Learning analytics is another area where educators can understand why there should be personalisation and adaptations of the learning space (Prinsloo 2019). Moreover, the use of social learning analytics can also be helpful in looking at how discussion forums function on an LMS and how responsive students are learning (Kaliisa, Mørch, and Kluge 2019). Principles of group work can be used to assess communication patterns between members. We need to consider how learning analytics can contribute to supporting student learning and what this information 334

Reflections on EROTL Group Work Education

tells us about the student. Data gathered can be used to make predictions which can then be used by the educator to develop strategies to support “at-risk students” who are not accessing the LMS and are at risk of failing the course. Other future trends in the use of technology that enhance learning in group work could include the use of wearable technology to provide feedback to the members and the group leader. An example of this is the use of smartwatch technology that can track a user’s steps, so if a group is being conducted on obesity, the data from the smartwatch can be viewed by the members and the group leader to encourage self-regulation and compliance with an exercise programme (Pope et al. 2019). Mobile learning will increase and should be considered in course design where students meet and gather in makerspaces of their own (Spector 2018). These makerspaces are the creation of small groups of people who gather to create objects, explore alternatives and solve problems. (Spector 2018, 213). Makerspaces are how social work education and group work may evolve. Gaming is another feature that should be considered in pedagogical design to achieve learning outcomes (Faherty 1983; López Peláez, Pérez García, and AguilarTablada Massó 2018). Another growing trend is the need for more flexible assessment which is an essential part of the authentic eLearning framework where assessment should be seamless. There will be an increased use of take-home assessment and e-portfolios, and these will grow in importance. In addition, assessment methods such as offering feedback through voice notes, annotated PowerPoints, videos and podcasts may increase in use. Some of these trends are present in some higher education institutions and other are still emerging.

Conclusions Online social work education in a blended format is here to stay post COVID-19. There is a need for social work educators to become comfortable with this new method of teaching. Social work educators should take the lessons learned during EROTL and build this learning into their future course design strategies. Authentic eLearning is but one type of strategy that could be considered. There is a need for agility (such as hyflex approaches) and generosity amongst social work educators to be able to function more effectively and efficiently in the digital space. Notwithstanding what had been said, there is a need to be aware of ethical challenges and how data in the future will be used. As educators, we need to remain committed to supporting our students to become their best selves. In South Africa where I live and teach, this type of teaching and learning will, in my view, be fraught with many social justice challenges due to the large gap between rich and poor. The saddest or the most wicked of these challenges will be the lack of equity and inclusiveness in educational opportunities. Despite the challenges, hope lives, as social justice and equity are social work imperatives that are integral parts of the profession. Thus it is hoped that the generous sharing of ideas and open educational access can result in a better future for all. 335

Roshini Pillay

References Amadasun, S. 2020. “Social work and COVID-19 pandemic: An action call.” International Social Work 63(6): 753–756. Anderson, T. 2004. “Toward a theory of online Learning.” In Theory and Practice of Online Learning, edited by T. Anderson and F. Elloumi, 2, 109–119. Athabasca: Athabasca University. Atkins, S., A. Banerjee, K. A. Daftary, G. Dasai, A. Gross, B. Hedt-Gauthier, E. Mendenhall, B. M. Meier, S. A. Nixon, A. Nolan, T. M. Palermo, A. Phelan, O. Pyzik, P. Roach, T. Sangaramoorthy, C. J. Standley, G. Yamey, S. Abimbola, and M. Pai. 2021. “Using the COVID-19 pandemic to reimagine global health teaching in high-income countries.” MJM Global Health 6: e005649. Bain De Los Santos, S., L. Kupczynski, and S. F. Bain. 2016. “The lecture method is D-E-A-D.” FOCUS on Colleges, Universities & Schools 10(1): 1–7. Barnett, K. K. 2014. “The at-risk student’s journey to online course credit: Looking at perceptions of care and their lived experience.” Ph.D., Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Oklahoma. Bates, T. 2020. “10 lessons from a post-pandemic world from COVID-19 for Canadian universities and colleges.” https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/11/05/10-lessons-for-a-postpandemic-world-from-covid-19-for-canadian-universities-and-colleges/ Behari-Leak, K., and S. Behari. 2020. “Leadership amidst the COVID-19 crisis: Exploring a curriculum for servant leadership in HE and beyond.” AASBS 107: 107–132. doi: 10.29086/ 978-0-9869936-1-9/2020/AASBS01. Bhagat, K. K., and R. Huang. 2018. “Improving learner’ experiences through authentic learning in a technology-rich classroom.” In Authentic Learning Through Advances in Technologies, edited by T. Chang, R. Huang, and Kinshuk, 3–16. Singapore: Springer. Biggs, J., and C. Tang. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University 4ed, The Society for Research Into Higher Education. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Brickell, G., J. Herrington, and B. Harper. 2005. Integrating problem-solving strategies and fieldwork into an authentic online learning environment. In IASTED International Conference on Education and Technology, ICET 2005, 4–6 July 2005, Calgary, Canada, edited by T. C. Mountgomerie and J. R. Parker, 38–43. https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/534 Broekman, I., P. Enslin, and S. Pendlebury. 2002. “Distributive justice and information communication technologies in higher education in South Africa.” SAJHE/SATHO 16(2): 29–35. Chandler, K. 2016. “Using breakout rooms in synchronous online tutorials.” Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 4(3): 16–23. Collins, A., J. S. Brown, and A. Holum. 1991. “Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.” American Educator 15(3): 6–11. Council on Higher Education. 2020. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning and Assessment. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. Czerniewicz, L. 2020. “What we learnt from ’going online’ during university shutdowns in South Africa.” PhilonEdTech. https://philonedtech.com/what-we-learnt-from-goingonline-during-universityshutdowns-in-south-africa/. Driscoll, M. P. 2005. Psychology for Learning for Instruction. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Faherty, V. E. 1983. “Simulation and gaming in social work education: A projection.” Journal of Education for Social Work 19(2): 111–118. Herrington, J., and J. Parker. 2013. “Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning.” British Journal Educational Technology 44(4): 607–615. Herrington, J., T. C. Reeves, and R. Oliver. 2010. A Guide to Authentic e-Learning, Connecting With e-Learning Series. New York, NY: Routledge. Hodges, C., S. Moore, B. Lockee, T. Trust, and A. Bond. 2020. The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE. Independent Communications Authority of South Africa. 2020. The State of the ICT Sector Report in South Africa. Independent Communications Authority of South Africa.

336

Reflections on EROTL Group Work Education Kaliisa, R., A. I. Mørch, and A. Kluge. 2019. “Exploring social learning analytics to support teaching and learning decisions in online learning environments.” European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, 187–198. Kirwan, G., and C. Mc Guckin. 2014. “Digital natives or digitally naïve? E-professionalism and ethical dilemmas among newly graduated teachers and social workers in Ireland.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 32(1-2): 119–132. Kohnke, L., and B. L. Moorhouse. 2020. “Facilitating synchronous online language learning through zoom.” RELC Journal 0033688220937235. LaRocque, S., M. Popiel, W. Pelech, D. Este, D. B. Nicholas, and C. Kilmer. 2017. “Creative strategies for working with diversity in challenging times.” IASWG 2017, New York. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 2003. Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “e-Social work: Building a new field of specialization in social work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. Makgetla, N. 2020. “Inequality in South Africa: An overview.” edited by Trade and Industial Policy Strartegies. Pretoria Matarirano, O., O. Gqokonqana, and A. Yeboah. 2021. “Students’ responses to multi-modal emergency remote learning during COVID-19 in a South African higher institution.” Research in Social Sciences and Technology 6(2): 199–218. Mhlanga, D., and M. Tankiso. 2020. “COVID-19 and the digital transformation of education: What are we learning on 4IR in South Africa?” Education Sciences 10(7): 180. Naicker, C. 2016. “From Marikana to# feesmustfall: The praxis of popular politics in South Africa.” Urbanisation 1(1): 53–61. Newport, C. 2016. Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. London: Piatkus—Little, Brown Book Group. Olcoń, K., D. J. Gilbert, and R. M. Pulliam 2020. “Teaching about racial and ethnic diversity in social work education: A systematic review.” Journal of Social Work Education 56(2): 215–237. Pillay, R. 2017. “Crafting a meso practice course using elements of authentic learning for undergraduate social work students in South Africa.” PhD, Department of Social Work, University of the Western Cape. Pope, Z. C., D. J. Barr-Anderson, B. A. Lewis, M. A. Pereira, and Z. Gao. 2019. “Use of wearable technology and social media to improve physical activity and dietary behaviors among college students: A 12-week randomized pilot study.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(19): 3579. Prinsloo, P. 2019. “A social cartography of analytics in education as performative politics.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2810–2823. Shulman, L. 2008. The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups, and Communities. Chicago: Cengage Learning. Spector, J. M. 2018. “Future trends of designing learning in the global context.” In Authentic Learning Through Advances in Technologies, edited by T. Chang, R. Huang, and Kinshuk, 205–216. Singapore: Springer. Statistics South Africa. 2017. Poverty Trends in South Africa: An Examination of Absolute Poverty Between 2006 and 2015. edited by Statistics South Africa: Pretoria. Sullivan, N. E., E. S. Mesbur, and N. C. Lang. 2009. “Group work history: Past, present and future.” In Encyclopedia of Social Work With Groups, edited by A. Gitterman and R. Salmon, 1–5. London: Routledge. Sun, Z., C.-H. Lin, M. Wu, J. Zhou, and L. Luo. 2018. “A tale of two communication tools: Discussion-forum and mobile instant-messaging apps in collaborative learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 49(2): 248–261.

337

Roshini Pillay Teater, B. A. 2011. “Maximizing student learning: A case example of applying teaching and learning theory in social work education.” Social Work Education 30(5): 571–585. University of the Witwatersrand. 2020. Wits switches to remote online teaching and learning from 20 April 2020. 2020, April 14. https://www.wits.ac.za/covid19/ university-updates/latest/wits-switches-to-remote-online-teaching-and-learning-from20-april-2020.html University of the Witwatersrand. 2021. Teaching and learning plan 2020-2024. Braamfontein University of the Witwatersrand. https://www.wits.ac.za/media/witsuniversity/learning-andteaching/documents/Wits%20Learning%20and%20Teaching %20Plan%202020-2024.pdf Wetherell, M. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. Newbury Park, California: Kindle Paper White Sage Publications.

338

PART 4

The Ethics of Digital Social Work

29 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIAL WORK Ethical and Risk Management Issues Frederic G. Reamer

Introduction Information and communications technology (ICT) in social work has come of age around the globe. Today’s practitioners are using video, web-based, smartphone, and other forms of technology to deliver a wide range of social work services to clients remotely. Social workers are also using ICT to communicate with clients, locate information about clients, and store client information. None of this technology existed when social work got its formal start in the late nineteenth century. Today’s social workers rely on smartphones, digital tablets, video conferencing software, electronic client records, cloud storage, and online client portals, among other technology options. Their vocabulary now includes terms such as encryption, telehealth, online social networking, electronically stored information, avatars, blogs, metadata, short message service, expert systems programmed with artificial intelligence, voice-over IP, remote access, and wireless networks. The onset of COVID-19 accelerated social workers’ use of ICT to serve clients remotely. The earliest discussions of electronic tools in social work focused on practitioners’ use of information technology (Schoech 1999) and the ways in which social workers could use Internet resources, such as online chat rooms and listservs joined by colleagues, professional networking sites, news groups, and email (Grant and Grobman 1998; Martinez and Clark 2000; Finn and Barak 2010). Social work services now include a much wider range of digital and electronic options to serve clients who struggle with mental health and behavioral issues (Menon and Miller-Cribbs 2002; Kanani and Regehr 2003; Chester and Glass 2006; LaMendola 2010; Rummell and DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-35

341

Frederic G. Reamer

Joyce 2010; Reamer 2012, 2013a, 2017; Zur 2012; Chan and Holosko 2016). Large numbers of social workers now use video counseling, email chat, social networking websites, text messaging, avatar-based platforms, self-guided web-based interventions, smartphone apps, and other technology to provide services to clients, some of whom they never meet in person (Menon and Miller-Cribbs 2002; Kanani and Regehr 2003; Chester and Glass 2006; LaMendola 2010; Reamer 2012, 2013a, 2018e; Zur 2012; Chan and Holosko 2016). Social service agencies now typically rely on electronic client records that contain sensitive information that is stored in the cloud. Some social workers and human service agencies are using digital technology informally as a supplement to traditional face-to-face service delivery. Other practitioners and agencies have created formal “distance” clinical practices that depend entirely on digital technology. In addition, social workers’ routine use of digital technology—especially social media and text messaging—in their daily lives has created new ways to interact and communicate with clients. Many social service agencies now communicate with clients and the general public via online social networking sites, such as Facebook. These now-common forms of modern communication and data storage raise a number of compelling ethical issues that must be addressed to ensure compliance with prevailing ethical, regulatory, and practice standards (Reamer 2018d, 2021). Social workers’ need for ethical guidance regarding their use of ICT became especially apparent with the onset of COVID-19 (Banks et al. 2020), which required social workers to pivot suddenly to remote delivery of services and to confront complex challenges related to informed consent, confidentiality and privacy, boundary issues and conflicts of interest, documentation and records, collegial relationships, and practitioner competence.

Informed Consent Social workers have always appreciated the importance of clients’ right to consent to services (Berg et al. 2001; Reamer 2013b, 2015). The advent of distance counseling and other remote social services delivered electronically has enhanced social workers’ ethical duty to ensure that clients fully understand the nature of these services and their potential benefits and risks. Obtaining clients’ truly informed consent can be especially difficult when social workers never meet clients in person or have the opportunity to speak with clients about informed consent. Special challenges arise when minors contact social workers and request distance or remote services, particularly when social workers offer services funded by contracts or grants and do not require payment from minor clients’ parents or insurance companies (Reamer 2015). Social workers must comply with emerging standards concerning informed consent and remote delivery of services. Laws and regulations around the world vary in interpretations and applications of informed consent standards. In general, professionals agree that several conditions must be met for consent to be considered valid, and these longstanding standards are relevant to social workers’ provision of online and distance services: 342

ICT and Social Work Ethics

1

2

3

4

Coercion and undue influence must not have played a role in the client’s decision. Social workers often maintain some degree of control over clients’ lives (e.g., by approving benefits, admission into programs, and the termination of services). Practitioners must ensure that clients do not feel pressured to grant consent to services provided remotely. A client must be mentally capable of providing consent. Clearly, some clients (e.g., young children and individuals who suffer from serious mental illness or cognitive impairment) are unable to comprehend the consent procedure. Other clients, however, may be only temporarily unable to consent, such as individuals who are under the temporary influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time consent is sought or who experience transient psychotic symptoms. In general, social workers should assess clients’ ability to reason and make informed choices, comprehend relevant facts and retain this information, appreciate current circumstances, and communicate wishes. Clients who are unable to consent to online and distance services at a given moment may be able to consent in the future if the incapacity is temporary. Consent forms and procedures must be valid. Social workers sometimes present clients with general, broadly worded consent forms that may violate clients’ right to be informed and may be considered invalid if challenged in a court of law. Social workers should include details that refer to specific activities involving the use of technology, information to be released, or technologybased interventions. Typical elements include details of the nature and purpose of a service or disclosure of information; advantages and disadvantages of an intervention that uses online and distance technology; substantial or possible risks to clients, if any (including risks uniquely associated with online and distance social work services); potential effects on clients’ families, jobs, social activities, and other important aspects of their lives; alternatives to the proposed intervention or disclosure; and anticipated costs for clients. All of this information should be presented to clients in clear, understandable language and in a manner that encourages clients to ask questions for clarification. Consent forms should be dated and include a reasonable expiration date. Social workers should be especially sensitive to clients’ cultural and ethnic differences related to the use of technology and the meaning of concepts such as “self-determination” and “consent.” When necessary, forms should be translated into a client’s primary language, and competent interpreter services should be provided. Social workers should never ask clients to sign blank consent forms, even when practitioners believe they have clients’ permission to insert details at a later time. This arrangement cannot possibly constitute informed consent. Social workers who obtain clients’ consent remotely should incorporate protocols to verify clients’ identities (such as having clients display or scan their government-issued identification cards). A client must have the right to refuse or withdraw consent. Social workers should be prepared for the possibility that clients will exercise these rights, particularly with respect to the delivery of online and distance social work services. Social workers should inform clients of their rights and help clients make thoughtful 343

Frederic G. Reamer

and informed decisions based on all available facts and information about potential benefits and risks (Recupero and Rainey 2005; Reamer 2013b, 2015). Prominent codes of ethics highlight the importance of informed consent. For example, the British Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (2014) states that social workers should act, with the informed consent of service users, unless required by law to protect that person or another from risk of serious harm. Social workers should ascertain and respect, as far as possible, each individual’s preferences, wishes and involvement in decision making, whether or not they or other persons have powers to make decisions on the person’s behalf. This includes the duty to ascertain and respect a child’s wishes and feelings, giving due weight to the child’s maturity and understanding, where the law invests power of consent in respect of a child in the parent or guardian. Social workers need to acknowledge the impact of their own informal and coercive power and that of the organisations involved (principle 3.3). When social workers provide services to clients remotely, the informed consent form should include specific statements about the potential benefits and limitations of remote service delivery; technology requirements and competencies; privacy and confidentiality guidelines; risks associated with technology failure or breach; plans in the event of an emergency or technology failure; appropriate use of text (SMS) messages and email communications; and acknowledgment that the social worker may conclude that the client needs face-to-face services. Social workers may want to modify these statements to suit their unique clientele and practice setting and the ethical norms in their respective nations and cultures.

Confidentiality and Privacy Social workers have always understood their obligation to protect client privacy and confidentiality and to be familiar with widely recognized exceptions (e.g., when mandatory reporting laws concerning abuse and neglect require disclosure of information without client consent, or when laws or court orders require disclosure without client consent during legal proceedings). The emergence of digital technology and other electronic media used by social workers to deliver services has added a new layer of challenging privacy and confidentiality issues that agency administrators should address. Fortunately, sophisticated encryption technology can protect client confidentiality very effectively, although it is not foolproof; many professionals believe that encryption offers significantly more protection than traditional paper documents (Hu, Chen, and Hou 2010). Social workers who offer video counseling services must recognize that staffers have much less control over confidentiality than when they provide traditional office-based services. For example, a client receiving video counseling services may 344

ICT and Social Work Ethics

invite a family member or acquaintance to sit in on a session—outside of camera range—without the social worker’s knowledge or consent. Encryption of social work services provided online is more challenging with some forms of technology than others. Social workers cannot assume that Internet sites and electronic tools they use are necessarily encrypted. These novel confidentiality issues are addressed directly in social work codes of ethics. For example, the British Columbia (Canada) College of Social Workers Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice (2009, 19) states An electronic system containing social work records has the following security features: a) In the event of a shared system, the social worker has a private access code or password that provides reasonable protection against unauthorized access; b) The system maintains an audit trail that: i) records the date and time of each entry of information for each client; ii) indicates any changes in the recorded information; and iii) preserves the original content of the recorded information when changed or updated; c) The system allows for the recovery of files or otherwise provides reasonable protection against loss of, damage to, and inaccessibility of information; d) The system provides for a paper print-out of the record (standard 4.16). The NASW Code of Ethics (2017) states, “Social workers should take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of electronic communications, including information provided to clients or third parties. Social workers should use applicable safeguards (such as encryption, firewalls, and passwords) when using electronic communications such as email, online posts, online chat sessions, mobile communication, and text messages” (standard 1.07[m]). Further, the NASW et al. (2017) technology standards state, “When using technology to deliver services, social workers shall establish and maintain confidentiality policies and procedures consistent with relevant statutes, regulations, rules, and ethical standards” (standard 2.07). Social workers are wise not to assume that Internet sites and electronic tools they use are necessarily encrypted; the ethical burden is on the social worker to ensure trustworthy encryption by carefully examining statements and guarantees made by software vendors. To practice ethically, social workers must review and adhere to relevant laws and regulations in their respective nations and jurisdictions, especially pertaining to the confidentiality of health and mental health records and exceptions to clients’ right to confidentiality to protect clients and third parties from harm. Further, social workers should develop sound policies concerning conducting online searches to gather information about clients (using widely used online search engines) without clients’ knowledge or consent; some clients may feel over-exposed and violated by practitioners’ attempts to conduct online searches for information about them (Clinton, Silverman, and Brendel 2010). According to the Model Regulatory Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice developed by an international task force sponsored by the Association of Social Work Boards (2015), social workers should “obtain client consent when using electronic search engines to gather information about the client, with the exception of emergency circumstances 345

Frederic G. Reamer

when such search may provide information to help protect the client or other parties who may be at risk” (standard 3.04). Thus, the presumption is that social workers will generally respect client privacy and avoid searching online for information about clients without their knowledge or consent. As the Model Regulatory Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice states, however, there are exceptional instances when it may be ethical for social workers to conduct such online searches for information about clients. Examples might include situations where a high-risk, vulnerable client has disappeared and not been in contact with the social worker, or when a social worker who provides home-based services searches publicly available judicial databases to determine whether there may be a safety risk during home visits. Social workers would do well to establish written policies and protocols that spell out when such online searches are appropriate and the criteria and procedures staffers should use to make these determinations. In addition, social workers must know how to respond to subpoenas and court orders to release what lawyers refer to as electronically stored information (ESI); legal and ethical standards are evolving regarding attorneys’ and other third parties’ right to ESI during legal proceedings and social workers’ ability to protect this information (Grimm, Ziccardi, and Major 2009; Reamer 2021). During their academic training, most contemporary social workers did not learn about how to protect ESI; until recently, this content was not included in social work education curricula. ESI is generally defined as all information stored in computers and other electronic or digital devices. This includes email, voicemail, instant and text messages, databases, metadata, and any other digital images and files. During legal proceedings (such as when social workers’ clients are involved in termination of parental rights proceedings, child custody disputes, divorce proceedings, malpractice litigation, workers’ compensation proceedings, licensing and regulatory body proceedings, and criminal court matters), attorneys may seek to access social workers’ ESI, usually through subpoenas and court orders. In fact, there is now a subspecialty known in legal circles as e-discovery, which refers to any process in which electronic data are sought, located, secured, and searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal case. The emergence of ESI is yet another example of how contemporary social workers need to think very differently about how they function in the digital age, especially with respect to their compliance with ethical standards. To protect clients (and themselves), practitioners should apply time-honored ethical standards when managing ESI, especially related to client privacy, confidentiality, informed consent, documentation, boundaries, and management of records. Social workers should be especially mindful of emerging ethical standards pertaining to the protection and encryption of clients’ sensitive information, disclosures of ESI in response to subpoenas and court orders, retention and destruction of electronic records, and clients’ right to access their electronic records through online portals. These phenomena require social workers to appreciate the relatively new fact that each time they record or share information electronically, they automatically—and possibly irrevocably—create permanent records and digital trails that require unprecedented ethical judgment. 346

ICT and Social Work Ethics

Increasing numbers of social work agencies and individual practitioners are conducting what are known as privacy audits to ensure compliance with current standards. The American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA)— a prominent organization dedicated to improving the management of health-related information—has developed comprehensive protocols for professionals who want to conduct privacy audits (Reamer 2021). Their guidelines are especially valuable for social workers who want to assess the extent to which their use of technology is consistent with prominent standards. According to the AHIMA, privacy audits should produce detailed audit logs that detect unauthorized access to client information; reduce the risk associated with inappropriate access; provide forensic evidence during investigations of suspected and known security incidents and breaches to client privacy; track disclosures of sensitive information; respond to client privacy concerns regarding unauthorized access by family members, friends, or others; evaluate the overall effectiveness of the organization’s or social worker’s policies and user education regarding appropriate access and use of client information; detect new threats and intrusion attempts; identify potential problems; and address compliance with regulatory and accreditation requirements.

Boundary Issues and Conflicts of Interest Seasoned social workers understand their duty to avoid conflicts of interest that may harm their organizations and the clients they serve (Zur 2007; Reamer 2018c, 2020). Social workers’ use of digital technology has introduced new and complicated boundary issues that require sound policies and protocols. For example, many social workers receive requests from current and former clients asking to be online social networking “friends” or contacts. Electronic contact with clients and former clients on social networking sites can lead to boundary confusion (MacDonald, Sohn, and Ellis 2010; Gabbard, Kassaw, and Perez-Garcia 2011; Recupero and Reamer 2018). Electronic message exchanges between social workers and clients that occur outside of normal business hours, especially if the social worker uses a personal social networking site or email address, may confuse practitioner–client boundaries. Social workers who choose not to accept a client’s “friend” request on a social networking site to maintain clear boundaries may inadvertently cause the client to feel a deep sense of rejection. Social workers should anticipate this possibility and explain to clients how they handle current and former clients’ Facebook requests. Also, clients who are able to access social workers’ publicly available social networking sites may learn a great deal of personal information about their social worker (such as information about the social worker’s personal and family relationships, social and religious activities, and political views); this may introduce complex boundary challenges in the practitioner–client relationship. Some agency administrators have managed this risk by limiting employees’ online social network communications to sites expressly designed for agency communications with the public, as opposed to staffers’ personal online social network communications. Social workers should maintain strict privacy settings on their online social network sites to minimize risk. 347

Frederic G. Reamer

Further, newer forms of distance counseling may introduce conflicts of interest that were previously unknown to social work administrators. For example, some video counseling sites used by social workers are offered free to the agencies that employ them; the websites’ sponsors pay for their development and maintenance. In return, sponsors post electronic links on the counseling screen that take users to their websites that include information about their products and services. Clients may believe that their social workers and their employers endorse these products and services or benefit from sales. To practice ethically, social workers who use technology to provide distance services must develop policies and protocols concerning boundaries, dual relationships, and conflicts of interest that include several key elements. Practitioners must develop sound guidelines governing their contact with current and former clients on social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn) and their willingness to provide services to people they first met socially on social networking sites (during which prospective clients may have engaged in very personal exchanges with social workers they subsequently approach for professional assistance). Social workers must avoid inappropriate disclosure of personal information in digital communications (e.g., email messages, text messages, and social network postings) and should establish clear guidelines concerning their interactions with clients online and via other digital and electronic means at various times of day and night, weekends, and holidays.

Documentation and Records Maintaining high-quality records is essential, especially when social workers provide clinical and casework services. Records are necessary for thorough client assessment; planning and delivering services; being accountable to clients, insurers, agencies, other providers, courts, licensing and regulatory bodies, and utilization review organizations; ensuring continuity and coordination of services; providing quality supervision; and evaluating services (Sidell 2015). Social workers’ use of online and other electronic services poses significant documentation challenges. Practitioners must develop strict protocols to ensure that their professionally relevant email, text, and online social networking exchanges are documented properly in case records. These are relatively new expectations that are not reflected in social work’s longstanding training and literature on documentation (Sidell 2015). Practitioners must develop documentation procedures that meet social work’s standards of care and comply with laws and regulations concerning the protection of electronically stored information. To practice ethically, social workers who use digital and other technology to provide distance services must develop records and documentation protocols that include several key elements. Guidelines should ensure proper encryption; reasonable and appropriate access by colleagues to electronic records and documents (e.g., when a staffer is incapacitated and a colleague provides coverage); documentation of video counseling sessions, email, text messages, and cybertherapy communications; compliance with laws, regulations, and agency policies concerning record and document retention; and proper disposal and destruction of documents and records. 348

ICT and Social Work Ethics

Social workers who enter progress notes and other important information in electronic records should be aware of possible risks. In addition to the possibility (not necessarily the probability) of security breaches, administrators should ensure that staffers avoid what has become known as “copy and paste bloat,” which occurs when, to save time, practitioners copy previous entries into a new note (Siegler and Adelman 2009; Sulmasy et al. 2017). Hasty copying and pasting, especially without careful proofreading, can lead to significant errors. The “pasted” note may include details that are no longer accurate and that can lead to misinterpretation when reviewed by agency colleagues. In addition to perpetuating inaccuracies, such copying and pasting can constitute fraud. There is also the related risk of “note bloat” in electronic records. This occurs when copied and pasted notes include excessive extraneous details (Sulmasy et al. 2017). Another risk associated with electronic records is the problem of “auto-population.” Some practitioners’ and social service agencies’ electronic records automatically populate, or fill in, different data fields when a user logs into a record. This can lead to inaccuracies when the data that are filled in automatically are not current (Sukel 2019). Social workers should proofread their electronic notes very carefully. Social workers who use electronic records should be sure to log off once they have completed their entries. If practitioners fail to log off, another staffer’s subsequent entries could be mistakenly attributed to the social worker who neglected to log off. This, too, could expose the social worker who did not log off to significant malpractice risk if the notes that are wrongly attributed to the staffer contain errors or are substandard. Many agencies now permit social workers to access clients’ electronic records remotely. This is convenient when a social worker is on-call after hours and needs to access up-to-date client information during a consultation. However, this remote access also comes with risks. For example, social workers who access clients’ records from their homes must ensure that family members do not access the online information inappropriately, for example, if a family member uses the staffer’s computer. Another potential risk is associated with what have become known as client portals. An increasing number of social service agencies, especially those linked to health care and other integrated care settings, permit clients to access all or a portion of their electronic records by logging in with a unique username and password. On the one hand, allowing clients to access their records can enhance their knowledge about their condition and active involvement in their care. On the other hand, this access can lead to privacy breaches and client misunderstanding of the electronic record’s content (e.g., misinterpreting the language in a staffer’s clinical diagnoses and narratives). Social workers should develop guidelines and protocols designed to minimize these risks.

Collegial Relationships Social workers must also comply with standards governing their treatment of one another on online and other electronic platforms. Increasingly, agency employees’ collegial interactions are occurring online and in other remote forms, thus requiring new protocols and guidelines governing these interactions. This issue is also 349

Frederic G. Reamer

addressed in the Model Regulatory Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice (Association of Social Work Boards 2015), which includes an entire section addressing social workers’ proper use of technology in their relationships with colleagues. These standards state that social workers should be familiar with ethical standards governing online treatment of colleagues, including cyberbullying, online harassment, and making derogatory or defamatory comments; disclosing private, confidential, or sensitive information about the work or personal life of any colleague without consent, including messages, photographs, videos, or any other material that could invade or compromise a colleague’s privacy; taking reasonable steps to correct or remove any inaccurate or offensive information they have posted online or transmitted about a colleague using technology; acknowledging the work of and contributions made by others and avoiding using technology to present the work of others as their own; taking appropriate action if they believe that a colleague who provides electronic social work services is behaving unethically, is not using appropriate safeguards, or is allowing unauthorized access to electronically stored information; and using professional judgment and taking steps to discourage, prevent, expose, and correct any efforts by colleagues who knowingly produce, possess, download, or transmit illicit or illegal content or images in electronic format. Practitioners should also be aware that derogatory comments about colleagues using online and digital technology expose themselves to legal risks in the form of a defamation of character lawsuit. This might occur during an online video conference call or online social networking exchange. Social workers’ defamatory statements about colleagues—for example, about their alleged incompetence, unethical conduct, or mental status—can cause the colleague emotional distress, damage the colleague’s reputation, or cause financial harm by jeopardizing the colleague’s career in some way. Ideally, social workers would address workplace and colleague disputes constructively, thoughtfully, and face-to-face instead of airing their grievances electronically.

Practitioner Competence The emergence of digital tools and other technology-driven options has added a new set of essential competencies for social workers. Use of this technology requires a great deal of technical mastery in addition to awareness of, and compliance with, rapidly developing standards of care and ethical guidelines. This is especially so when social workers who have relatively little experience using ICT to provide services remotely must do so suddenly, for example, in the midst of a pandemic such as COVID-19 (Banks et al. 2020). To practice ethically, social workers who use digital and other technology to provide services remotely must obtain training and continuing education focused explicitly on the use of distance counseling technology, including developing protocols for screening potential clients, obtaining clients’ informed consent, assessing clients’ clinical and other needs, maintaining confidentiality, implementing distance interventions and services, maintaining clear boundaries, managing documentation and client records, and terminating services (Reamer 2019, 2021). According to national standards promulgated by the National Association of Social Workers et al. 350

ICT and Social Work Ethics

(2017), “social workers who use technology to provide services shall obtain and maintain the knowledge and skills required to do so in a safe, competent, and ethical manner” (standard 2.06). Such knowledge and skills include knowing how to communicate effectively while using the technology to provide social work services; handling emergency situations from a remote location; applying the laws of both the social worker’s and client’s location; being sensitive to the client’s culture, including the client’s cultural community and linguistic, social, and economic environment; attending to clients’ unique needs and challenges; ensuring that the technology is in working order to provide effective services and avoid disruption; keeping abreast of the changing landscape of technology; and adapting accordingly.

Ethical, Legal, and Practice Standards The proliferation of technology in social work has led to several prominent efforts around the globe to develop ethics, regulatory, and practice standards that have compelling implications for individual practitioners and social service agencies. Social workers are often held to these standards.

Ethical Standards Since social work’s formal inauguration in the late 19th century, the profession has developed increasingly sophisticated and comprehensive ethical standards (Reamer 2013a, 2015, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Barsky 2017, 2019; Banks 2021). Earlier codes of ethics were relatively short, superficial documents that, importantly, highlighted the profession’s core values. Recent codes of ethics have incorporated explicit references to social workers’ use of technology. For example, the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (2019) states, “We commit to obtaining the necessary knowledge and skills for the proper and respectful use of digital technology and social media, recognising that lack of understanding and careless use may pose threats to a range of our ethical obligations” (p. 11). The NASW Code of Ethics (2017) includes extensive technology-related standards. In 2015, NASW appointed a task force, including this author, to determine whether changes were needed in its Code of Ethics to address concerns related to the use of technology. In 2017, NASW adopted a revised code that includes extensive technology-related additions pertaining to informed consent, competent practice, conflicts of interest, privacy and confidentiality, sexual relationships, sexual harassment, interruption of services, unethical conduct of colleagues, supervision and consultation, education and training, client records, and evaluation and research.

Regulatory Standards In addition to new ethics standards, many social work licensing bodies are adopting new regulatory standards related to technology. Recognizing the profound impact that technology is having on social work practice, in 2013 the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) board of directors appointed an international task force, 351

Frederic G. Reamer

chaired by this author, to develop model regulatory standards for technology and social work practice. ASWB embarked on the development of new technology standards in response to demand from social work regulatory bodies around the globe for guidance concerning social workers’ evolving use of technology. The ASWB task force included representatives from prominent social work practice, regulation, and education organizations throughout the world. The task force sought to develop standards for social workers who use digital and other electronic technology to provide information to the public, deliver services to clients, communicate with and about clients, manage confidential information and case records, and store and access information about clients. The group developed the Model Regulatory Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice (Association of Social Work Boards 2015) addressing seven key concepts: practitioner competence; informed consent; privacy and confidentiality; boundaries, dual relationships, and conflicts of interest; records and documentation; collegial relationships; and social work practice across jurisdictional boundaries. These model standards are now influencing the development of licensing and regulatory laws around the world.

Practice Standards A number of social work organizations around the world have developed new practice standards related to social workers’ use of technology. For example, in Canada, the Alberta College of Social Workers (2019), which regulates practitioners, added extensive guidelines to its Standards of Practice concerning social workers’ use of technology (section E.3). In 2017, in the United States, the National Association of Social Workers, Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, and Clinical Social Work Association formally adopted new, comprehensive practice standards focused on social workers’ and social work educators’ use of technology (NASW et al. 2017). Approved by these respective organizations’ boards of directors, these transformational, comprehensive standards, developed by a national task force chaired by this author, address a wide range of compelling issues related to social workers’ use of technology. The standards include four major sections that are directly related to social work administration: provision of information to the public; designing and delivering services; gathering, managing, and storing information; and social work education and supervision.

Conclusion Social work has been transformed by the emergence of digital and other electronic technology. Most contemporary social workers completed their formal education and entered the profession before currently available technology was invented, at a time when relationships with clients were limited to ongoing face-to-face meetings and the in-person development of a therapeutic alliance. In contrast, today’s practitioners have the capacity to serve clients remotely, some of whom they never meet in person. 352

ICT and Social Work Ethics

Social workers now use technology to communicate with clients using video platforms, text (SMS) messaging, and email, often for clinical purposes. Furthermore, social workers now are navigating boundary issues related to clients’ and social workers’ use of online social networking sites and electronic search engines. And, social workers in integrated care settings are managing complex confidentiality issues pertaining to staffers’ access to sensitive information about clients stored in electronic records (Reamer 2018f). Today’s social workers must make thoughtful decisions about the ways in which they incorporate digital and other electronic technology into their repertoires. They must reflect on the meaning and nature of the professional-client relationship, and the ways in which digital technology enhances or detracts from it. Practitioners’ judgments should draw on prevailing ethical standards and standards of care. Social workers should keep in mind that technology use is a rapidly developing component of professional practice, one in which ethical and risk management standards will continue to evolve.

References Alberta College of Social Workers. 2019. Standards of practice. https://acsw.in1touch.org/ document/2672/DOC_FINALACSWStandardsOfPractice_V1_1_20200304.pdf Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. 2019. Code of ethics. https://anzasw. nz/code-of-ethics-2019/ Association of Social Work Boards. 2015. Model regulatory standards for technology and social work practice. https://www.aswb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ ASWB-Model-Regulatory-Standards-for-Technology-and-Social-Work-Practice.pdf Banks, S. 2021. Ethics and values in social work (5th ed.). New York: Bloomsbury. Banks, S., T. Cai, E. Jonge, J. Shears, M. Shum, A. Sobocan, K. Strom, R. Truell, M. Uriz, and M. Weinberg. 2020. Ethical challenges for social workers during COVID-19: A global perspective. Rheinfelden, Switzerland: International Federation of Social Workers. Barsky, A. 2017. “Social work practice and technology: Ethical issues and policy responses.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35: 8–19. Barsky, A. 2019. Ethics and values in the social work profession (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Berg, J., P. Appelbaum, C. Lidz, and L. Parker. 2001. Informed consent: Legal theory and clinical practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. British Association of Social Workers. 2014. Code of ethics. https://www.basw.co.uk/aboutbasw/code-ethics British Columbia College of Social Workers. 2009. Code of ethics and standards of practice. https:// www.bccsw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BCCSW-CodeOfEthicsStandardsApprvd.pdf Chan, C., and M. Holosko. 2016. “A review of information and communication technology enhanced social work interventions.” Research on Social Work Practice 26: 88–100. Chester, A., and C. Glass. 2006. “Online counseling: A descriptive analysis of therapy services on the Internet.” British Journal of Guidance and Counseling 34: 145–160. Clinton, B., B. Silverman, and D. Brendel. 2010. “Patient-targeted Googling: The ethics of searching online for patient information.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 18: 103–112. Finn, J., and A. Barak. 2010. “A descriptive study of e-counsellor attitudes, ethics, and practice.” Counselling and Psychotherapy Review 24: 268–277. Gabbard, G., G. Kassaw, and G. Perez-Garcia. 2011. “Professional boundaries in the era of the Internet.” Academic Psychiatry 35: 168–174. Grant, G., and L. Grobman. 1998. The social worker’s Internet handbook. Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications.

353

Frederic G. Reamer Grimm, P., M. Ziccardi, and A. Major. 2009. “Back to the future: Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. and new findings on the admissibility of electronically stored information.” Akron Law Review 42: 357–418. Hu, J., H. Chen, and T. Hou. 2010. “A hybrid public key infrastructure solution (HPKI) for HIPAA privacy/security regulations.” Computer Standards and Interfaces 32: 274–280. Kanani, K., and C. Regehr. 2003. “Clinical, ethical, and legal issues in e-therapy.” Families in Society 84: 155–162. LaMendola, W. 2010. “Social work and social presence in an online world.” Journal of Technology in the Human Services 28: 108–119. MacDonald, J., S. Sohn, and P. Ellis. 2010. “Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: A dilemma for young doctors.” Medical Education 44: 805–813. Martinez, R., and C. Clark. 2000. The social worker’s guide to the Internet. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Menon, G., and J. Miller-Cribbs. 2002. “Online social work practice: Issues and guidelines for the profession.” Advances in Social Work 3: 104–116. National Association of Social Workers. 2017. National association of social workers code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English National Association of Social Workers, Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, and Clinical Social Work Association. 2017. Standards for technology in social work practice. https://www.socialworkers.org/includes/newIncludes/homepage/PRA-BRO33617.TechStandards_FINAL_POSTING.pdf Reamer, F. 2012. “The digital and electronic revolution in social work: Rethinking the meaning of ethical practice.” Ethics and Social Welfare 7: 2–19. Reamer, F. 2013a. “Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges.” Social Work 58: 163–172. Reamer, F. 2013b. “Distance and online social work education: Novel ethical challenges.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 33: 369–384. Reamer, F. 2015. “Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and risk-management challenges.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43: 120–132. Reamer, F. 2017. “Evolving ethical standards in the digital age.” Australian Social Work 70: 148–159. Reamer, F. 2018a. “Ethical standards for social workers’ use of technology: Emerging consensus.” Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 15: 71–80. Reamer, F. 2018b. “Evolving standards of care in the age of cybertechnology.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 36: 257–269. Reamer, F. 2018c. Social work values and ethics (5th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Reamer, F. 2018d. Ethical standards in social work: A review of the NASW code of ethics (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Reamer, F. 2018e. The social work ethics casebook: Cases and commentary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Reamer, F. 2018f. “Ethical issues in integrated health care: Implications for social workers.” Health and Social Work 43: 118–124. Reamer, F. 2019. “Social work education in a digital world: Technology standards for education and practice.” Journal of Social Work Education 55: 420–432. Reamer, F. 2020. Boundary issues and dual relationships in the human services (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Reamer, F. 2021. Ethics and risk management in online and distance social work. San Diego: Cognella. Recupero, P., and F. Reamer. 2018. “The internet and forensic ethics.” In Ethics challenges in forensic psychiatry and psychology practice, edited by E. Griffith, 208–222. New York: Columbia University Press.

354

ICT and Social Work Ethics Recupero, P., and S. Rainey. 2005. “Forensic aspects of e-therapy.” Journal of Psychiatric Practice 11: 405–410. Rummell, C., and N. Joyce. 2010. “‘‘So wat do u want to wrk on 2 day?’’: The ethical implications of online counselling.” Ethics and Behavior 20: 482–496. Schoech, D. 1999. Human services technology: Understanding, designing, and implementing computer and Internet applications in social services. Binghamton, New York: Haworth Press. Sidell, N. 2015. Social work documentation: A guide to strengthening your case recording (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Siegler, E., and R. Adelman. 2009. “Copy and paste: A remediable hazard of electronic health records.” American Journal of Medicine 122: 495–496. Sukel, K. 2019 (May 23). “Is your EHR a malpractice risk?” Medical Economics. https://www. medicaleconomics.com/news/your-ehr-malpractice-risk Sulmasy, L., A. Lopez, C. Horwitch, and American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights Committee. 2017. “Ethical implications of the electronic health record: In the service of the patient.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 32: 935–939. Zur, O. 2007. Boundaries in psychotherapy: Ethical and clinical explorations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zur, O. 2012. “TelePsychology or TeleMentalHealth in the digital age: The future is here.” California Psychologist 45: 13–15.

355

30 PRIVACY AND ‘BIG DATA’ IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH A Risk-based Approach Beth Coulthard

Introduction In 1996, a 17-year campaign of terror concluded with the arrest of Ted Kaczynski, dubbed the ‘Unabomber’. Sixteen bombs, targeting universities and airlines, had taken three lives and mutilated many more. Kaczynksi’s eventual capture, however, was not due to the most expensive operation ever before mounted by the FBI. Rather, the man who fastidiously avoided detection by erasing the smallest trace of physical evidence had demanded publication of a 35,000 word ‘manifesto’, a request to which authorities finally acceded. This lucid, cogently argued text was entirely devoid of personal information, but contained unique ideas, phrasing and word choices that matched documents held by Kaczynksi’s brother for over two decades (FBI 2021). Alone, his words were anonymous. Taken with what was known elsewhere, they became personal, and the pieces of the jigsaw that identified the Unabomber fell into place. This rare example powerfully illustrates the technique of re-identification, also termed ‘jigsaw identification’ when undertaken by a ‘motivated intruder’ (Information Commissioner’s Office 2012a, 24). The process describes putting a name to anonymous individuals by piecing together bits of information from diverse sources, including prior personal knowledge. As Ohm (2010) stated: “data can be either useful or perfectly anonymous but never both”. The Unabomber case highlights a further central theme: context. Hunting highprofile terrorists places lives on the line and careers at stake. Publication of the ‘manifesto’ went global, whilst FBI resources available to apprehend a serial killer were unconstrained. More than 50,000 false identifications of the ‘Unabomber’ had to be trawled through and discarded. In any other setting, few would have noticed the document, let alone held the inclination or resources to establish the writer’s identity. For all practical purposes, this text should have been entirely anonymous, certainly at least, in 1996. 356

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-36

Privacy & Big Data in Social Work Research

Fast forward to the present, and most documents are held in digital format, as well as accessible – legally or otherwise – from any part of the world. Our previous writings no longer gather dust in paper collections, but lie dormant in social media posts, potentially insecure email accounts and datasets that are occasionally breached. The contents of any of these sources can be matched using software more often used to detect plagiarism. The context has shifted yet again, not in terms of the motivation to identify individuals, but this time the means. A technological revolution, unforeseeable in 1996, has created limitless possibilities to combine information in order to establish personal identities for those motivated to do so. Alongside the burgeoning technology, exponentially growing ‘big data’ stores bring privacy concerns into ever sharper focus. Data that is cloud-based, increasingly linked to multiple datasets, gathered over long periods of time, and more frequently updated, create pressures for traditional privacy protections – challenges to which organisations have responded inconsistently (Altman et al. 2018). Assessing the motivations and skills of those who might attempt re-identification from anonymised data, as well as the potential damage ensuing, is a complex task. Family, friends, colleagues, professionals, external researchers, and hackers – all sit on a spectrum of motives and means. Prior knowledge that an individual lies somewhere in a dataset, the data size and nature, and whether novel information can be learned, are factors to consider (Kniola 2017). Working with large quantities of social work case files, however, possibilities may appear endless. The rest of this chapter will navigate the minefield entered when research depends on sensitive material, with a special focus on ‘big data’ narrative sets, i.e. large-scale digitalised documentation, for which privacy standards are relatively undeveloped. First, however, a caveat is needed. Legislation, although important, cannot be specified for an international audience, given the different laws enacted across nations, states, and professional bodies. Rather, broad underpinning principles will be discussed. Where UK sources are cited, these should have international applicability. For detailed law and policy, however, readers should seek those applicable to their jurisdiction.

Personal Data: Ethics, Human Rights, and Informed Consent Following the inhumane experiments conducted during the Nazi era, the Nuremberg Code was drawn up in 1947 to establish the human rights of research subjects (see Shuster 1997). Foremost among the Code’s principles, stood the requirement to obtain agreement from research subjects, whose consent must be provided voluntarily, without duress, whilst mindful of the nature, purpose, and risks of each study. Building on this Code and its principle of informed consent, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki introduced a focus on the personal information and privacy of research subjects (Parker et al. 2019). The complexities outlined above, however, show consent which is genuinely informed of every risk to data privacy and the consequences arising, to be unachievable in practice today. Furthermore, legislation enacted to date has primarily focused on medical research and patients’ privacy, whereas the users of social work services may present additional vulnerabilities, with 357

Beth Coulthard

circumstances generating highly sensitive material that carries raised but unknown risks from disclosure. These might include, for instance, psychological harm through personal, traumatic events entering the public arena, unauthorised contacts of adopted children by birth relatives, or the tracing of ex-partners vulnerable to domestic abuse. In addition to the challenge of obtaining consent that is genuinely informed of all risks, where ‘big data’ is concerned, contacting every data subject cannot be a feasible undertaking. Whilst these difficulties pose ethical and legal obstacles to the use of personal information, by failing to study the lives of vulnerable individuals in order to protect their rights, such users may receive less appropriate services (Hayes and Devaney 2004). This dilemma has increasingly been addressed through policy and legislation in most jurisdictions (Parker et al. 2019), for instance in the US (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996) and in Europe (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018). The latter allows the processing of certain personal data without explicit consent when in the public interest, and both sets of regulations classify data that is anonymised as no longer personal for the purposes of the legislation. Full anonymisation according to the GDPR, however, requires considering “all the means reasonably likely to be used” to identify a person, taking account of the time, costs, and available technology to do so (General Data Protection Regulations, Recital 26). Because these considerations are ultimately unknowable, guaranteed anonymisation cannot be achieved, however, the requirements can still be met by “mitigating the risks to the point where the chance of re-identification is extremely remote” (Information Commissioner’s Office 2017, 60). Even where there is no legal requirement to consult data subjects directly, there remains an ethical duty for researchers to consider their interests and likely views as to the use of their personal information. Proportionate steps include the use of surveys, focus groups, and looking at how similar organisations have shared data and whether concerns have been expressed (Elliot et al. 2016, 88). The legal and ethical complexities described above point clearly to the need for a balancing exercise that weighs research benefits against risks of re-identification and potential harms. Before outlining the components of such a risk-based approach, the basic ‘building blocks’ of privacy and anonymisation, upon which such an exercise rests, will be summarised.

Privacy – Concepts and Techniques Personal Information and Identifiers Broadly, personal information embraces any attribute relating to an identifiable person (Information Commissioner’s Office 2012b). The most relevant feature for present purposes is the distinction between direct and indirect personal identifiers. The former enables an individual’s identity to be established from the data itself, whereas indirect identifiers need information from other sources to be combined in order to make the identification. Although conceptually distinct, lines may be 358

Privacy & Big Data in Social Work Research

blurred in practice, and heavily dependent on context. Names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, etc. are usually deemed direct identifiers, and in combination they identify subjects explicitly. A relatively common name or date of birth, however, in isolation, simply narrows the pool of possible individuals to whom it may relate. Social work texts also contain details of workers and agencies that must be regarded as personal for two reasons. Firstly, professionals also enjoy rights to privacy in relation to their current and past careers, working locations, and management of cases. Secondly, it is easy to trace those who work with service users, narrowing down the areas in which these individuals live, other agencies to whom they are known, and addresses frequented. When protecting data, potential identifiers should be considered in the broadest sense. These will comprise very diverse features such as religion, political views, nationality, race, eye colour, and educational attainment. As illustrated above, handwriting, linguistic style, or spelling abilities, might even be considered personal, depending on the context. Even within a risk-based approach to data disclosure, removal of direct identifiers represents the bare minimum level of processing that must be undertaken to comply with legal requirements.

De-identification and Anonymisation De-identification usually describes the removal of direct identifiers, i.e. the minimum requirement, whereas full anonymisation refers to the stripping of every potential identifier of all types. A risk-based approach, therefore, requires an understanding of the type of data that might exist elsewhere with which reidentification could be attempted using indirect identifiers. The motivations and means available to those who might attempt to misuse data in this way must also be considered, sometimes termed the test of ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ in accordance with the GDPR (Stalla-Bourdillon and Knight 2017, 6). As indicated above, however, these features are unknowable with certainty and must be considered within a risk-based framework.

Anonymisation Techniques To support external research, anonymisation is increasingly undertaken in accordance with pre-determined industry standards by third-party agencies, such as the Administrative Data Research Network in the UK (https://www.adruk.org) and equivalent international bodies. These agencies do not usually handle textual data, however, an understanding of the guiding principles is necessary. The following is not an exhaustive account but illustrates the breadth of approaches to anonymisation and its underlying concepts. K-anonymity (Sweeney 2002) provides a statistical measure of the risk of reidentification. The principle requires that in any data release, no individual may be distinguishable from at least k-1 others holding the same attributes. It is therefore a measure that can be established by policy according to the sensitivity of the data. 359

Beth Coulthard

The larger the value that k is set to, the greater the pool of those who share the data attributes, and the lower the chances of identifying any individual within that pool with certainty. For example, if a dataset recording the dates of birth of a thousand men contains only one born on 1 January 1960, he may be identified with certainty if precise dates of birth are released, indicating a k value of 1 – there are zero other individuals sharing that characteristic. Setting k to 100 should make it a hundred times harder to identify that individual, a goal achievable by expressing dates of birth as broader age categories containing at least one hundred individuals. A range of techniques can be used to disguise personal data and increase the pool of individuals to whom each set of variables relates, without critical loss of information. Generalisation, for example, as well as grouping dates of birth into age ranges, might describe towns of residence in terms of larger regions, or classify medical diagnoses into health bands. Randomisation can be used to disguise numerical personal data by adding or subtracting random amounts, within pre-set limits, where precision is not essential, for instance, adjusting a date of birth by plus or minus up to 14 days to render it harder to match with other databases. Pseudonymisation refers to the replacement of potential identifiers with codes or ‘pseudonyms’. Pseudonymised data will still be classed as personal because individuals remain identifiable by relinking to the personal data. If, however, original data are destroyed, pseudonyms are no longer deemed personal. Pseudonymised data may also be personal in the hands of a data controller, but anonymised if released to a third party, as long as the data controller retains the original personal data. Free-text anonymisation, the main focus of this chapter, presents a qualitatively different challenge for anonymisers, as it precludes the systematic use of statistical approaches such as k-anonymity. For example, the sentence ‘a flood destroyed her static home on Christmas Eve’ offers several leads to trace an individual through readily available internet searches. No word in this sentence, however, would be classed as personal, detectable by an algorithm, or amenable to statistical disguise or manipulation. Nonetheless, the concept of maximising the pool of potential subjects remains essential when considering personal details contained within narrative texts. Many technical solutions for unstructured text anonymisation have been created, mainly in the medical field, helpfully summarised by Murugadoss et al. (2021). Devised with the aim of opening medical records and patient notes to external researchers, these applications can identify and process names, dates of birth, and other identifiers. They usually rely on search and replace, pattern match, word classification, or more complex machine learning approaches. Spelling mistakes, previously unspecified (therefore unsearchable) information, ambiguities of language, and idiosyncratic abbreviations are just some of the considerable challenges encountered. However specialised, no algorithm has yet produced 100% accurate anonymisation by fully automated means, nor can narrative detail such as the sentence cited above to be recognised by algorithms. Nevertheless, some automated processing, particularly if combined with manual verification and other safeguards, may be necessary and appropriate. 360

Privacy & Big Data in Social Work Research

Central to all anonymisation and risk-based strategies lies an appreciation of data as dynamic, shifting between personal and impersonal according to the context and developments over time. Erroneously adopting a static view emphasises the data alone, implying that it may be processed, rendered safe, released, and forgotten, irrespective of context (Stalla-Bourdillon and Knight 2017). Organisations that control and release sensitive information should, therefore, build in future safeguards through measures agreed upon prior to disclosure, regarding who will access the material, and how it will be processed or stored. The data controller is thus seen as retaining some ongoing responsibility following release of the data. The ingredients of the required risk-based approach are outlined in depth by several authorities and professional bodies, a useful reference manual being provided by Elliot et al. (2016). There is no precise formula to guide those seeking to access sensitive data, or approving such applications, however, a thorough consideration of the following principles, applicable to a social work context, will be required by researchers and governance bodies.

Five Components of a Risk-based Approach Proportionate Benefit Of all considerations, assessing the likely value a study will bring may prove the most straightforward, as it represents traditional terrain for ethical bodies. Proposals should lead to novel, valuable insights, be realistic in scope and methodologically sound. In the present context, however, the risks to data subjects will be qualitatively different from those usually evaluated. They may not be involved in, or even be aware of the research, but their likely view of the benefits should still be considered. In that regard, it is important to ask who will see the data, both before and after anonymisation, and if personal information will be read. In big data projects, this may be unnecessary, and researchers should not stray beyond what is strictly needed.

The Data The second step focuses only on the nature, inherent sensitivity, and volume of the data. Whether the material is administrative, textual, or a combination of the two, dictates the processing strategy required. Sensitivity might be considered in terms of the type and level of damage that could follow inadvertent disclosure, focusing on emotional, reputational (including financial), or physical harm. Examples could include the mental distress of past abuse coming to light, loss of livelihood due to previous convictions or investigations being revealed, or even vigilante attack. Records concerning the podiatry needs of dementia sufferers involve sensitivity that is inherently low, but greatly heightened when the subject matter is domestic abuse programme reports, although the ethical need to study the latter may be more pressing. Highly sensitive material also raises its possible interest to others, and thereby the motivations of those who might misuse it. Cases that attracted notoriety, involve 361

Beth Coulthard

well-known individuals, or those particularly vulnerable to serious harm, are harder to disguise, and more likely to feature in other databases. Such cases may already enjoy additional data protection within agencies who may choose not to share this ultra-sensitive portion of their data, with a potential for bias acknowledged.

Audience The guidance above relates to the level of damage that could follow data breaches. This third step focuses on mitigating the likelihood of such harm occurring. For sensitive data, it is acknowledged that public disclosure renders the means and motivations of those who may acquire the information largely unknowable. It is, therefore, unlikely that narrative social work documents, even where fully anonymised, could be publicly disclosed. To one or more specified, vetted investigators, however, risks that might otherwise be unacceptable can be managed and contained. External researchers may be subject to vetting, police checks, and signed agreements. Permission for ongoing use of the data may be reserved by the original controller.

Processing and Anonymisation This fourth consideration also addresses the likelihood of re-identification. For both administrative data and narrative texts, potentially identifying details should be specified, and whether these are to be pseudonymised, generalised, erased, or otherwise dealt with. For large document sets, some level of automation will be needed, therefore the programmes and techniques, automated and manual, should be tried and tested, where possible. Although some detail may evade processing, this should be minimal, ensuring re-identification risk is still deemed remote alongside other safeguards. Further to anonymisation, documents may be disguised through reformatting, and protected with passwords and encryption. Although not irreversible or unbreakable, most measures provide additional barriers. Data processing is burdensome to agencies, however, there are legitimate mechanisms to delegate the task to researchers. The ‘on-site safe settings’ model (Elliot et al., 2016) offers vetted researchers access to an agency’s secure data environment, whether physically or remotely via specialist equipment. Data may then be pre-processed and anonymised to agreed standards at minimal cost to data controllers before the anonymised dataset is transferred out of the agency for further analysis.

Data Storage, Transfer, and Access Data are vulnerable when stored, whether on a device or cloud-based server; transferred, either to or from the cloud or between organisations; or when accessed by authorised users. Each stage affords opportunity to those motivated to gain unauthorised access to private data. Technical measures to limit such risks include encryption, anti-virus software, firewalls, and promoting the physical security of equipment (Data Protection Commission 2020). Each of these safeguards represents 362

Privacy & Big Data in Social Work Research

fast-evolving technology, usually requiring specialist IT expertise. The human element may be overlooked, however, yet more important. Most data breaches are caused by user behaviour, including the use of public wifi hotspots, passwords that are weak and/or re-used many times, transfer of data to personal accounts and devices, and equipment that has been shared, left unattended, or in public view. Furthermore, many organisations report that staff routinely ignore security protocols (O’Driscoll 2022), indicating that solutions do not lie in training alone. Where appropriate, signed agreements can be used to augment training, to emphasise the personal responsibility of those who access sensitive data.

Case Example These five key elements are now illustrated in relation to one aspect of a study which examined the factors involved in applications to remove children, and their influence on family court outcomes. In England, the Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) maintains a central database of administrative data and court documentation for all local authorities issuing care applications across the country. Case process and biographical details were obtained from Cafcass for all applications issued between 2015 and 2017. This was linked to additional court process data available from the Ministry of Justice. Area-level socio-economic variables were obtained from published government sources. Case-level risk factors – parental problems and child harms – were then estimated for approximately 20% of the total cases, using five thousand initial social work court statements also held by Cafcass. This 38-million-word document set was anonymised and subjected to natural language processing (NLP).

Perceived Benefit Applications for ethical approval were granted by Ulster University, Cafcass, and the Ministry of Justice. Benefits were understood in terms of the high stakes involved in decisions to remove children from parents, and an improved understanding of the decision processes, in a context of rising care application numbers and reducing resources. The study spanned the widest geographical area, permitting comparisons across one hundred and fifty local authorities in England, and a wide spectrum of deprivation, with implications for promoting equitable treatment and resource allocation. The potential contribution of a novel, ’bigdata’ approach was likely to add further value. Although unaware of the project, the benefits in terms of improved decisions and equitable treatment were likely to be supported by service users, whose personal details would only be read by the researcher in exceptional cases.

Data Risks that were identified related mainly to the nature and size of data to be shared with an external research organisation, particularly the large volume of narrative 363

Beth Coulthard

documents, averaging 10,000 words. These statements provided detailed accounts of family circumstances and difficulties warranting a court application to remove a child from the care of their family. They may describe criminal matters, child abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness, also including third-party information, and the identities and status of a wide range of professionals. Some narrative accounts will have described unique events, potentially gaining media coverage. These documents, therefore, represent the highest sensitivity and risks from inadvertent disclosure, with some emotional, reputational, and physical risks foreseeable, even after the fullest possible processing.

Audience Due to these risks, access and disclosure were restricted, in this instance, to the lead researcher, a qualified social worker, and an enhanced Police check on the researcher conducted by Cafcass. Equipment was supplied by Cafcass to access its database remotely via a secure link to its protected database. An information assurance agreement was signed by the researcher, who alone was granted access to view the data at this stage

Anonymisation and Processing The five thousand documents were subjected to NLP according to the methods set out by Coulthard and Taylor (2022). First, they were anonymised by the removal, pseudonymisation or generalisation of personal identifiers, both direct and indirect. Subject names were replaced by pseudonyms generated on a case-by-case basis. By destroying the original names, the pseudonymisation was irreversible, satisfying the required anonymisation standard, but preserved the essential meaning of the documents (for instance family member roles). Postcodes were compared against published indices of socio-economic deprivation, and then replaced with a numerical code reflecting deciles of deprivation, these forming part of the later analyses. All dates, including dates of birth, were generalised to month of birth. The following case details were redacted: case reference numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, countries, nationalities, languages, race, ethnicity, and names of professionals, agencies, third-party names and places. To achieve this level of anonymisation, the document texts were first amalgamated into Excel format, and processed using Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). This is the integral Excel programming language which was used to automate all operations described here, enabling single commands to process the whole document set. It also provided a storage medium for the anonymised data by which the texts were barely recognisable to anyone unfamiliar with the methodology. VBA is a basic and largely superseded programming language but is more accessible to noncomputer scientists. The half-million unique words and character strings within the collection were listed, then classified using custom dictionaries (for instance neutral words, names, places, nationalities). Ambiguous terms, for example those that may be names and 364

Privacy & Big Data in Social Work Research

neutral words, e.g. ‘black’ or ‘brown’, were processed using pattern matching and a series of rules (for instance ‘brown’ is a colour except when capitalised). Some terms that were particularly hard to classify were flagged up for manual verification, and the few remaining unclassified were simply erased, prioritising confidentiality. Once classified, terms were then searched throughout the document collection and tagged to be processed according to the required standards outlined above. A detailed reading of a 100,000-word sample of documents revealed an accuracy of nearly 100% (Coulthard 2021, Chapter 8). Impersonal terms were then classified into themes, for instance, substance misuse, mental health or domestic violence, and the factors involved in cases reaching the family courts could then be quantified.

Transfer and Storage Anonymised encrypted data files were transferred to Ulster University for further analysis, and retention in an on-site university secure server for a maximum retention period of ten years as required by the Research Governance bodies. Other secure storage systems, including those which are cloud-based, would be suitable subject to necessary technical precautions and responsible management.

Discussion This research example illustrates principles and techniques that were successfully applied in order to preserve privacy as well as data utility within a novel ‘big data’ approach. Although the accuracy of the anonymisation methods exceeded other systems published (Murugadoss et al. 2021, Table 2), judging the present methodology against other anonymisation algorithms would not present a fair comparison. Understandably, the real world of ‘big data’ demands full automation, such that extensive volumes of text could be processed using simple automated actions undertaken by those without in-depth programming knowledge. The success of the approach described in this chapter relied on extensive manual verification, researcher input, and expertise. Arguably, this may be the only way to achieve near to full anonymisation, but it would not be a sustainable approach in future studies. Rather, the way forward lies in establishing policy that balances a degree of risk against research benefits, alongside safeguards that can be implemented. On the one hand, the standards for anonymisation that were used in the case example might be seen as overly stringent, given the wide range of detail that was redacted from the texts. On the other, the opposite might be argued, given the impossibility of fully anonymising unique stories of lives and circumstances which may strike a chord with an unknown individual. The point stressed in this chapter, however, is that standards cannot be assessed in isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the data and its disclosure. To a restricted and vetted audience who will not be physically reading the narratives, the risk of any identification is extremely low, and of misuse of such identification, should it occur, even lower. Whilst inadvertent disclosure of personal narratives remains theoretically feasible, any risk of harm still relies on the data coming to the attention of someone in a position to 365

Beth Coulthard

understand it and be motivated to go to considerable lengths to deconstruct it. It is therefore believed that the risk of identification was sufficiently ‘remote’ to meet the guidance (cited above) set by the Information Commissioner’s Office (2017, 60). Automated de-identification of narrative personal data is technically complex and usually undertaken by computer scientists within the medical sphere. This level of expertise is less available to social work research, where the heightened sensitivity of the personal data may prompt additional concerns. These considerations may deter social work researchers from embracing ‘big data’ approaches, however, it is vital that cutting-edge techniques are not denied to the vulnerable users of social work services, about whom the state makes decisions that profoundly affect their lives. It is important therefore to draw up social-work-specific guidance and policy.

Conclusion Social work researchers and organisations that hold sensitive personal data need not be deterred from conducting vital research due to privacy concerns. Personal data should be understood as dynamic and changeable according to its inherent sensitivity, context of use, and re-identification risk. By adhering to a legal and ethical framework, and processing data according to risk-based principles, the wealth of insight contained in growing repositories of social work data may be harnessed. These should include the narrative texts describing interactions with the lives and needs of the most vulnerable in society

Acknowledgements To Cafcass, Ministry of Justice, and to Brian Taylor and John Mallett of Ulster University, for support and supervision of the research study described.

References Altman, M., A. Wood, D. R. O’Brien, and U. Gasser. 2018. “Practical approaches to big data privacy over time.” International Data Privacy Law 8(1): 29–51. 10.1093/idpl/ipx027. Coulthard, B. 2021. “Big Data and Social Work: Using Natural Language Processing and Predictive Analytics to Explain Decisions for Children in the Family Courts.” PhD diss., University of Ulster. Coulthard, B. and B. Taylor. 2022. “Natural language processing to identify case factors in child protection court proceedings.” Methodological Innovations 15(3): 222–235. Data Protection Commission (An Coimisiún um Chosaint Sonraí). 2020. Guidance Note: Guidance for Controllers on Data Security. https://www.dataprotection.ie/sites/default/files/ uploads/2020-04/Data_Security_Guidance_Feb20.pdf Elliot, M., E. Mackey, K. O’Hara, and C. Tudor. 2016. The Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework. UK Anonymisation Network, University of Manchester. https://ukanon.net/ wp‐content/uploads/2015/05/The‐Anonymisation‐Decision‐making‐Framework.pdf FBI. 2021. “Inside the FBI: the Unabomber Case: 25 Years Later.” Podcast transcript. https:// www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/inside-the-fbi-the-unabomber-case-040821 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 2018. Recital 26. https://gdpr-info.eu/ recitals/no-26/

366

Privacy & Big Data in Social Work Research Hayes, D. and J. Devaney. 2004. “Accessing social work case files for research purposes: Some issues and problems.” Qualitative Social Work 3(3): 313–333. Information Commissioner’s Office. 2012a. Anonymisation: Managing Data Protection Risk Code of Practice. https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf Information Commissioner’s Office. 2012b. Determining what is personal data. https://ico. org.uk/media/1554/determining-what-is-personal-data.pdf Information Commissioner’s Office. 2017. Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2013559/big-dataai-ml-and-data-protection.pdf. Kniola, L. 2017. “Plausible Adversaries in Re-Identification Risk Assessment.” https://www. lexjansen.com/phuse/2017/dh/DH09.pdf Murugadoss, K., A. Rajasekharan, B. Malin, V. Agarwal, S. Bade, J. R. Anderson, J. L. Ross, et al. 2021. “Building a best-in-class automated de-identification tool for electronic health records through ensemble learning.” Patterns 2(6): 100255. 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100255. Ohm, P. 2010. “Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymisation.” Conference paper, Colerado Law School. Available at: https://www. uclalawreview.org/pdf/57-6-3.pdf. O’Driscoll, A. 2022. “The Role of Human Error in Cybersecurity: What the Stats Tell Us.” Information Security (blog). Comparitech. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/informationsecurity/human-error-cybersecurity-stats. Parker, D. M., S. G. Pine, and Z. W. Ernst. 2019. “Privacy and informed consent for research in the age of big data.” Penn State Law Review 123(3): Article 4. Available at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pslr/vol123/iss3/4. Shuster, E. 1997. “Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code.” The New England Journal of Medicine 337(20): 1436–1440. Stalla-Bourdillon, S. and A. Knight. 2017. “Anonymous data V. personal data – a false debate: An EU perspective on anonymisation, pseudonymization and personal data.” Wisconsin International Law Journal 34(2): 284–322. Sweeney, L. 2002. “K-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy.” International Journal on Uncertainty 10(5): 557–570.

367

31 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL WORK Contributions to an Ethical Artificial Intelligence at the Service of People Esther Raya Diez

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) forms part of our daily life and is present in practically all sectors of activity. In general terms, AI could be defined as the attempt to imitate human intelligence using a robot or software, although four types or ramifications can in fact be differentiated (Russel and Norving 2009): systems that think like humans (artificial neural networks), systems that act like humans (robots), systems that use rational logic (expert systems) and systems that act rationally (intelligent agents). From a positive perspective, AI “can help us in many ways; it can perform difficult, dangerous or repetitive tasks, help us save lives and cope with catastrophes, entertain us and make our daily lives more comfortable” (Pombo, Gupta, and Stankovic 2018, 1). This aspect is also highlighted by the European Commission, as it states that AI research “is helping us to solve some of the world’s biggest challenges: from treating chronic diseases or reducing fatality rates in traffic accidents to fighting climate change or anticipating cybersecurity threats” (European Commission 2018, 1). The rapid advancement of AI in all fields is making it possible for “more and more machines to be developed with the ability to learn, improve and even make calculated decisions in a way that allows them to perform tasks that were previously thought to solely depend on human experience, creativity and ingenuity” (Lorente 2017, 1). However, all these technological advances lead to a disturbing question on the threat of machine abilities: who is in control? The penetration of AI in our daily lives is an undeniable fact, as it is present in practically each and every one of the activities we carry out. The power of the algorithm in predicting our behaviours, the generation and storage of data, and the use of diverse devices in daily activities are just some aspects of this new technological revolution. From the introduction of 2G

368

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-37

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work

technologies to the 5G era, forms of communication, information and interaction “have completely reversed the way people live” (Huang and Bangjun 2020). This is the context in which the debate around the ethics of AI takes place. “Much of our life [is] under the influence of AI, it is essential that governments, industry, education and society in general work together to assess the opportunities that artificial intelligence offers, to ensure that it benefits all humanity” (Lorente 2017, 1). It is important to establish ethical criteria that promote reliable AI at the service of humanity. This chapter presents the aspects of the debate around the ethics of AI supported by international organisations, through the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) and by the European Commission. It then proceeds to describe the convergence in terms of ethical principles that guide AI and the principles of Social Work. The third section analyses the ethical issues raised in relation to two fields of AI application: social networks and assistance robots. Finally, through open reflection, the contributions that Social Work can make in the field of ethical AI are presented.

AI and Ethics: Aspects of the Debate The development of AI has been exponential in recent years and the pace of social change that it promotes will likely continue to develop into scenarios that are difficult to imagine today. After the emergence of ICTs at the end of the 20th century, the model of technologically advanced societies has been promoting new forms of information and communication while, simultaneously, digital gaps and their consequent social gaps have been generated or have widened. At the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, when globalisation has become a reality across the globe, post-globalisation can begin to be considered as a new phase (Duguin 2013, 2018; Benedetto 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has further promoted the use of ICTs as a communication tool and promoted the development of AI applications for crisis management in all fields, including those related to Social Work and social services (López, Bermúdez, and Pascual 2020; Thaker, Rewari, and Hubbard, 2020; Wilkerson et al. 2020). From the United Nations to the great world powers, alongside technology industries, the debate on governance and ethics in the development of AI is being consolidated. This new technology is anticipated to be a major source of growth for Asia in the next decade, according to a survey of industry, government and academic experts by MIT Technology Review (MIT 2019), and may represent a new geopolitical map in terms of international relations (Aznar 2019). In Europe, efforts are also being made to lead in the focus on AI at the service of people (European Commission 2018). Like any technological revolution, this also carries the risk of opening new social gaps or increasing existing ones, hence the importance of the underlying ethical debate. Technological advancement is unstoppable and, therefore, the challenge lies in how to ensure that AI is used for the service of people and human development. International organisations such as the United Nations work within this objective. Since 2017, the United Nations has promoted inclusive dialogue on these technologies through the AI for Good Global Summit. This initiative seeks to develop “the 369

Esther Raya Diez

potential of AI to act as a force for good” (Lorente 2017, 1), as well as to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and respond to global challenges related to poverty, hunger, health, education and the environment. Over the past few years, these global summits have been a rallying point for government officials, United Nations agencies, NGOs, industry leaders and AI experts. At these summits, the technical, political, ethical and social issues related to these technologies have been analysed and projects have been presented around the AI for Good theme. These projects deal with different areas of action, such as AI for health, supported by the WHO; AI for autonomous and assisted driving; and the AI Commons, for the generation of a space for collaboration between AI actors. The European Commission is also a key player in the debate on ethics in AI. In 2018, it presented a communication addressed to the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions entitled Artificial Intelligence for Europe (European Commission 2018). After acknowledging the unstoppable advance of AI, the text affirms that “the way we approach AI will define the world we live in” (European Commission 2018, 1). The Communication sets out a European initiative on AI, the purpose of which is to enhance the technological and industrial capacity of the EU; prepare for socio-economic transformations; and ensure the establishment of an appropriate ethical and legal framework. The aim is to create a coordinated work plan for the 2018–2020 period and to continue working through the multiannual financial framework for the 2021–2027 period. Likewise, it alludes to the importance of preparing for socioeconomic changes by increasing people’s capacities and preparing society as a whole, under the principle of “leaving no one behind” (European Commission 2018, 12). In this context of technological development, it is necessary to create an appropriate ethical and legal framework that enables an environment of trust and guarantees compliance with the EU’s Fundamental Rights. For the European Commission, AI is presented as an opportunity for unprecedented social transformation and as an ally for the achievement of the SDGs such as the promotion of equality between men and women; the fight against climate change; the rational use of natural resources; and the improvement of health. Given the advancement of AI and considering AI’s role in social transformation and its ability to improve individual and collective well-being, in 2018 the European Commission created a working group made up of 52 high-level independent experts, from industry, academia and civil society, as well as a representative from the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC 2019). This group of experts indicated that the reliability of AI rests on three components: it must be lawful, i.e., ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations; it must be ethical, i.e., guaranteeing respect for ethical principles and values; and it must be robust “both from a technical and social perspective since, even with good intentions, AI systems can cause unintentional harm” (European Commission 2019, 2). The debate on ethics is taking place at the international level (Ó’ hÉigeartaigh et al. 2020), arising from the conviction that AI will only be beneficial with a high level of cooperation between all actors involved. The AI4people initiative, an NGO 370

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work

that was created in 2017, is based on the idea of shaping Artificial Intelligent technology around human and societal needs, an idea that is also shared by large technology companies worldwide (Floridi 2018; Pagallo et al. 2019). Among the various AI actors there is an emerging consensus on the guidelines of the ethical values and principles that should guide AI. As highlighted on the AI4people website, there is general convergence on issues related to transparency, justice, equity, no harm, responsibility and privacy, along with other issues such as privacy, security, autonomy, justice, human dignity, control of technology and balance of powers. These questions are developed in the publications of the organisation in which researchers from different universities and research centres participate (Floridi 2018; Pagallo et al. 2019). The ethics of AI is a subfield of applied ethics that focuses on the ethical issues of technology development, such as the effects of technologies on people and society, decision-making capacity and security. Likewise, ethical dilemmas arise regarding equity and social justice. It is therefore necessary for AI systems to focus on people, to be used for the service of humanity and the common good and not to serve individual interests. The field of AI must thus be provided with normative frameworks and ethical guidelines that allow benefits to be maximised and risks to be minimised.

AI Ethics and Ethics of Social Work: Convergent Principles The European Commission document, Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, prepared by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (EESC 2019), is based on the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and international human rights law, using these as a reference on which to base AI’s ethical dimension. It focuses on highlighting “what we should do rather than what we (currently) can do with technology” (EESC 2019, 12). In presenting the principles that should guide reliable AI, a direct parallel can be established with the Global Social Work Ethical Principles established by the IFSW in 2018, as can be seen in Table 31.1: Table 31.1 Principles of reliable AI and principles of social work Principles of reliable AI

Principles of social work

Respect for human dignity

Recognition of the inherent dignity of human beings Promotion of the right to self-determination

Individual freedom Respect for human autonomy Respect for democracy, justice and the rule of law Equality, non-discrimination and solidarity

Citizen rights

Promotion of social justice Respect for diversity Rejection of institutional discrimination and oppression Building of solidarity Promotion of human rights

Source: Own preparation.

371

Esther Raya Diez

In Social Work, the principle of respect for human dignity is understood as the inherent value of all human beings in behaviour, words and actions. The principle involves respecting all people, while challenging beliefs and actions that devalue or stigmatise either themselves or others. When this principle is applied to AI systems, it means that these systems must be developed in a way that respects, protects and serves the physical and mental integrity of human beings, their sense of personal and cultural identity and the satisfaction of their essential needs. At the same time, it will be necessary to be alert to those utilities that undermine the dignity of third parties. The principle of individual freedom means that human beings must be free to make decisions for themselves. This is related to the principle of respect for human autonomy. Both can be linked to the principle of self-determination, which in Social Work means respecting and promoting the rights of people to make their own decisions, as long as these decisions do not pose a threat to the rights and legitimate interests of others. This aspect is also highlighted as a limit for AI, and indicates that intelligent systems must be able to avoid illegitimate coercion, unwarranted surveillance and manipulation. In addition, the focus on AI systems’ respect for human autonomy means that people who interact with AI systems should be able to maintain full and effective autonomy over themselves and be able to participate in democratic processes. This means that AI systems must not subordinate, coerce, deceive, manipulate, condition or direct human beings unjustifiably. AI systems must follow human-centred design principles and leave ample room for human choice. These principles also state that a requirement of reliable AI is that it must guarantee access to AI’s benefits and opportunities to people and groups in situations of or at risk of social exclusion. This alludes to the following principle regarding respect for democracy, justice and the rule of law. The European Commission’s group of experts indicate that AI systems should serve to maintain and promote democratic systems, as well as to ensure respect for laws and regulations and equality before the law. The Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles states that “social workers work to bring to the attention of their employers … and the public situations in which policies and resources are inadequate or in which policies and practices are oppressive, unjust, or harmful” (IFSW 2018, p. 1). The promotion of human rights and social justice are two of the key principles of Social Work, also included in the definition of professional work. Coupled with democratic and social justice values, the next principle for reliable AI relates to equality, non-discrimination and solidarity. These are the basic principles of Social Work included in the Declaration, which advocate challenging discrimination on the grounds of age, ability, marital status, culture, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, language, belief, etc. It also establishes work at the community level as a mechanism for building solidarity networks that allow for inclusive societies. This aspect is covered by the European Commission’s expert group report (EESC 2019), which also affirms that AI systems must respect the rights of people at risk of exclusion, must not generate unfairly biased results and must be as inclusive as possible. The group of experts also indicates respect for the rights of citizens as a principle, highlighting the potential of AI to improve the scope and effectiveness of the government in providing public goods and services to society. This potential must 372

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work

be used in a way that respects the rights of all people, paying special attention to protection against the risk that the use of AI can pose in the violation of rights. For its part, the Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles alludes to the principle of promoting human rights as a frame of reference to guide the intervention of Social Work. Along with these principles, the expert group lists four ethical principles, based on fundamental rights that must be observed to guarantee reliable AI: respect for human autonomy; prevention of harm; fairness; and explicability. Respect for human autonomy has been commented on previously and is connected to the principle of individual freedom and the right to self-determination. Prevention of harm means that AI systems must not cause harm to humans or aggravate existing harms. They must be safe from a technical point of view and must not be used maliciously. The Working Group of European Commission (EESC 2019) also warns of the risks derived from asymmetries in power or information and, therefore, of the need to establish protection mechanisms for vulnerable individuals and groups. At this point it is pertinent to remember the principle regarding people’s confidentiality and privacy, as included in the Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, since these represent a guarantee and protection of people’s private lives. From a substantive perspective, the principle of equity consists of guaranteeing a fair and equal distribution of benefits and costs, ensuring that individuals and groups do not suffer unjust bias, discrimination or stigmatisation. This principle matches with an ethical principle found in the IFSW’s statement – the promotion of equitable access to resources. Regarding AI systems, and from a procedural point of view, the principle of fairness assumes the ability of people to oppose the decisions made by AI systems and by the people who manage them. Finally, the principle of explicability is a necessary condition for the reliability of AI systems. Explicability implies that processes are transparent, that the systems’ capabilities and purpose are known, and that they are understandable to their target audience. This aspect can be linked with the ethical principle of promoting the right of participation, understood as the full participation of the person in the decisions and actions that affect their lives. As well as the explicability of AI systems, it is necessary for the people for whom they are intended to understand them. This is more feasible when participatory processes are promoted, even including in systems’ design phases. The Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles also includes a reference to the use of technology and social networks as ethical guidance. It emphasises that all the principles included in the Statement must be applied to all intervention contexts, including digital environments and social networks. It also warns of the risks and threats derived from the use of digital technology, advocating for “the necessary knowledge and skills to guard against unethical practice when using technology” (IFSW 2018, 2).

Ethical Issues in the Fields of Application of AI: Social Networks and Assistance Robots The applications of AI are a reality present in different fields of well-being such as those related to health, education and social services. From the various applications, 373

Esther Raya Diez

we have chosen to explore social networks and personal robots in more depth here. In both cases, these technological developments have a long history of experimentation and application in different contexts. However, at present and in the immediate future, scientific advances through the incorporation of AI skills present new challenges and opportunities, while simultaneously raising ethical issues to consider and issues of interest to Social Work.

Social Networks Social networks present different perspectives of use and application. From the point of view of Social Work, the role of social networks has been highlighted for information and research, as well as for social intervention. In addition, the creation of professional networks has also been raised (López Peláez and del Fresno 2013; Gillieatt et al. 2015; Castillo de Mesa 2017; Del Fresno 2015; Fernández 2019). There is also a line of research that addresses the role of ICTs in social work (Perrón et al. 2010; Santás 2016, López Peláez, and Marcuello-Servós 2018; Raya Diez 2018; Zhu and Andersen 2021). Overall, the opportunities that ICTs and social networks present for Social Work are evident. Social networks can be horizontal, with the objective of providing tools for general interaction; vertical by user, aimed at a specific audience; or vertical by activity, related to a specific activity (Boccuti et al. 2016). This classification indicates the complexity of interactions that arise with the labyrinth of social networks, where technologies are only the medium, opening up new forms of communication and relationships with multiple purposes. Like all human interaction, they contain positive aspects as well as negative aspects, due to the magnification of their consequences. Examples of this magnification in the use of social networks to be destructive towards someone or something include cyberbullying; phishing or identity theft; theft, threats, blackmail or fraud, including sextortion (Lamb 2010). Therefore, with the expansion of social networks we are faced with both the expansion of new fields of professional intervention and new professional skills to be developed, as well as new ethical dilemmas. In addition to ethical issues in the use of networks or in the absence of ethical codes, there are those who advocate self-control systems based on ethics, understood to mean “the final reflection that each person – users of online social networks (OSN) in this case – assumes in respect to universal values or moral principles, such as Freedom, Solidarity, Justice, the Common Good … Mutual Respect” (Fariñas 2019, 1) and propose, citing Sabater, three positions in relation to social networks: (a) courage to live; (b) generosity to coexist; (c) prudence to survive. With the expansion of the use of social networks for professional purposes, guides and manuals have been developed to guide users in various fields such as medicine (Nuñez 2013; Gutiérrez et al. 2018), journalism (Red Ética FNPI 2014) and economic sciences (Boccutti 2016). Among the aspects that are critical in the use of social networks, it is worth highlighting the importance of guaranteeing confidentiality, caring for one’s own image and respecting others. 374

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work

Assistance Robots The evolution of technology and robotics is responding to different activities in practically all professional fields. Along with its implementation in industrial and chemical processes, there are also other applications of a medical, healthcare, educational and daily nature in many other fields (Jardón et al. 2008; López 2017; Salazar 2018). Of these applications, we are focusing on the role of assistance robots, due to their proximity to Social Work. This speciality is experiencing rapid growth aimed at “helpinghealthcarers in hospitals, rehabilitation centers and nursery homes, aswell as empowering people with reduced mobility at home, so that theycan autonomously fulfill their daily living activities” (Torras 2019, 63). The new applications of robotics present new ethical dilemmas that arise from human-machine interaction. Where its use is more widespread, conflicts and abuse begin to appear. In an article published by National Geographic (2018), it was reported that the South Korean government were considering developing an ethical code to prevent humans from abusing robots and vice versa. From this, ethics applied to robots with which to analyse the challenges that technology represents were developed (Anderson and Leigh 2010; Rentería 2019; Vallés and Domènech 2020). The role that machines will play in our lives leads to a two-pronged ethical debate. Firstly, there is the debate relating to the (ethical) decisions that must be made based on the purpose for which machines have been created. These are especially important in the field of assistance robots aimed at people who require assistance in day-to-day activities. The debate tends to centre on the ability of robots to make ethical decisions in the context in which they are involved. In relation to this, it could be argued that the precepts that relate to deontological ethics and teleological ethics can be computable (Rouyet 2020). The former refers to the principles that should guide actions while the latter determine whether an action is correct or incorrect based on the results or its consequences. It is more difficult to program moral decisions. In relation to this, “the only way to have an intelligent ethical system is not to compute an ethical code, an arduous question, but rather to consider the human being within the given system” (Rouyet 2020, 82). In other words, to have ethical AI is to have human beings who seek to be better people using AI applications. This statement is related to the debate’s second critical question, which focuses on the advantages of giving machines total autonomy. In 2017, the Biocat foundation organised a conference to discuss this issue, which resulted in a document entitled “Declaración de Barcelona para un desarrollo y uso adecuados de la Inteligencia Artificial en Europa” (Barcelona Declaration for the adequate development and use of artificial intelligence in Europe) (López 2017). In this declaration, six points were established that are in line with the aforementioned principles produced by the European Commission’s expert group. Firstly, it refers to prudence and the need to be aware of the scientific and technical obstacles in relation to this subject. Secondly, it refers to the reliability that AI systems must guarantee before their implementation. A third point refers to accountability, or the ability to explain decisions made by the machine. The fourth criterion refers to responsibility and

375

Esther Raya Diez

being able to identify the individual responsible for the machine’s behaviour. The fifth point refers to limited autonomy, and, finally, the sixth point states that the role of humans must be made clear.

The Future Is Here: Building the Present from Social Work The use of technology to facilitate everyday life has been present throughout the history of mankind, since the first human being picked up a stone to defend themselves. The dilemma is not so much whether or not to use technologies, but rather to understand the dimension of the dilemmas posed by these intelligent devices, as well as the issue of ensuring that the benefits of AI reach all social groups, including people and groups in vulnerable situations. The great challenge that AI presents is that of inequality linked to the use of and access to technologies. Hence the need to anticipate and manage technological innovation (López Peláez 2014). From the moment that Isaac Asimow (1942) articulated the ethical parameters that should govern robots’ behaviour (namely (a) robots cannot harm human beings; (b) robots must comply with humans’ orders; and (c) robots must protect their own existence as long as it does not conflict with previous laws), up until now, when science fiction has given way to reality. It has now become necessary to establish ethical principles that allow technological development and human well-being to be combined. From Asia (Sharma 2017; Hao 2020) to Europe (EESC 2019) to the United States (US Government 2019), the debate is open to make reliable AI possible. Technology companies are aligned with the different objectives of AI for good, proposing technological solutions to address social problems. Meanwhile, the practice of Social Work seems to be oblivious to the potential that all these technologies have in the objective of social transformation (D’Antonio and de Lucas 2017; Wilkerson et al. 2020), as if this were only a matter for other disciplines. The management of social services during the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the shortcomings of the system and the need to strengthen professionals’ training (Wilkerson et al. 2020). Meanwhile, like a spreading puddle of oil, AI applications are not only saturating our daily lives, but also our professional lives, imposing new ways of doing and responding and even widening the digital divide. This fact is especially worrying if we consider that behind digital gaps are social gaps (Raya Diez 2002; López Peláez 2014; Torres, Robles, and De Marco 2014). At this point, Social Work must play a proactive and decisive role as a key actor and not just as a non-priority user in digital agendas. Social Work has elements that make it a key actor to promote the development of the three conditions of Reliable AI. The first one refers to the fact that it must be lawful. In a field of accelerated and emerging innovation, new applications are emerging that positive law has not yet caught up with, and in which there are great differences between some countries and others in terms of regulation (EESC 2019). In addition, it is necessary to be aware of the risks that all innovation carries, both of possible abuses towards vulnerable groups and of a lack of opportunities for certain sectors of the population. 376

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work

From its experience of working with different population sectors, Social Work has research and intervention experience and methodology to identify these critical points and promote processes that extend the benefits of AI to these population sectors, while simultaneously helping prevent the risks of its application. Regarding the ethical character that should guide AI systems, in addition to the convergence between the ethical principles of Social Work and reliable AI outlined above, Social Work has a long history of addressing the ethical dilemmas raised by intervention in social reality. Therefore, graduates present the ideal characteristics for being integrated into interdisciplinary teams for the development of AI systems. Finally, robust AI refers to the architecture and usability of intelligent systems for different types of users. In this regard, the multidisciplinary composition of teams is essential for a good application design. In relation to this, it is worth highlighting the holistic and interdisciplinary approach of Social Work, along with the expert knowledge of certain sectors of the population, which gives it added value in the configuration of AI systems’ design teams. For this, Social Work as a scientific discipline and professional practice must go from having a reactive/passive role in relation to ICTs to a proactive role, generating research spaces on AI applied to social intervention processes, specialised training on AI, and active participation in events on AI for good and similar. Likewise, the unstoppable force of social networks is reason enough in itself to promote the development of proper ethical codes for the practice of Social Work in digital contexts, as is occurring in other disciplines. In addition to all of the above, and from the perspective of the processes of change, it is possible to indicate the social risks that we face as a society via the discipline of Social Work. Among these, it can be stated that under the appearance of connectivity, through social networks, there is a paradox of isolation, especially among social groups with greater vulnerability. Before the arrival of robots, a new model of society will be generated, and with it a new social contract will emerge. These issues must also be put on the political agenda, so that the technological revolution does not leave anyone behind. This is an ethical political debate for the development of AI at the service of individual and collective well-being. And this, too, is the aim of Social Work.

Summary and Conclusions AI is increasingly present in everyday life activities, in computer applications, assistive robots or information systems. With the introduction of these new technologies, the forms of interaction between people and between people and machines have changed as well. All this leads to the need to establish ethical criteria that promote reliable AI in the service of humankind. The chapter has addressed the debates of international bodies on the ethics of AI. Secondly, the convergence between the ethical principles of AI and those of Social Work has been presented. Thirdly, fields of application of AI of interest to Social Work practice are also addressed. Finally, a reflection on the contributions of Social Work to the debate on the ethics of AI has been carried out. 377

Esther Raya Diez

Regarding the first section, the issue of governance and ethics in the development of AI is highlighted. Technological progress is unstoppable, and the challenge is to ensure that it is used for the well-being of people. The United Nations, through the AI for Goods World Summit, has promoted the development of an inclusive dialogue to guide the action of technology aligned with the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda and the global challenges related to poverty, health, education and the environment. AI ethics is a subfield of applied ethics, which focuses on the analysis of ethical issues in the development of technology, the effects of technology on people’s lives, and dilemmas around equity and social justice. Secondly, there is a high degree of convergence between the principles of AI and Social Work ethics. These include the principle of respect for human dignity, the principle of individual freedom, which in turn is related to the principle of selfdetermination. These principles are aimed at limiting AI action by avoiding coercion, illegitimate surveillance or manipulation. It also highlights the principle of person-centred design, guaranteeing access for all people, including those in situations of exclusion or vulnerability. In addition to these principles, AI includes four principles based on fundamental rights, such as respect for the autonomy of the person, prevention of harm, equity and explainability. For its part, the 2018 IFSW Statement of Ethical Principles warns about the risks and threats of digital technology, recalling the need for knowledge and skills necessary to protect against unethical practices when using technology. In the final part of the chapter, two areas of application of AI are expressly alluded to social networks and assistive robots. With respect to social networks, reference is made to the complexity of interactions between people mediatized by the networks, which sometimes leads to new forms of abuse or violence, and, therefore, the need for training in their use, both at the professional level and among the population. On the other hand, assistive robots are increasingly present in the field of caregiving. This leads to consideration of ethical dilemmas concerning the ability of taking autonomous decisions that affect people’s lives. The chapter ends with a reflection on the contributions that Social Work can make in this emerging sector. It the need to be present in the discussions about AI for Good is recognised, which requires strengthening the competences of staff employed in the social services sector in digital competencies. It advocates taking a proactive and decisive role as a key player in the development of Reliable AI. To this end, it is necessary to generate spaces for research on AI applied to social intervention processes; specialised training and to place social justice issues on the public agenda, so that the technological revolution leaves no one behind.

References Anderson, M., and S. Leigh. 2010. “Ethics for Robots.” Research and Science 411: 56–61. Asimow, I. 1942. Runaround, Astounding Science Fiction. New York: Street and Smith.

378

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work Aznar, F. 2019. La inteligencia artificial como factor geopolítico. Madrid: Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos. http://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/docs_analisis/2019/DIEEEA18_2019 FEDAZN_IAgeopolitica.pdf Benedetto, H. 2020. “Un mundo de contradicciones secundarias: La Post Globalización?” In Parlamento del Mercosur, available at https://www.parlamentomercosur.org/innovaportal/ v/12948/1/parlasur/un-mundo-de-contradicciones-secundarias:-la-post-globalizacion. html Boccutti, M., O. Corti, J. Ficarra, P. Sánchez, and M. Wiernik. 2016. “La ética y las redes sociales.” 21 Congreso Nacional de Profesionales en Ciencias Económicas, Argentina, https://archivo.consejo.org.ar/areas/temas_especiales/files/Etica_redes_sociales.pdf Castillo de Mesa, J. 2017. El trabajo social ante el reto de la transformación digital. Big data y redes sociales para la investigación y la intervención social. Madrid: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi. Del Fresno, M. A. 2015. “Connecting the disconnected: Social Work and social network analysis. A methodological approach to identifying network peer leaders.” Arbor: Ciencia, pensamiento y cultura 191(771): 1–14. 10.3989/arbor.2015.771n1011 Duguin, A. 2013. La Cuarta Teoría Política. Tarragona: Ediciones Fides. Duguin, A. 2018. El auge de la Cuarta Teoría Política: La Cuarta Teoría Política, vol. II. Tarragona: Ediciones Fides. D’Antonio, S., and F. de Lucas. 2017. “Trabajo social y tecnología: acomodación distante y precariedad.” In Innovación social en la práctica del Trabajo Social, edited by E. Raya Diez and J. Álamo. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades. EESC. 2019. Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous’ Systems. Luxembourg: European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, European Commission. European Commission. 2018. Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2018) 795 final. Brussels. https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0795& from=en European Commission. 2019. Directorate‐General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, Publications Office, https://data. europa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720 European Commission. 2020. White Paper – On Artificial Intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust. COM (2020) 65 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0065&from=EN Fariñas, J. R. 2019. La ética en las redes sociales en IPclick, https://www.ipclick.net/2012/ 04/la-etica-en-las-redes-sociales/ Fernández, S. 2019. “Conocer, integrar y divulgar. Las tecnologías digitales para la investigación y la intervención en trabajo social.” Trabajo Social hoy 88: 43–68. 10.12960/ TSH.2019.0015 Floridi, L. 2018. “AI4People’s Ethical and Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations.” https://www.eismd.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/11/AI4People%E2%80%99s-Ethical-Framework-for-a-Good-AI-Society_ compressed.pdf Gillieatt, S. J., C. C. Fernándes, A. Fielding, A. Hendrick, R. Martin, and S. Matthews. 2015. “Social network and social inquiry.” Australian Social Work 68(3): 338–351. 10.1080/ 0312407X.2015.1035660 Gutiérrez, R., M. Jiménez, M. Lalanda, R. Olalde, B., Satué, R. Taberner, and J. A. Trujillo. 2018. Manual de estilo para médicos y estudiantes de medicina. https://www.cgcom.es/sites/ default/files/u183/Manual%20Redes%20Sociales%20OMC.pdf Hao, K. 2020. “The US just released 10 principles that it hopes will make AI safer.” MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/07/130997/ai-regulatoryprinciples-us-white-house-american-ai-initiatve/

379

Esther Raya Diez Huang, Z., and C. Bangjun. 2020. “A study for application research of 5G data acquisition and testing.” 2020 5th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Analytics, ICBDA 2020: 100–104. IFSW. 2018. Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles. International Federation of Social Workers. https://www.ifsw.org/global-standards-for-social-work-education-and-training/ Jardón, A., A. Giménez, R. Correal, S. Martinez, and C. Balaguer. 2008. “ASIBOT: Robot portátil de asistencia a discapacitados. Concepto, arquitectura de control y evaluación clínica.” Revista Iberoamericana de Automática e informática industrial 5(2): 48–59. Lamb, A. 2010. “Everyone does it: Teaching ethical use of social technology.” Knowledge Quest 39(1): 62–67. Retrieved from HTML: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com López, B., L. M. Bermúdez, and J. Pascual. 2020. “Buena práctica: SisVAT-COVID19 Sistema de vigilancia y alerta temprana en el Sistema Asturiano de Servicios Sociales.” In socialasturias.es, https://www.socialasturias.es/servicios-sociales/consejeria-de-derechossociales-y-bienestar-del-principado-de-asturias/buena-practica-sisvat-covid19-sistema-devigilancia-y-alerta-temprana-en-el-sistema-asturiano-de-servicios-sociales_2279_0_0_0_ 1_10838_553381675665_in.html López, R. 2017. “Ética en la inteligencia artificial.” Investigación y Ciencia 91. https://www. investigacionyciencia.es/revistas/investigacion-y-ciencia/el-multiverso-cuntico-711/ticaen-la-inteligencia-artificial-15492 López Peláez, A. 2014. The Robotics Divide. A Frontier in the 21st Century? London: Springer. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello Servós. 2018. “El trabajo social en la sociedad digital.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social 118: 25–34. López Peláez, A., and M. del Fresno. 2013. “Trabajo social, nuevas tecnologías y redes sociales: nuevas herramientas para la práctica profesional del siglo XXI.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social 104: 31–39. Lorente, A. 2017. “Inteligencia Artificial for Good.” Blogthinking.com. https://blogthinkbig. com/inteligencia-artificial-for-good MIT. 2019. “Asia’s AI agenda. The ethics of AI.” MIT Technology Review https://mittrinsights. s3.amazonaws.com/asiaaiethics.pdf National Geographic. 2018. Código de ética sobre robots, [Code of ethics on robots]. https:// www.ngenespanol.com/traveler/codigo-etica-sobre-robots/ Nuñez, I. 2013. “Redes sociales: Implicaciones éticas, profesionales y sociales en los cuidados clínicos.” Cardioteca.com. https://www.cardioteca.com/cardiologia-clinica-blog/ 148-cardiologia-clinica-miscelanea/445-redes-sociales-implicaciones-eticas-profesionalesy-sociales-en-los-cuidados-clinicos.html Ó’hÉigeartaigh, S., J. Whittlestone, Y. Liu, Y. Zeng, and Z. Liu. 2020. “Overcoming barriers to cross-cultural cooperation in AI ethics and governance.” Philosophy & Technology 33: 571–593. 10.1007/s13347-020-00402-x Pagallo, U., P. Aurucci, P. Casanovas, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, B. Schafer, and P. Valcke. 2019. On Good AI Governance. 14 Priority Actions, A S.M.A.R.T. Model of Governance, and a Regulatory Toolbox. https://www.eismd.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/AI4Peoples-Report-on-Good-AI-Governance_compressed.pdf Perron, B. E., H. O. Taylor, J. E. Glass, and J. Margerum-Leys. 2010. “Information and communication technologies in social work.” Advances in Social Work 11(2): 67–81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117433/ Pombo, C., R. Gupta, and M. Stankovic. 2018. “¿Quieres automatizar un servicio social con inteligencia artificial? 4 key considerations.” In IDB improving lives, https://blogs.iadb.org/ conocimiento-abierto/es/servicio-social-con-inteligencia-artificial/ Raya Diez, E. 2002. “Brecha digital: Viejos problemas sociales, nuevos retos políticos.” Presentation at the Congreso online para la Cibersociedad. Barcelona. Raya Diez, E. 2018. “e-Inclusion and e-Social work: New technologies at the service of social intervention.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 916–929. 10.1080/13691457.2018. 1469472

380

Artificial Intelligence and Social Work Red Etica FNPI. 2014. “Conozca el decálogo de Comportamiento en Redes Sociales del Diario El Tiempo.” In Fundación Red Ética, https://fundaciongabo.org/es/etica-periodistica/recursos/ conozca-el-decalogo-de-comportamiento-en-redes-sociales-del-diario-el Rentería, A. 2019. “Ethical concerns when robots assist eldery people.” Dilemata 30: 3–49. Rouyet, J. I. 2020. “Ética aplicada en la inteligencia artificial: De robots éticos a personas éticas con robots.” Telos: cuadernos de comunicación e innovación 114: 78–83. Russel, S., and P. Norving. 2009. Inteligencia Artificial. Un enfoque moderno. Madrid: Pearson Prentice Hall. Salazar, I. 2018. “Los robots y la Inteligencia Artificial: Nuevos retos del periodismo.” Doxa Comunicación: revista interdisciplinar de estudios de comunicación y ciencias sociales 27: 298–315. Santás, J. I. 2016. “Proyecto de apropiación de las TIC en servicios sociales de atención primaria del Ayuntamiento de Madrid.” Cuadernos de Trabajo Social 29(2): 213–223. 10.5209/ cuts.51835 Sharma, Y. 2017. Robots bring Asia into the AI research ethics debate. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20171124143449109 Thaker, N. G., A. Rewari, and A. Hubbard. 2020. “Future of alternative payment models and big data analytics in the post-Covid era: Implications for radiation oncology.” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 108(2): 353–355. https://www.redjournal. org/article/S0360-3016(20)31333-X/pdf Torres, C., J. M. Robles, and S. De Marco. 2014. “From the digital divide to digital inequality.” In The Robotics Divide: A New Frontier in the 21st Century, edited by A. López Pélaez, 173–194. London: Springer. Torras, C. (2019). Assistive Robotics: Research Challenges and Ethics Education Iniciatives, Ilemata, Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas, no 30, 63–77. US Government. 2019. “Maintaining American leadership in artificial intelligence.” Presidential Documents 84(31). https://www.alexmoga.cat/download/1870/ Vallès-Peris, N., and M. Domènech. 2020. “Robots para los cuidados. La ética de la acción mesurada frente a la incertidumbre!” Cuadernos de Bioética 31(101): 87–100. DOI: 10.30444/CB.54 Wilkerson, D. A., S. N. Wolfe-Taylor, C. K. Deck, E. A. Wahler, and T. S. Davis. 2020. “Telebehavioral practice basics for social worker educators and clinicians responding to COVID-19 (2020).” Social Work Education 39(8): 1137–1145. Zhu, H. and S. Y. Andersen. 2021. “ICT-mediated social work practice and innovation: professionals’ experiences in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.” Nordic Social Work Research 11(4): 346–360. 10.1080/2156857X.2020.1740774

381

32 ETHICS AND TECHNOLOGY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Allan Edward Barsky

Introduction When pandemics, terrorism, wars, cyberattacks, famine, mass migration, toxic spills, natural disasters, and other emergency situations arise, social workers can play vital roles in building social capital and linking people with resources necessary to respond (Rapeli 2018). Social workers may provide emotional and psychsocial support, alleviating the negative effects of the emergency situation and helping communities cope with crisis (Necel, 2023). Social workers may use various technologies to communicate with and support people who are displaced, traumatized, disabled, and otherwise in need. Although social workers may continue to use in-person contact to help individuals, groups, and communities, technology may be particularly important in helping people cope, recover, and grow from the emergency situation. Videoconferencing, phone contact, automated intervention apps, social robots, social media, and other technology may be used to bridge communication (Congress and Chang-Muy 2016; Necel 2023), assess risks and needs, connect people with needed resources (Branson 2021; Mallia 2015), and provide continuity of health, mental health, and social services (Wodarski 2004). When wars or other emergency situations lead to separation of family members or close friends, technology may be used to locate one another, enable communication, and facilitate reunification (Shah et al. 2019). Social workers may also help communities respond to crises by fostering digital communities, strengthening civil society (O’Leary and Tsui 2020), using digital platforms to educate the public about how to stay safe and healthy, using digital advocacy to promote the well-being of vulnerable people, and using technology to maximize the effectiveness of emergency response efforts. Technology is particularly vital in serving clients located in hard-to-reach, low-resourced, and underserved locations (Augusterfer et al. 2018). This chapter explores ethical issues that may arise when social workers use technology to help clients and communities during times of emergency. For the

382

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-38

Ethics, Technology and Emergencies

purposes of this chapter, emergency situations refer to natural disasters or personmade crises in which there is a serious disruption of the community functioning, stressing the ability of affected individuals, families, groups, and organizations to cope (Stute et al. 2020). The following analysis draws from ethical issues that social workers have encountered in responding to recent emergency situations such as the global COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 (Banks et al. 2020) and mass migrations following civil wars in Syria and elsewhere (Augusterfer et al. 2018). These issues include emergency-related failures in technology, triaging clients according to urgency and need, compassion fatigue, individual and community consent, avoiding colonializing practice, access to technology, false information spread through social media, and using cultural humility when working with clients across distances. Social workers should respond quickly and ethically to new realities, including situations where the usual methods of interacting with clients are disrupted (Stebnicki 2017). The International Federation of Social Worker’s (IFSW 2018) “Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles” provides social workers with ethical guidance, stressing the importance of using technology ethically (Principle 8). The following sections explore how other principles from this global statement apply in the context of using technology in emergency situations: competence and preparation, human rights and social justice, respect for the inherent dignity of humanity, and privacy and confidentiality

Competence and Preparation Competence refers to having the knowledge, skills, values, and self-awareness to provide effective services. Social workers should practice only within their areas of competence (NASW 2021). Competence may be developed through formal classroom education, supervision, observation, research, reading, and reflective practice (Barsky 2023). When using technology to offer services, workers should not only be competent in the types of interventions they are using, but also in their methods of communicating with clients. When the COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of many in-person social work services, workers faced a choice of having to provide services through videoconferencing or other distance communication technologies or not being able to provide any direct services to their clients. Some workers, without prior experience in using these technologies for professional purposes, began providing services digitally so they would not be abandoning clients in need. Although these workers were well-intentioned, they did not necessarily have the competence to provide safe and effective services. This situation highlights the need for social workers to be prepared for emergencies, including the capacity to provide services mediated through technology. Some social workers practice in organizations specifically designed for responding to emergency situations, (e.g., hospitals, law enforcement, humanitarian organizations, and trauma services). These organizations should have comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans, ensuring that social workers are ready to respond to various situations. Preparedness includes ensuring that social workers are properly trained in using technology effectively to engage, assess, and intervene with 383

Allan Edward Barsky

prospective clients (Goldkind et al. 2018). For instance, how is engaging clients through videoconferencing different from engaging clients in-person? What types of apps may be used to assess the needs of particular individuals, families, organizations, or communities affected by the disaster? How can social workers use social media, geographic information systems, social robots, and other technology to link people with resources, educate them about risks and safety precautions, and help them address psychosocial issues such as trauma, anxiety, depression, discrimination, poverty, and violence? When preparing for emergencies, social workers, technology experts, and others should prepare for different contingencies, including how to respond to disruptions in technology. Preparation includes knowing what types of technology will be used under various conditions. During wars, hurricanes, floods, and other disasters, traditional landlines, cellular services, and internet services may be disrupted (Stebnicki 2017). Workers need to understand how to access Disruption-Tolerant Networks (DTNs), including digital services that may be accessed via satellite, cloud-based services, or other wireless technologies (Stute et al. 2020). Although some social workers specialize in emergency response, all social workers should be prepared to respond under emergency situations that may be foreseeable in the context of their location and context of practice. Consider a school shooting situation. Responding in the moment may be too late. For instance, how will students, parents, school administrators, and law enforcement be informed about an active shooting situation? How can social workers and other school personnel prepare students on the “do’s and don’ts” of using cellphones or other technology during an active shooting situation? Providing instructions as simple as silencing cellphones can save lives (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 2019). All social workers should have backup methods for communicating with clients (NASW et al. 2017). For instance, if videoconferencing is not working, workers could offer services via telephone, text, or other devices. Workers should be adept at using various technologies, particularly when service needs may be high and traditional methods of service provision are compromised. Technology permits social workers to provide services to clients in distant locations. Before providing services at a distance, however, social workers should ensure they have cultural competence to serve people in the distant locations (NASW et al. 2017). During a civil war, for instance, a worker from another country should understand the causes of the unrest, how culture and religion relate to the conflict, cultural norms for coping, how to address security concerns, and how will people from the local culture interpret and respond to messages and outside offers of help. When engaging with survivors of traumatic events and helping them deal with grief and loss, it is important for social workers to understand clients from their contextual perspectives and demonstrate cultural empathy (Stebnicki 2017). During crisis situations, it may be particularly important to connect (or reconnect) people with their religion or spirituality as a means of coping (Suleiman AlMakhamreh 2019). Social workers should educate themselves about the history of colonizing practices so they do not repeat the mistakes of imposing values or further oppressing populations with different cultures and values (Mallia 2015). 384

Ethics, Technology and Emergencies

In the aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency, social workers should determine which communication systems are working and what additional communication resources are needed (Augusterfer et al. 2018). One advantage of technology-mediated communication is that technology may be used to translate when social workers and clients are not fluent in the same languages (e.g., Tarjimly n.d.). When using translation apps, social workers should be aware that certain translations may not be accurate. It is important to use clarification and check-back skills to ensure proper communication. Principle 9.6 (IFSW 2018) suggests social workers have a duty of self-care. When workers engage with clients who have experienced trauma, they incur risk of vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue (Branson 2021). Workers may also experience moral stress and injury when they are unable to fulfill their ethical obligations, for instance, when services are suspended due to high risks and workers cannot serve clients in need (Banks et al. 2020). Workers should be prepared with strategies to build resilience and mitigate these risks, for instance, meditation, social support, positive self-messaging, humor, spirituality, and good habits for nutrition, exercise, and sleep. Workers may nurture their resilience by being creative, viewing problems as learning opportunities, and inspiring hope when serving others (O’Leary and Tsui 2020). When providing services through distance technology, social workers may feel particularly isolated. They should consider how to access supervision or consultation to ensure appropriate support (Branson 2021). When social workers are present in the location of the emergency, they should identify risks to themselves (e.g., violence, transmission of disease) and take proper protective measures.

Human Rights and Social Justice Principles 2 and 3 (IFSW 2018) suggest that social workers should promote human rights and social justice. During emergency situations, these concerns may become heightened (Banks et al. 2020). Some people make take advantage of emergency situations through looting, financial extorsion, and other fraudulent schemes (O’Leary and Tsui 2020). Governments may become more authoritative (Mallia 2015), restricting movement, assembly, free speech, or other rights due to concerns about war, pandemics, or other risks. Governments might have valid reasons for restricting rights and freedoms; still, social workers should be ready to advocate, particularly for the rights of vulnerable or marginalized groups (Banks et al. 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on the ability to work in many countries had disproportionate impacts on particular minority groups (Varshney et al. 2020), including people of color, people living in poverty, older adults, and people with pre-existing health conditions and disabilities. These groups may also be at risk due to limited access to resources (hospital beds, ventilators, medications) and social isolation (Howard et al. 2018). To address these issues, social workers may use technology to facilitate research, identify needs, and document instances of human rights violations. Social workers may also use technology to build coalitions and advocate for the needs of people experiencing discrimination, isolation, poverty, exploitation, and other hardships (Goldkind et al. 2018). 385

Allan Edward Barsky

Social workers may use social media and other technology to educate various groups about their rights. They should be careful not to impose their personal views, but rather, educate people about international human rights and local interpretations of human rights (Mallia 2015). When appropriate, workers may educate people about complying with laws intended to promote health and safety. In pandemic situations, workers may use technology to convey culturally appropriate messages about social distancing, wearing masks, and washing hands to reduce transmission. Workers must understand the local situation to ensure the messaging is appropriate. For example, telling people to contact their doctor when they do not have access to doctors is inappropriate. When conflicts arise, social workers may also use technology to bring people together to help them communicate, problem-solve, and promote social justice (Barsky 2017a). When providing services through technology, workers should ensure that their clients have access to technology (Banks et al. 2020). During a war or after a natural disaster, people may not have phones, computers, internet access, or electricity. Humanitarian groups often focus on providing people with basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing. Social workers may need to advocate for communication technology as a basic need. Technology may be needed to link people with health services, as well as ensuring access to information to promote their health and wellbeing (Branson 2021). Following traumatizing events, there may be surges in needs for mental health services, including services for trauma, anxiety, and suicidal and homicidal ideation (Stebnicki 2017; Augusterfer et al. 2018; Necel 2023). Local service providers may become overwhelmed. Behavioral intervention technologies (BITs) may be used to enhance access to services. BITs are digital programs that support change efforts through self-assessment, self-monitoring, psychoeducation, goal setting, skill building, feedback, and other psychosocial interventions. Social robots, chatbots, online assessment tools, and other BITs may be particularly advantageous in disaster situations because BIT-based services can be provided quickly, in many languages, and without risks to humans (Luxton 2020). Research suggests that BITs can provide more equitable access to mental health services (Ramos and Chavira 2019). They can be more cost-efficient than in-person services and they can be made available on an as-needed basis to people around the globe. BITs could be programmed to help deal with particular emergencies, for instance, facilitating needs assessments and connecting people with appropriate information and resources.

Respect for the Inherent Dignity of Humanity Principle 1 (IFSW 2018) guides social workers to respect inherent dignity of all people. Respecting people’s dignity includes respecting their right to self-determination and informed consent. When emergency situations arise, governments and service providers may have a sense of urgency leading to quick decision-making, without opportunities for the communities or individuals affected to have meaningful input and consent. Social workers may enhance human dignity and self-determination by facilitating appropriate participation in decision-making. Consider a governmental 386

Ethics, Technology and Emergencies

decision to evacuate an area near an ocean due to an approaching hurricane (Wodarski 2004). Social workers may use social media and other technology to educate the communities affected, as well as gather their feedback about the best way to respond to imminent risks (Rainey et al. 2016). Homeless people and other marginalized groups may be concerned that the government is trying to evict them from their communities and they will not be able to return. By working with these groups, social workers may help them develop solutions that demonstrate understanding and respect (e.g., letting people know where they will be staying during the evacuation and how they will be transported back to their community). Before social workers offer services in a disaster area (whether remotely or inperson), they should obtain permission to work in the area (Augusterfer et al. 2018). They may need to speak with local government and agency officials, as well as community leaders, specific cultural groups, and service providers. By consulting these groups, they can ensure that their proposed services are culturally appropriate, lawful, and welcomed. They can build consensus about how to divide the responsibilities of remote social workers and local partners, as well as defining which needs to focus upon first (Augusterfer et al. 2018). In some situations, distant social workers may provide primary services to local clients; in others, distant social workers may act as consultants to local service providers. Coordinating services with local partners demonstrates respect for local service providers, ensuring they are working toward the common good of the local populations. Social workers from distant locations should not assume that they have the requisite cultural competence to serve local populations. Rather, they should approach local groups and individuals with cultural humility (Hilty et al. 2020). Cultural humility means being open to learning from others, respecting differences, and constantly evaluating one’s own biases, beliefs, and values (Danso 2018). When using technology, workers should ensure that the applications of the technology are culturally appropriate. Consider the use of an automated mental health intervention app that focuses on the here and now, for instance, asking people about their current needs, thoughts, and feelings. Although the here-and-now focus may be appropriate for some cultures, other cultures are traditionally past- or future-oriented. Workers should ensure that technology-mediated interventions assess for cultural issues and offer heterogeneity in intervention strategies to accommodate cultural differences (Hilty et al. 2020). During emergency situations, social workers may need to triage, identifying which people have the most urgent needs, which may benefit the most from services, and which are not likely to benefit or survive even when they are offered services (Okorie 2019). Setting priorities may be fraught with conflicting obligations, including conflicts between individual needs and the public good (Banks 2022). Consider a social worker who is asked to stop serving current clients in order to help people affected by an emergency abroad. Workers are supposed to value all people. Giving priority to some people over others is not an easy choice. When workers are determining where to focus their services and where to allocate technology, they should ensure that they are doing so in an equitable and ethical manner. For instance, it would be inappropriate to allocate social work services or other resources based on nepotism, racism, political connection, or the worker’s self-interest (Barsky 2023). Utilitarianism suggests that 387

Allan Edward Barsky

allocation should be based on which distribution produces the greatest good (Mallia 2015). However, social work ethical codes often state that the workers’ primary obligations are to their clients (NASW 2021). All social workers should acknowledge the inherent tensions they encounter in practice and seek creative solutions to address both the greater good and the needs of particular clients. A final aspect of demonstrating respect is integrity. Social workers may use technology to share information to help communities recover from disasters (Mallia 2015). During pandemics, for instance, workers educate communities about how the illness is spread and how to reduce the risks of transmission. During mass migrations, workers can help educate migrants about options for temporary or permanent resettlement. Workers should ensure that the information provided is honest and accurate (NASW et al. 2017). Given that false and misleading information may be spread easily through social media and other technology, workers may need to educate people about how to identify and use valid sources of information and think critically when presented with conflicting information.

Confidentiality and Identity Security Principle 6.1 (IFSW 2018) suggests social workers should respect people’s right to confidentiality and privacy unless there are significant risks to people or there are other legal restrictions (e.g., legal duties to report child or elder abuse). When using communication technology, social workers should be aware of potential risks to confidentiality and ways of mitigating these risks (NASW et al. 2017). To enhance cybersecurity, workers and clients should use strong passwords and protect their devices and accounts from theft and unauthorized access. They should install firewalls and security and antivirus software (HealthIt.Gov. n.d.). Workers should also ensure that communications are highly encrypted (Augusterfer et al. 2018). Regardless of the cybersecurity strategies used by workers, there is no way to guarantee absolute confidentiality of communications transmitted through technology. Workers should inform clients about risks to confidentiality, including the possibilities of hacking, tracking, and malware (NASW et al. 2017). When helping survivors of domestic violence or stalking, workers should discuss specific precautions to ensure confidentiality and safety (Electronic Privacy Information Center n.d.). When serving clients abroad, social workers should understand the extent to which local laws protect the client confidentiality. Confidentiality laws vary from country to country, and often, between jurisdictions within a country (Barsky 2023). For instance, some jurisdictions require reporting past crimes, whereas others have no such exceptions to confidentiality. During emergency situations, certain risks to confidentiality may be accentuated. When social workers are working with military or humanitarian groups, they should be careful not to allow their private communications to be monitored for the purposes of military surveillance, terrorism, or torture (IFSW 2018). Although some forms of monitoring may be inappropriate, other monitoring may be justified. Drones, search-and-rescue robots, facial recognition, and other technology may be used to gather information to assist with needs identification and recovery efforts 388

Ethics, Technology and Emergencies

(Stute et al. 2020). Still, workers should be alert to possible abuses, including violations of personal privacy, freedom of assembly, and other human rights. When using BITs or automated interventions, social workers should ensure that the technology has adequate confidentiality protections (Luxton 2020), as well as appropriate mechanisms for responding to risks such as child abuse, suicidal ideation, and homicidal ideation. They should inform clients about whom to contact when they need immediate help. In terms of confidentiality and self-determination, having clients initiate services on their own is preferable to having workers initiate services without client’s consent (Barsky 2023). Some confidentiality exceptions are related to specific emergency situations. During viral pandemics, for instance, laws may require contact tracing for people known to have contracted the virus. Tracing may be used to reduce transmission and link people with appropriate treatment services (Edwards et al. 2019). Social workers should inform new clients about whether they have any legal obligations to disclose names of clients to public health authorities if the worker tests positive and has had in-person contact with clients. Further, workers should inform clients of their reporting obligations if clients disclose that they might have contracted the virus. Workers and clients should be aware of potential reporting obligations if clients have engaged in terrorism, violent protest, antigovernment activities, or other actions deemed inappropriate or illegal by local governments. To protect vulnerable populations, social workers need to know about systemic racism, heterosexism, religious oppression, and other forms of oppression within the locations where clients are present. Consider, for instance, social workers providing emergency services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in another country, but are unaware of that country’s laws. If the country imposes criminal liability for anyone identifying as LGBTQ, then the workers may be inadvertently putting these individuals at risk of severe sanctions (Human Rights Watch 2018). Although some intimidated individuals or groups may prefer access to services through technology rather than in-person, social workers may need to take extra precautions to ensure confidentiality. For instance, they could use pseudonyms and avoid asking for identifying information. When working with clients in war zones, workers should be aware that non-secured communications could be intercepted by armed combatants to target hospitals, service providers, and innocent people (Augusterfer et al. 2018). Social workers should be attentive to client concerns, including possible reasons that they are afraid to communicate through technology. Workers should ensure that clients understand the risks and benefits of the services that they are providing. If clients are concerned about communicating through videoconferencing, phones, or other technology, then social workers should consider whether in-person services or other options are feasible.

Conclusion Social workers may use technology to assist with all phases of emergency situations: preparing for potential emergencies, addressing immediate biopsychosocial needs in initial stages of emergency response, providing services to mitigate risks or harm, and 389

Allan Edward Barsky

helping communities to recover and thrive (Stute et al. 2020). Although workers may contribute to the well-being of individuals and communities, they should be aware of possible risks and unintended consequences of offering emergency-related services. Workers need to be prepared for how to use technology in an effective manner before emergency situations arise, including how to manage ethical issues. When helping individuals and communities with emergency situations, social workers require courage, creativity, and connection with other service providers (Mallia 2015). They should be prepared to manage conflicting needs, high degrees of uncertainty, shifting priorities, and risks to the physical and psychological safety of themselves and the people they are serving. Each time workers help with emergency situations, they should use their experience as a learning opportunity: what types of strategies (including the use of technology) were effective, which ones were not effective, and why? Professional associations could act as aggregators for lessons learned about dealing with emergencies, including best practices for managing ethical issues pertaining to confidentiality, risk management, resource allocation, triage, and mediating conflicting interests (Banks et al. 2020). To promote culturally informed practice when social workers are engaged in international practice, IFSW and allied associations should establish an international ethics consultation group. Social workers and their associations should work with colleagues in other helping professions to develop policies for using technology in emergency situations (Barsky 2017b). It can be very confusing for professionals and clients when different professionals have different ethical and legal obligations, particularly when working across international boundaries, when responding to people in crisis, and when sharing similar technological platforms for communication and intervention. Further research is needed to support ethical practice when using technology in emergency situations. Critical research questions include: •

•

•

•

What types of technology are most effective for engaging clients with concerns related to trauma, loss, crisis, safety, and access to resources to support basic needs? What types of technology can be provided to vulnerable groups during emergency situations, ensuring equitable access to service providers in a quick and cost-effective manner? How can international law and law enforcement mechanisms be used to ensure that technology designed to help populations in need is not used for nefarious purposes such as targeting marginalized groups for discrimination, exploitation, and human rights violations (e.g., privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and peaceful protest)? Which self-care strategies (including ones using technology) are most effective in helping social workers and allied professionals in building resilience in the face of large-scale emergencies, violence, loss, and other potential sources of first-hand and vicarious trauma?

Technology can be used in many ways to help individuals and communities recover from emergency situations. As social workers contemplate the best ways to integrate 390

Ethics, Technology and Emergencies

technology into practice, it is vital for them to consider the best ways to address the ethical issues identified in this chapter.

References Augusterfer, E., R. Mollica, and J. Lavelle. 2018. “Leveraging technology in post-disaster settings: The role of digital health/telemental health.” Current Psychiatry Reports 20: 88–96. 10.1007/s11920-018-0953-4 Banks, S. 2022. Ethics and Values in Social Work (5th ed.). Palgrave. Banks, S., T. Cai, E. de Jonge, J. Shears,, M. Shum, A. M. Sobočan, K. Strom, R. Truell, M. J. Úriz,, and M. Weinberg. 2020. Ethical Challenges for Social Workers During COVID-19: A Global Perspective. Rheinfelden, Switzerland: International Federation of Social Workers. https://www.ifsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-06-30-Ethical-ChallengesCovid19-FINAL.pdf Barsky, A. E. 2017a. Conflict Resolution for the Helping Professions (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Barsky, A. E. 2017b. “Social work practice and technology: Ethical issues and policy responses.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(1): 1–12. Barsky, A. E. 2023. Essential Ethics for Social Work Practice. Oxford University Press. Branson, D. 2021. “When helping is dangerous: Benefits and risks to providers delivering digital crisis Intervention. In Digital Services in Crisis, Disaster, and Emergency Situations, edited by L. Oliveira, F. Tajariol, and L. Gonçalves, 304–327. IGI Global. Congress, E., and F. Chang-Muy. 2016. Social Work With Immigrants and Refugees (2nd ed). Springer. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. 2019. Active shooter: How to respond educational booklet. https://www.cisa.gov/publication/active-shooter-how-to-respond Danso, R. 2018. “Cultural competence and cultural humility: A critical reflection on key cultural diversity concepts.” Journal of Social Work 18(4): 410–430. Edwards, R. J., N. Lyons, C. Bhatt, W. Samaroo-Francis, A. Hinds, and E. Cyrus. 2019. “Implementation and outcomes of a patient tracing programme for HIV in Trinidad and Tobago.” Global Public Health 14: 1589–1597. Electronic Privacy Information Center. (n.d.). “Domestic violence and privacy.” Accessed March 21, 2022 https://epic.org/privacy/dv Goldkind, L., L. Wolf, and P. Freddolino. 2018. Digital Social Work: Tools for Practice With Individuals, Organizations, and Communities. Oxford University Press. HealthIt.Gov. (n.d.). “Top 10 tips for cybersecurity in health care.” Accessed March 21, 2022 https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/Top_10_Tips_for_Cybersecurity.pdf Hilty, D. M., M. T. Gentry, A. J. McKean, K. E. Cowan, R. F. Lim, and F. G. Lu. 2020. “Telehealth for rural diverse populations: Telebehavioral and cultural competencies, clinical outcomes and administrative approaches.” mHealth 6: 20. 10.21037/mhealth.2019.10.04 Howard, A., K. Agllias, M. Bevis, and T. Blakemore. 2018. “How social isolation affects disaster preparedness and response in Australia: Implications for social work.” Australian Social Work 71(4): 392–404. Human Rights Watch. 2018. “Russia’s ’gay propaganda’ law imperils LGBT youth.” https:// www.hrw.org/report/2018/12/11/no-support/russias-gay-propaganda-law-imperilslgbt-youth# International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). 2018. “Global social work statement of ethical principles.” https://www.ifsw.org/global-social-work-statement-of-ethical-principles Luxton, D. 2020. “Ethical implications of conversational agents in global public health.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 98(4): 285–287. Mallia, P. 2015. “Towards an ethical theory in disaster situations.” Medical Health Care and Philosophy 18: 3–11. 10.1007/s11019-014-9584-7

391

Allan Edward Barsky National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 2021. “Code of ethics.” https://www. socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Council on Social Work Education, Association of Social Work Boards, and Clinical Social Work Association. 2017. “Standards for technology and social work practice.” https://www.socialworkers.org/ practice/standards/review/tech/0605/default.asp?back=yes Necel, R. (2023). Social workers as disaster responders during the COVID-19 pandemic: Polish experience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S221242092300002X O’Leary, P., and M. Tsui. 2020. “Ten gentle reminders to social workers in the pandemic.” International Social Work 63(3): 273–274. Okorie, N. 2019. “Partiality, impartiality and the ethics of triage.” Developing World Bioethics 19: 76–85. Rainey, J., J. Kenney, B. Wilburn, A. Putman, Y. Zheteyeva, and M. O’Sullivan. 2016. “Online work force analyzes social media to identify consequences of an unplanned school closure – Using technology to prepare for the next pandemic.” PLoS ONE 11(9): e0163207. 10.1371/journal.pone.0163207 Ramos, G., and D. Chavira. 2019. “Use of technology to provide mental health care for racial and ethnic minorities: Evidence, promise, and challenges.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 1–26. 10.1016/j.cbpra.2019.10.004 Rapeli, M. 2018. “Social capital in social work disaster preparedness plans: The case of Finland.” International Social Work 61: 1054–1066. Shah, S., J. Hess, and J. Goodkind. 2019. “Family separation and the impact of digital technology on the mental health of refugee families in the United States: Qualitative study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(9): e14171. 10.2196/14171 Stebnicki, M. A. 2017. Disaster Mental Health Counseling: Responding to Trauma in a Multicultural Context. Springer. Stute, M., M. Maass, T. Schons, M. Kaufhold, C. Reuter, and M. Hollick. 2020. “Empirical insights for designing information and communication technology for international disaster response.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 47: 1–10. Suleiman AlMakhamreh, S. 2019. “Ethical considerations for health care in social work in Jordan: What could bring joy to elderly refugees in times of despair?” Ethics and Social Welfare 13(4): 409–423. Tarjimly. n.d. Translating for humanity. https://www.tarjimly.org Varshney, M., J. Parel, N. Raizada, and S. Sarin. 2020. “Initial psychological impact of COVID-19 and its correlates in Indian Community: An online (FEEL-COVID) survey.” PLoS ONE 15(5): e0233874. Wodarski, J. S. 2004. “Preparing social services and public services professionals for meaningful roles in disaster services.” Crisis Intervention & Time Limited Treatment 7(4): 209–222.

392

33 MECHANISMS OF POWER IN THE DIGITAL AGE Surveillance, Privacy and Professional Boundaries in Social Work Practice Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne

Introduction This chapter addresses the emerging issues of technology-mediated surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance as these relate to the practice of social work. In this context, we use the term surveillance to refer to the use by social workers of new technologies, including social media, to observe, monitor, investigate or digitally record the behaviour of service users with whom they have contact. The flipside of surveillance we term counterveillance (and sousveillance as a related activity), which involves the observation, monitoring, investigation or digital recording of social workers by service users. These phenomena are being reported in a growing number of research studies which reflect the experiences of social workers encountering different forms of technologically mediated surveillance, counterveillance or sousveillance across a range of professional social work contexts. Drawing on research conducted by the authors with newly graduated social workers over the course of a medium-term study, and also with reference to an expanding literature on this topic, this chapter will attempt to theoretically interpret these phenomena informed by Foucault’s mechanisms of power theory. By demonstrating the usefulness of critical appraisal of these phenomena, this chapter seeks to draw attention to the value of theoretically interpreting, or theoretically interrogating as Gilbert and Powell (2010) suggest (see also, López Peláez and Marcuello Servós 2021), the use of digital technologies and how they are adapting, changing and possibly re-shaping the practice and purpose of social work itself.

The New Digital Era in Social Work The adoption and incorporation of digital technologies into social work practice is increasing at a rapid pace. The capacity of digital technologies to assist contact with DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-39

393

Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne

service users, especially during the imposition of social distancing and lockdown related to the Covid-19 pandemic, accelerated an already growing integration of new technologies into social work practice (Berzin, Singer, and Chan 2015; Stanfield 2019; Mathiyazhagan 2022; López Peláez 2023), research (Geldof and Driessens 2017; La Rose 2012, 2019b) and social work education (Bergart et al. 2021; McFadden et al. 2020). The need to grasp the full potential of digital social work became not only an important focus for social work practice as the Covid-19 pandemic developed, it became an imperative. In this emerging context, the literature on digital social work has expanded, focusing on how various technologies can be incorporated into an array of social work contexts. This practice and research activity, now generally referred to as digital social work, represents a move away from viewing the use of technology as a type of fringe activity for the technology aficionados within the profession. The use of technology is now placed centre stage, where its potential and usefulness are of keen interest to many social work professionals and social service agencies, and from which flows an ever-growing opus of literature on this topic. The use of digital technologies is now an embedded and vital element in social work practice. Despite previously being viewed as some type of ‘add on,’ digitalised practices have become ‘part of’ social work. Similar to so many other changes in the world related to digitalisation, the irreversibility (Schreckling and Steiger 2017; López Peláez et al. 2021) of technological advances in this, as in other arenas, is now decided, meaning for social work – there is no going back.

Research with Newly Qualified Social Workers Evidence of this increasing digitalisation of social work practice appeared in the analysis by the authors of data from their multi-year study with newly graduated social workers (the results of which have been reported in Byrne and Kirwan 2019; Byrne, Kirwan, and Mc Guckin 2019; Kirwan and Byrne 2019). The data gathered year on year was found to contain many references to the use of digital technologies by the participants in their work, similar to reports from other recent studies (Stanfield et al. 2017; Cooner et al. 2019). Our study aimed to build a picture of the experiences of newly qualified social workers during the period of their transition from student to professionally employed practitioner. To this end, the study utilised qualitative methodologies including focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews. It did not have a singular technology focus, but the use of technology in practice emerged as a recurring theme in the data collected. The findings reveal a social work landscape where digital technology is used extensively (similar to findings by Long et al. 2021). However, it emerged that intrinsic to an increasing technology presence in social work, the way in which social workers carry out their work is being changed and moulded by technology (Byrne and Kirwan 2019). These changes include the growing use of digital communication systems which have many transformative impacts on practice, including changes in the methods of communication used by social workers, who perform a ‘communication calculation,’ 394

Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age

wherein they identify the best method of communication with each service user depending on the context of each interaction. Thus, through the use of new technologies, social worker-service user relationships are reshaped and enacted in new ways (Kirwan 2019).

Surveillance, Counterveillance and Sousveillance Year after year, the data collected as part of the study of new social workers revealed that participants construed the digitalisation of social work as a terrain of complex ethical decision-making related to confidentiality, privacy and worker competence. Reamer (2015, 2021) has also documented these issues in detail. In particular, some participants spoke about a phenomenon which we refer to in this chapter as technologically mediated surveillance activities. These activities involve actions which utilise technology (for example, CCTVs in cared-for environments, or monitoring of posts on social media), as a source of information-gathering about service users. Ali and Mann (2013, 243) present a definition of surveillance as the “monitoring undertaken by an entity in a position of authority with respect to the intended subject of veillance, that is transmitted, recorded, or creates an artifact.” However, Thomsen (2019) simplifies this definition and suggests that surveillance involves intentional observation which is sufficiently extensive and suitable for information to be obtained. Our study revealed an emerging list of different forms of surveillance conducted through digital technologies, which social workers are now using as part of their work, particularly for purposes of risk assessment and management. Ethical conflicts regarding the use of digital technology for surveillance purposes were illustrated by participants in our study and similar issues have also been reported elsewhere (Breyette and Hill 2015; Lim 2017; Constantino et al. 2021; Kvakic and Wærdahl 2022). The flipside of surveillance activities by social workers, which we refer to as counterveillance and its close relative, sousveillance, was also reported by some participants in our study. Counterveillance arises when the service user engages in information-gathering about the social worker (Mann and Ferenbok 2013). Similar to technologically mediated surveillance of service users by social workers, technologically mediated counterveillance by service users is often conducted under the radar and unknown to the social worker. Sousveillance is both similar and different to counterveillance. It is similar in that it refers to situations where the service user actively collects information about the social worker typically with the aid of digital technologies, but different in that it is not usually a covert act on the part of the service user. Ali and Mann’s (2013, 243) definition of sousveillance explains it as the “monitoring undertaken by an entity not in a position of authority, with respect to the intended subject of the veillance, that is transmitted, recorded or creates an artifact.” Recording a live interaction with a social worker, such as filming a home visit on a mobile device, is an example of sousveillance. La Rose (2019a) provides examples of sousveillance and how material generated through sousveillance and sometimes shared with others can be used by service users to highlight grievances regarding the social work services they are receiving. 395

Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne

However, the power relations which encircle acts of surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance can be complex. In the study reported here, the newly graduated social workers recounted feelings of disempowerment related to their lack of self-confidence and competence in addressing these issues in practice, feelings which derived from gaps in agency policy, lack of professional guidance or their own gaps in knowledge regarding relevant legislation. For instance, in situations where service users video-recorded their interactions with social workers, some study participants expressed discomfort but also a lack of clarity regarding their own rights in such situations and whether or not they had to accept and agree to being recorded by service users because they (the social workers) worked for statutory agencies. These experiences relate to wider ethical issues concerning the use of technology in social work which remain undecided. For example, the need for guidance on incorporating social media accounts/posts into social research has been raised by Schwab-Reese et al. (2018) who call for clarity on the rights and wrongs of researcher activities in public and private digital spaces. With specific reference to the social work context, Sage and Sage (2016a) have called for guidance for practitioners, such as those in child welfare services who tread a fine line between risk management and child-centred and family-centred practices, and who are confronted more and more with the decisions about accessing service users’ social media accounts, as part of assessments regarding levels of risk in families or other contexts. Underpinning these calls for policies and guidance there remains a somewhat undeveloped ethical framework from which to inform professional decisions. The exercise of theorising (using theory to explain) these practice issues is, we suggest, of paramount importance. To this end, we look to Foucault’s theory of mechanisms of power to help inform a critical appraisal of these phenomena.

Technologically Mediated Surveillance, Counterveillance and Sousveillance: Functional Necessities or Mechanisms of Power? Mortenson, Sixsmith and Woolrych (2015) identify three discourses within the surveillance literature, which they classify as technical, managerial and rights discourses. In both technical and managerial discourses, the underlying functional perspective, they suggest, adopts a functional stance whereby ends are understood to justify means. If the lived experience of the service user is enhanced or if scarce resources are distributed efficiently then, from this perspective, practices such as surveillance can be viewed as acceptable because they are helping to improve the services provided to service users and to minimise any risks to their well-being. They also identify a rights discourse through which a type of trade-off can arise when practitioners, such as social workers, have to weigh up the individual service user’s competing rights, for example, the right to privacy versus their right to minimum interference with their independence and self-determination. The ethical dilemmas reported to us by social workers who took part in our study align closely with this rights-based discourse, and the inherent difficulties they encountered in their efforts to reconcile service users’ rights versus the burden of onerous responsibilities regarding risk management, for example, in relation to the protection of children or 396

Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age

vulnerable adults. As an example of the ethical choices social workers face, Werner and Landau (2011) discuss the use of GPS tracking systems to monitor the movements of service users with dementia. While social workers might find it questionable to use this technology without informed consent from the service users, they will also be aware that this technology has the potential to allow this group of service users to retain a degree of independence and autonomy, while at the same time supporting their safety and welfare. The lack of agreement on the ethical dimensions of technology-mediated surveillance measures (Ryan and Garrett 2018) can give rise to ethical tensions with some social workers viewing the use of surveillance-type technologies without consent as invasive and unethical. Similarly, Sage and Sage (2016a) and Cooner et al. (2019) noted opposing views among child protection social workers regarding the surveillance of families via their social media posts. Sage and Sage (2016b, 83) emphasise that “policy cannot replace critical thinking, clinical considerations, or address all ambiguous practice situations.” This point is underscored by Ryan and Garrett’s (2018) finding that the government-employed social workers they interviewed were poorly informed on the guidelines regarding the use of social media in their work. It is clear, therefore, that a functional model is inadequate to address the complexities that social workers are grappling with in their day-to-day practices. As Urdang (2010) suggests, it is important that social workers critically interpret their actions, experiences and their interactions with service users. In this light, we draw on Foucault’s theories of governmentality and power in the next section to advance our interpretation of the underlying dynamics of technologically mediated forms of surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance in social work practice.

Surveillance and Power Social work operates within a complex interplay of power dynamics (Heron 2005). As Gilbert and Powell (2010, 4) suggest, Foucault (1977) provides a ‘conceptual toolkit’ which can act as a useful starting point for critical appraisal by social workers of their experiences, and based on the findings from our own research and a wider reading of the relevant literature, we argue that social workers can benefit from a theoretically informed appraisal of technologically mediated surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance. From a Foucauldian perspective, the profession of social work, and how it is practised in certain arenas such as child protection services, can be understood as an instrument of disciplinary governance on the basis that social workers are afforded power through their professional status to perform social measures such as safeguarding, on behalf of the state/society. Thus, social workers are societally empowered to address behaviours by others which the social worker views as socially transgressive. Furthermore, Foucault’s conceptualisation of power relations helps unpick the contradictions within the practice of social work, where social workers on the one hand are charged by the wider society with addressing and managing certain forms of risk, but simultaneously expected through their professional discourse to empower 397

Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne

service users whose lives are impacted by contexts of structural inequality or discrimination. Lauri (2019, 340) refers to this as a “struggle between the subjugation and emancipation of clients.” This dual ‘care and control’ mandate has been a muchdebated feature of social work (Payne 2020), and Pithouse et al. (2012) point out, in relation to child protection work, how an ethics of care sits uneasily alongside some of the more controlling strategies which social workers adopt in their efforts to protect at-risk children. For boyd (2011), who refers to the ‘watcher’ and the ‘watched,’ the issue of power must be addressed in any analysis of surveillance. Kvakic and Wærdahl (2022) suggest that the relationship between the social worker and parent in child protection contexts can resemble this watcher-and-watched relationship, particularly when the social worker uses access to the service user’s social media accounts as a method of panoptic surveillance to see into the daily life of the parent/family. The use of technology to monitor service users contains all the necessary components of Foucault’s model of disciplinary power which Gilbert and Powell (2010, 10) name as, “hierarchical observation, normalizing judgments and the examination.” It is arguable that the arrival of technology into social work has simply provided a new arena for disciplinary power and control to be enacted through the processes of technologically mediated surveillance. We also learn from a reading of Foucault (1977) that the use of power has consequences, people become its subjects although they may not always fully understand the ways in which they are subjected. In social situations, the interplay of the powerful and the powerless is a complex dynamic and Foucault (1977) identifies the phenomenon of ‘resistance’ through which disempowered subjects attempt to reclaim their sense of power. Welch (2011, 302) defines counterveillance as a “mode of monitoring” in reverse, where the watched becomes the watcher. He quotes Monahan’s (2006, 515) definition of counterveillance as the “intentional, tactical uses, or disruptions of surveillance technologies to challenge institutional power asymmetries.” Sousveillance, he depicts as a form of counterveillance, but one which he portrays as “in your face” and sometimes designed to express hostility towards the perceived incursion of the powerful dominant, with the ultimate aim of reducing the asymmetrical distribution of power in the relationship. In this light, counterveillance and sousveillance operate as mechanisms of reempowerment, used in some instances by service users to reclaim their sense of agency, control and power in their interactions with monolithic agencies and social workers perceived by them as agents of control. Lyon, Haggerty and Ball (2014) construe resistance as the democratisation of surveillance, a term which captures the rebalancing of power that counterveillance and sousveillance, as forms of resistance, aim to achieve. La Rose (2014, 2019a) has illuminated how acts of sousveillance can change the dynamics in social workerservice user interactions by making the power relations visible and uncomfortable for the social worker. Similarly, Nordesjö, Scaramuzzino and Ulmestig (2022, 307) portray sousveillance as “a way to resist the power imbalance” in the social workerservice user relationship. They point to the irony of social workers complaining about this type of counterveillance while simultaneously justifying their own technology-enabled surveillance of service users. 398

Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age

Given the power asymmetry inherent in some social worker-service user contexts, it is perhaps not surprising that the democratisation of surveillance is on the rise, with increasing examples appearing within research reports where service users ‘switch’ the power dynamic by, for example, engaging in sousveillance acts of defiance such as video-recording their meetings with social workers and uploading them to YouTube (Byrne, Kirwan, and Mc Guckin 2019; La Rose 2019a). Despite the social work commitment to social justice, with its attendant desire to address disparities in power, sousveillance can be an uncomfortable experience for practitioners and one which they report in research studies as an experience they feel under-prepared to handle.

Discussion The data from our study reveals the richness and complexity of technology use in social work practice but it also paints a complex picture which includes multidirectional surveillance of service users by social workers and vice versa (Byrne, Kirwan, and Mc Guckin 2019). The study illuminated how social workers struggle to navigate the ethical issues this type of activity creates. Many of the examples that came through the study indicate that the use of technology for surveillance and counterveillance purposes creates new and unchartered ethical territory, a landscape which is often unregulated by professional codes of practice or agency policies. This represents yet another twist on the integration of technology into social work, where it can be viewed from this perspective as both a tool of emancipation, providing service users with new ways of participation and choice, while at the same time, when used for surveillance purposes by social workers, it can become a tool of governance and disciplinary power. In the roll-out of digital technology in social work, and with particular reference to its use as a tool of covert surveillance of service users, it is possible that we are witnessing the care versus control conundrum simply being enacted with new and different equipment. This chapter draws inspiration from the deeper insights which a theoretical interrogation of social work practice can deliver, and it calls for greater attention to the theoretical lenses through which we currently interpret the digital transformation of social work which is now underway. The importance of integrating theoretical models into critical reflection is a long-established practice in social work and serves to assist meaning-making (Forte 2014) of the underlying dynamics and implications of practice experiences. While the literature on digital social work has grown rapidly, it appears that much of that literature so far focuses on the practical (functional) applications of new technologies in practice. Less attention is being paid to theoretical appraisal of these developments. However, as Forte (2014) indicates, thinking about what we think about is itself empowering and can transform how social workers interpret their practices. Thus, drawing on Foucault’s theories of power illuminates the exercise of disciplinary power engaged in by social workers when they perform technologically mediated surveillance on unknowing or non-consenting service users. In following the social work script of performing care and control functions in parallel, it is possible that 399

Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne

social workers too are unaware that they are exercising power over service users through asymmetrical power relations, possibly because in the mix of surveillance and counterveillance they are carrying feelings of disempowerment themselves. The application of Foucault’s insights helps to reveal how acts of ‘in your face’ sousveillance by service users can be reframed as responses by disempowered service users who see limited ‘exit’ routes, and who are attempting to recalibrate their sense of disempowerment as best they can. When social workers are engaged in surveillance of service users, for example, through monitoring of Facebook posts, social workers may argue in favour of this type of surveillance from a functional perspective and adopt the rationale that it is a necessary tool to maximise protective measures and minimise risk. However, when social workers are subjected to counterveillance or sousveillsance, such as being recorded by service users during a home visit, the response from social workers is often one of confusion or upset, with this type of veillance being cast as unnecessary, intrusive or even threatening. These types of complexities in practice can be difficult to navigate which is why theoretical appraisal of technology use in social work is important as it can help to reveal dynamics that may not be immediately obvious. Of course, as Coulshed and Orme (2018, 13) remind us, theory can never be an end in itself, but “it can be generative, offering new insights and perspectives.” By interrogating issues of surveillance and resistance through a theoretical lens, deeper levels of understanding and insight can be gained, which in turn may assist social workers to clarify their ethical viewpoints and aid their ethical decision-making in relation to these issues.

Conclusions Research at an international level by Barrera-Algarín, Sarasola-Sánchez-Serrano and Sarasola-Fernández (2021) has demonstrated that true to the longstanding ability of social work to adapt to changing environments, social workers in current times generally accept the presence of digital technology in their work, and in actual fact, many social workers are positive about the benefits and advantages which different technologies can bring to their work. At the same time, technologically mediated surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance represent a growing set of phenomena in social work arenas. Many social workers are aware these activities exist, and research, such as our study reported here, has revealed that more and more social workers are encountering these issues on a firsthand basis. In this light, this chapter attempts to theoretically interpret these developments related to technology and to demonstrate the value of trying to understand these types of phenomena from a critical and questioning perspective. In agreement with López Peláez and Marcuello Servós (2021), who write about the need to develop a theoretical and scientific understanding (they refer to this as scientificity) of digital social work, we advocate that greater attention be directed towards the theorisation of current developments concerning the integration of technology into social work practice. As Gilbert and Powell (2010) explain, the mechanisms of power at play in social work-service user relationships require critical 400

Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age

interrogation on the part of the social workers in order to identify their presence and understand their implications. To neglect this type of interrogation runs the risk of becoming distant from social work’s central aim of providing assistance and fostering empowerment of service users.

References Ali, M. A., and S. Mann. 2013. “The inevitability of the transition from a surveillance-society to a veillance-society: Moral and economic grounding for sousveillance.” IEEE Symposium on Technology and Society, 243–254. Barrera-Algarín, E., J. L. Sarasola-Sánchez-Serrano, and A. Sarasola-Fernández. 2021. “Social work in the face of emerging technologies: A technological acceptance study in 13 countries.” International Social Work, 10.1177%2F00208728211041672 Bergart, A., J. Currin-McCulloch, K. Lind, N. B. Chilwalo, D. L. Guy, N. Hall, D. Kelly, C. D. Lee, E. S. Mesburi, B. Muskat, K. Saldanha, M. M. Seck, S. R. Simon, and G. Tully. 2021. “We need mutual aid too: group work instructors helping each other navigate online teaching.” Social Work with Groups, 1–15. Berzin, S. C., J. Singer, and C. Chan. 2015. “Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: A grand challenge for social work.” American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare 12: 3–21. boyd, D. 2011. “Dear Voyeur, meet Flâneur … Sincerely, Social Media.” Surveillance & Society 8(4): 505–507. Breyette, S. K., and K. Hill. 2015. “The impact of electronic communication and social media on child welfare practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 33(4): 283–303. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. Byrne, J., G. Kirwan, and C. Mc Guckin. 2019. “Social media surveillance in social work: Practice realities and ethical implications.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 37(2-3): 142–158. Constantino, C., K. Randolph, M. Gross, D. Latham, M. Rooney, and E. Preshia. 2021. “The subjective experience of information communication technology use among child welfare workers.” Children and Youth Services Review 121: 105865. Cooner, T. S., L. Beddoe, H. Ferguson, and E. Joy. 2019. “The use of Facebook in social work practice with children and families: Exploring complexity in an emerging practice.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 38(2): 137–158. Coulshed, V., and J. Orme. 2018. Social Work Practice. 5th ed. Bloomsbury. Forte, J. A. 2014. An Introduction to Using Theory in Social Work Practice. Routledge. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage. Geldof, D., and K. Driessens. 2017. “Social work and research in contexts of superdiversity.” In Social Work and Research in Advanced Welfare States, edited by K. Høgsbro, and I. Shaw, 31–46. Routledge. Gilbert, T., and J. L. Powell. 2010. “Power and social work in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Social Work 10(1): 3–22. Heron, B. 2005. “Self‐reflection in critical social work practice: Subjectivity and the possibilities of resistance.” Reflective Practice 6(3): 341–351. Kirwan, G. 2019. “Editorial: Networked relationships in the digital age: messages for social work.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 123–126 Kirwan, G., and J. Byrne. 2019. “The power switch: Equipping social work students to practise in a world of technological surveillance possibilities.” In Book of Abstracts, Annual Conference, European Association of Schools of Social Work, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain, 4–7 June 2019, edited by I. Amaro, and F. de Lucas, 202. EASSW.

401

Gloria Kirwan and Julie Byrne Kvakic, M., and R. Wærdahl. 2022. “Trust and power in the space between visibility and invisibility. Exploring digital and social media practices in Norwegian Child Welfare Services.” European Journal of Social Work, 1–12. La Rose, T. 2012. “Digital media stories through multimodal analysis: A case study of Erahoneybee’s Song about a child welfare agency.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 30(3–4): 299–311. La Rose, T. 2014. Reading YouTube for Social Work. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/43644. La Rose, T. 2019a. “Limiting relationships through sousveillance video based digital advocacy: multi-modal analysis of The Nervous CPS Worker.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 233–243. La Rose, T. 2019b. Rediscovering social work leaders through YouTube as archive: The CASW Oral History Project 1983/84. Journal of Technology in Human Services 37(2): 93–112. Lauri, M. 2019. “Mind your own business: Technologies for governing social worker subjects.” European Journal of Social Work 22(2): 338–349. Lim, S. S. 2017. “Youth worker’s use of Facebook for mediated pastoralism with juvenile delinquents and youths-at-risk.” Children and Youth Services Review 81: 139–147. Long, M., S. Bhattacharya, E. Eaton, D. Ferreras, C. Zdawczyk, C. Leicht, B. Deakins, and M. McGuire. 2021. “How child welfare professionals search for, access, and share information: Findings from the National child welfare information study.” Children and Youth Services Review 130: 106255. López Peláez, A. 2023. “ICT and digital social work: The case of Spain.” In Digital Transformation and Social Well-Being: Promoting an Inclusive Society, edited by A. López Peláez, S-M. Suh, and S. Zelenev, 103–114. Routledge. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello Servós. 2021. “Digital intervention, COVID-19, and critical realism: Toward a science of digital social work.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 48(3): 10–28. López Peláez, A., A. Erro-Garcés, F. J. Pinilla García, and D. Kiriakou. 2021. “Working in the 21st century. The coronavirus crisis: A driver of digitalisation, teleworking, and innovation, with unintended social consequences.” Information 12(9): 377–386. Lyon, D., K. Haggerty, and K. Ball. 2014. “Introducing surveillance studies” In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, edited by K. Ball, K. Haggerty, and D. Lyon, 1–12. Routledge. Mann, S., and J. Ferenbok. 2013. “New media and the power politics of sousveillance in a surveillance dominated world.” Surveillance & Society 11(1/2): 18–34. Mathiyazhagan, S. 2022. “Field practice, emerging technologies, and human rights: The emergence of tech social workers.” Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 7(4): 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134‐021‐00190‐0 McFadden, P., E. Russ, P. Blakeman, G. Kirwin, J. Anand, S. Lähteinen, G. A. Baugerud, and P. Tham. 2020. “COVID-19 impact on social work admissions and education in seven international universities.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1154–1163. Monahan, T. 2006. “Counter-surveillance as political intervention.” Social Semiotics 16(4): 515–534. Mortenson, W. B., A. Sixsmith, and R. Woolrych. 2015. “The power (s) of observation: Theoretical perspectives on surveillance technologies and older people.” Ageing & Society 35(3): 512–530. Nordesjö, K., G. Scaramuzzino, and R. Ulmestig. 2022. “The social worker-client relationship in the digital era: a configurative literature review.” European Journal of Social Work 25(2): 303–315. Payne, M. 2020. The Origins of Social Work: Continuity and Change. Bloomsbury Publishing. Pithouse, A., K. Broadhurst, C. Hall, S. Peckover, D. Wastell, and S. White. 2012. “Trust, risk and the (mis) management of contingency and discretion through new information technologies in children’s services.” Journal of Social Work 12(2): 158–178.

402

Mechanisms of Power in the Digital Age Reamer, F. 2021. Ethics and Risk Management in Online and Distance Social Work. CA: Cognella. Reamer, F. G. 2015. “Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and riskmanagement challenges.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43(2): 120–132. Ryan, D., and P. M. Garrett. 2018. “Social work ‘logged on’: Contemporary dilemmas in an evolving ‘techno-habitat’.” European Journal of Social Work 21(1): 32–44, DOI: 10.1080/ 13691457.2016.1278520. Sage, M., and T. E. Sage. 2016a. “Social media and e-professionalism in child welfare: Policy and practice.” Journal of Public Child Welfare 10(1): 79–95. Sage, T. E., and M. Sage. 2016b. “Social media use in child welfare practice.” Advances in Social Work 17(1): 93–112. Schreckling, E., and C. Steiger. 2017. “Digitize or Drown.” In Shaping the Digital Enterprise: Trends and Use Cases in Digital Innovation and Transformation, edited by G. Oswald and M. Kleinemeier, 3–27. Springer. Schwab-Reese, L. M., W. Hovdestad, L. Tonmyr, and J. Fluke. 2018. “The potential use of social media and other internet-related data and communications for child maltreatment surveillance and epidemiological research: Scoping review and recommendations.” Child Abuse & Neglect 85: 187–201. Stanfield, D. M. 2019. The professional use of social media by social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland). https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/ bitstream/handle/2292/45171/whole.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y Stanfield, D. M., L. Beddoe, N. Ballantyne, S. Lowe, and N. Renata. 2017. “Critical conversations: Social workers’ perceptions of the use of a closed Facebook group as a participatory professional space.” Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work 29(3): 42–54. Thomsen, F. K. 2019. “The concepts of surveillance and sousveillance: A critical analysis.” Social Science Information 58(4): 701–713. Urdang, E. 2010. “Awareness of self – A critical tool.” Social Work Education 29(5): 523–538. Welch, M. 2011. “Counterveillance: How Foucault and the Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons reversed the optics.” Theoretical Criminology 15(3): 301–313. Werner, S., and R. Landau. 2011. “Social workers’ and students’ attitudes toward electronic tracking of people with Alzheimer’s disease.” Social Work Education 30(5): 541–557.

403

PART 5

Digital Social Work and the Digitalization of Welfare Institutions Opportunities, Challenges and Country Cases

34 USING TECHNOLOGIES AS ALLIES IN SOCIAL WORK The Chilean Experience of Reconectando Jorge Farah Ojeda and Sofía Cillero Fuenzalida

Introduction Since the first confirmed case of Covid-19 in March 2020, Chile has been strongly affected by the pandemic, ending 2020 with more than 16,000 deaths and more than 22,000 active cases (MINSAL 2020), reaching the highest number of critical patients during May to August 2020, with the Region Metropolitana reporting the highest number of cumulative cases, and a death rate of 10,783 persons by December 2020 (MINSAL 2020). Chile also had to use the quarantine strategy for months during the first year of the pandemic and for over a year sustained a strict police permit policy regarding permission to leave one’s home. In particular, the need to control the spread of the virus forced the government to suspend at a national level all in-person services, including home visiting hours to patients. Several families reported communication problems, and demanded to know the health and progress of their hospitalized relatives. It has been proven that hospitalization in these circumstances constitutes a stressor for patients and families due to barriers of communication, prolonged isolation, and the risk and fear of the deadly virus (Havnen et al. 2020; Joseph et al. 2020; Marra et al. 2020; Montauk and Kuhl 2020; Roth, Upadhyay, and Paul 2020). Socio-emotional effects arising from the pandemic are still to be fully explored, but they are undeniable: routine social dynamics were altered, and uncertainty grew due to the unknown behavior of the virus, as well as the possibility of death and the potential contagion of other family members. In that sense, it has become evident that the effects of Covid-19 are not only related to the direct consequences of the disease, but also have implications for the well-being of families, medical staff and society in general (Liang et al. 2020; Passos et al. 2020; Pierce et al. 2020; Roth, Upadhyay, and Paul 2020). These effects, including the rates of contagion and death rates, were not distributed equally among the population, and were more prevalent among DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-41

407

J. Farah Ojeda and S. Cillero Fuenzalida

vulnerable groups, especially at the beginning of the pandemic (older people, ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty, among others) (AquinoCanchari, Quispe-Arrieto, and Huaman 2020; Burrone et al. 2020; Sonis et al. 2020; Porcel-Galvez et al. 2021). The health crisis arising from the Covid-19 virus challenged the world to increase aid services and benefits for citizens, due to human, social and economic repercussions of the pandemic. CEPAL (2020) has indicated that the magnitude of the economic impact will depend on the level of spread of the virus, and the effectiveness of the containment measures applied. In that sense, technology has allowed countries to continue with the provision of services alongside efforts to contain the spread of the virus. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have enabled the continuity of education, work, and social and emotional aid programs. Therefore, the use of ICTs in Chile has become crucial to the provision of social services and benefits in the context of Covid-19. Video calls and electronic payments, just to name a few innovations, are now essential elements in efforts to provide socio-economic and socioemotional aid programs to citizens in need. The inpatient care services at hospitals and the pressure put on health providers were a challenge all over the globe. Based on the daily reports of the Chilean Ministry of Health (Minsal) during the months of June, July and August of 2020, Chile faced the highest bed occupancy rates. In that context, the ministry, contacted Fundación Cideni and the School of Social Work at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, to develop a Clinical social work model for inpatient care during the Covid-19 health crisis. This experience affirmed the importance of social work in the public hospitals regarding the provision of basic social services such as psychological first aid, collaboration in the family case management of deceased patients, access to social benefits and referrals, as well as permanent contact between family members and hospitalized patients. Drawing on main results of this experience, this chapter presents the management model and the role of ICTs during the implementation of the Reconectando program. Firstly, the implications of digitalization in Chilean social work are set forth. The second section explains the method used to collect the data used in this chapter. The Chilean Covid-19 pandemic scenario is outlined, followed by discussion of the central aspects and results from the Reconectando experience, emphasizing the use of ICTs as supports for this type of intervention. Finally, conclusions are presented, indicating the challenges that Chilean social work faces regarding the deployment of digital technology as an integral part of professional development.

The Digital Component of Chilean Social Work In the context of the digital society, social work maintains intact the original desire of collaborating on contemporary social issues to achieve social justice and wellbeing of communities and territories. Since its inception, Chilean social work has included the use of technology in its work for social transformation, with ongoing

408

The Technologies as Allies in Social Work

interest in identifying which methods and techniques best achieve the final purpose of social change. Since the beginning of the 20th century and within the field of medical services, the practice of home visits became common practice. In the interim, social work has used research methods to better understand the principles of practice (Bunge 1960), and using scientific methods for creating new knowledge, new methods and models for practice, and new forms of social intervention (Amengual 1976). The practice of home visiting facilitated the on-site identification of the social needs relevant to the individual’s health and well-being, and became a method for social transformation. This type of “visitation” practice (González 2010) transcended the traditional charitable response, assuming a cutting-edge place in the professionalization of intervention, and the emergence of social workers in the national social politics (Illanes 2006). Likewise, the creation of the Colegio Profesional in 1955 promoted more participation by social workers in the public sphere, achieving a strategic position in the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies (Farah 2010). Consequently, the definition of social work includes the possibility of transforming practice, creating new techniques and models, and working for social change, by applying the principles of the scientific approach to our actions (Matus 1999). The information society entails a transformation of social structures and a change in the pattern of daily social activities. It cannot be denied that the increase of ICTs in the digital era will continue to transform learning experiences, interprofessional relationships, professional-clients interactions and all the fields of human relationships, affecting our daily lives and our general well-being (Castillo de Mesa et al. 2020). It is imperative that social work, in this context, questions its strategies and tactics for social change (Alieva 2018), and considers the potential of ICTs to create, facilitate and provide social aid programs. Social work actions are rooted in the understanding of the person in the environment, the person within their context and social structures (Matus 1999). Therefore, social work interventions must take into account the existence of a new range of devices and digital processes that have opened wider practice possibilities in terms of assessment, therapies, interventions, administration and management (López Peláez, Pérez, and Aguilar-Tablada 2017). It is accepted that ICTs are efficient tools for management practices, and for reducing the response time in social services and community and group assistance. Furthermore, from the perspective of social services, it can be stated that the digitalization of social work practices strengthens the involvement of clients, and favors communications, increased flexibility and access to social security benefits (López Peláez and Marcuello 2018). In other countries, such as Spain and England, digital social work is already an emerging branch of professional specialization (Coleman 2011; López Peláez 2015), whereas in Chile it is an emerging challenge. In Chile, the use of technology in social work is far from what López Peláez (2015) describes as digital social work, defined as a branch of our discipline that uses online and digital strategies for analysis, assessment and intervention.

409

J. Farah Ojeda and S. Cillero Fuenzalida

Chilean government initiatives have emerged in the previous years of the pandemic, aiming to improve access to client’s information about requirements and benefits, or optimizing procedures focused on eliminating administrative steps or simplifying entitlement criteria (Farah 2018). Nevertheless, these efforts are far from a specialized intervention method in the social work field, because even though experiences such as Chile Atiende (https://www.chileatiende.gob.cl/) are a significant step in the right direction, they fall short of realizing the potential use of ICTs in social intervention methods. Social work must approach these new means of digital socialization with an open, reflexive and critical stance, given the interesting potential of these tools to intervene and develop digital inclusion strategies. However, they can also reproduce patterns of exclusion, particularly in terms of how they are designed and utilized, especially when targeting disadvantaged and marginalized groups (Castillo de Mesa 2019). It can be argued that social work in Chile, similar to many other locations around the world, is undergoing a new transformation due to the pandemic, this time in the form of accelerated digitalization, which raises the challenge of developing digital social work in this and many other countries.

Reconectando In order to address the health crisis, the Chilean government entrusted the School of Social Work of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and Fundación CIDENI, the design and delivery of a direct-action program in 21 hospitals located in the Metropolitan Region with the aim of providing e-assistance to hospitalized patients and their families. Based on a clinical social work model, the program hired 70 social workers and one psychologist to carry out direct intervention in hospital facilities over a two-month period. In light of the characteristics of the pandemic and the excessive burden on the existing health teams, coupled with the lack of information regarding in-patients’ families, the proposed program involved the provision of therapeutic support for families, with special emphasis on the management of mental health issues and bereavement, related to the hospitalization and passing of patients with Covid-19 in the designated health centers. The program’s objectives were based on the recommendations of the Mesa Social: Salud Mental y Bienestar Psicosocial, (Social Committee Board: Mental Health and Psychosocial Wellbeing) and aimed to address three main concerns: tracking and monitoring strategies for Covid-19 in-patients; the provision of socio-emotional support services; and the provision of supervision and well-being strategies for social workers. In its design, the project took into account information and communication components that required the use of ICTs to deliver services. The Reconectando program was established as an innovative program in Chile, not only due to how the clinical social work model was deployed, but also due to its technological component in the context of crisis. The use of technologies, in fact, became essential to achieving the objectives of the intervention, and central to the management of the program itself. 410

The Technologies as Allies in Social Work

Methodology The findings from the Reconectando program that are presented in this chapter have been obtained from frequency analysis of the daily records made by 70 social workers in 21 hospitals of Región Metropolitana, that did not include medical records, but unidentifiable information about their main interventions. The recording of the data, made under a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system called Salesforce, was adapted for the needs of the program by Xappia in a free collaboration for the pandemic. In the platform the daily activities of the service provided at the different hospitals were recorded and collected. The data included the following: a description of family/patient needs, actions that were carried out by the professionals and the service clients’ (patients and their families) satisfaction levels regarding the services they received. In addition, the current chapter also includes the management reports and the results of participant observation carried out by the authors of this chapter. It is relevant to disclose that both authors were responsible for the management and digital components activated during the implementation of the Reconectando program and that all the analysis was made without considering the identifiable information in order to secure patients’ confidentiality.

Results Reconectando was a cutting-edge program, not only because of the clinical social work components that have been developed in recent years in Chile, but mainly because of the digital management and innovations integrated into the process. The current section presents the results of the experience in three core components: the management systems, the delivery of services through digital media and finally, the supervision and well-being strategies provided to workers. The overall coverage of the program during the two months was 4,783 family groups, in over 11,355 sessions of care. These sessions were delivered in-person, online or telephone to patients, legal guardians or a designated family member. Table 34.1 (number of sessions of care per patient) shows the distribution of sessions per patient ID. According to (Muñoz et al. 2021), the main need was to know about the health condition of the in-care patient and the emotional support aid for family members and patients. Consequently, as is show in Table 34.2 (services provided during the sessions), the sessions of care were able to intervene by providing the following types of input:

Table 34.1 Number of sessions of care per patient Number of assistances per patient

Amount

Between 1 and 3 Between 4 and 10 Between 11 and 20 More than 20

4,107 556 96 24

411

J. Farah Ojeda and S. Cillero Fuenzalida Table 34.2 Services provided during the sessions Service

Amount

Report the health condition of a patient Information on Social Aid benefits Network Referals Material aid delivered Emotional Support Death assistance (emotional, administrative and material aid)

6,652 845 1,080 630 3,247 356

Management System The management component of the program posed a significant challenge from the beginning. First, the government request was for it to roll out in the hospitals within one month due to the severity and imperative need, thus restricting the design, grant application and installation process to one month. This included not only the design of the services, and evaluation variables, but also the selection, training and appointment of the management team and the social workers. Secondly, this unexpected and novel context also required the rollout of the program into different hospitals and overcoming the coordination difficulties related to the Covid-19 movement restrictions. The geographical deployment of the program across different hospitals and the different organizational cultures and protocols needed to be considered at this stage and a management system put in place that would be able to adequately respond to each site and also maintain a general standard throughout all of them. In that sense the challenge involved hiring and adequately training staff, as well as the development of a team structure and chain of command useful for every hospital and doing this on a large scale. Also, it was necessary to establish the definition of the services to be provided and the expected standard of care, as well as the identification of the key information to be reported by each social worker involved in the project. The structure of the management system was constructed as illustrated in Figure 34.1 which shows the chain of command as well as the two support teams: the first being a volunteer group of clinical social workers that provided online group support sessions to the on-site social workers, and, secondly, the technical support group that assisted the team to monitor the impact of the actions and services provided during the implementation phase. During the design stage, the technical support team, of which we authors were members, implemented its own recording system. While the participating hospitals had their own Clinical Record Systems, we as external contractors had to have a means of collecting information regarding our intervention process. To this end, it was necessary to have an integrated system and so we adopted a CRM tool called Salesforce. This was created by Xappia, a salesforce developer company that assembled a registration system based on the requirements and key variables of the 412

The Technologies as Allies in Social Work

Figure 34.1

Management system

program. The challenge was to incorporate a means of recording the daily actions of assistance, within an intuitive and very easy-to-use design, so as to reduce any obstacles or reluctance to log the information which might arise during the recording process (Raya Diez and Santolaya Estefanía 2009). This was an important tool for the accountability of the program, but most of the social workers in the different hospitals had limited access to computers or phones, indeed, most of them did not even have a desk. As a consequence, it was necessary to consider compatibility of the recording system across a range of different technological devices in order to facilitate the recording process, and to this end the CRM was designed to be accessible using computers, tablets or phones, and was also designed to be used synchronically during the delivery of the service. The design of this system created an integrated single file for each patient at different hospitals. Raya Diez and Santolaya Estefanía (2009) recommend the integration of single files in social interventions beyond the medical field, arguing that these systems favor the delivery of services to clients. This strategy allowed better care to be offered when in-patients were transferred between different hospitals within our network, thus, providing continuity of care. The aforementioned was strengthened by the existence of coordination groups of workers assigned to different hospitals through the WhatsApp app. This benefited the creation of a support network which facilitated the sharing of good practices and support among peers. During the evaluation process, the social workers expressed that the interconnection generated through Reconectando was an advantage for hospitals social workers who did not usually connect with other social workers outside of their hospitals. 413

J. Farah Ojeda and S. Cillero Fuenzalida

In addition, the recording system also included the experiences of the social workers in the field. The recording system included an early report of Covid-19 symptoms for workers, which allowed the management team to take action quickly to avoid a spread of contagion. This measure involved a self-report that activated a series of protocols used for presenting symptoms consistent with the illness. Furthermore, the system included a log to register self-reflection, based on the experiences working in the field. The idea was to replace the field journal and move it to an online platform, where participants registered: what happened during the day, their reflections and perceptions of the day, any assessment needs they identified, and issues that either impeded or facilitated their work. This information was shared with the clinical supervisors to provide support, assistance and guidance during the group supervision. The group supervision occurred through online video calls.

ICTs and Provision of Services As outlined earlier, the program delivered care to hospitalized patients and their families during the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Most of the components of the program required the use of ICTs to facilitate the communication between the family group and the doctors, the family group and their hospitalized relative, as well as other interventions. The provision of services included the use of video calls and phone calls on a daily basis, due to the health restrictions in place at that time which prohibited hospital visiting for non-patients. According to the records, most of the time patient care was delivered in person, whereas 26.2% of the contact with family members was conducted through video calls and 53.9% through phone calls (Muñoz et al. 2021). Reconectando delivered care for patients and their family members by providing support as described in Table 34.2. ICTs were a fundamental vehicle to overcome communication barriers imposed by the lockdown, including the use of phone calls, video calls, and video or text messages sent via WhatsApp. Through these technologies social workers applied psychological first-aid techniques and brief solution-focused interventions in the main areas of the program. Some of the workers emphasized the importance of these tools, affirming the value of video calls: we aimed at making those 5 minutes the most effective and meaningful for these persons. This could be of vital importance for their recovery. Patient eats solid food again (…). Video call focus is 100% motivational, daughter provides encouraging words, and sustained a fluent conversation with him. Achieves sudden recovery, merely through bonding. In the same manner, support processes required the use of technologies to assist in the support of dignified death and bereavement support for relatives. Before passing, social workers performed farewell video calls with patients and their family members, along with subsequent emotional and therapeutic support for the

414

The Technologies as Allies in Social Work

bereaved relatives. Examples of the importance of these interventions were recorded by workers: Video call to the son living at United States is carried out, patient is in a critical state, is bid farewell and passes away during the call. In addition, video calls and calls, supported medical decision-making, giving continuity to relationships between family members, the patient and the medical team. The importance of that communication is not just to be informed but the right to participate in the medical decisions being made concerning treatment and care. This has been extremely valued by the experts: for example, Kuntz et al. (2020), and Simpson, Milnes, and Steinfort (2020) agree on the relevance of keeping a focus on the needs of the patient when making medical and care arrangements, arguing that it is in the best interest of the patients to do so. In this sense, Reconectando did not simply constitute digital intervention through the use of ICTs, but it involved transferring social interventions to the digital space as a way to continue with the integrated provision of services and the guarantee of patients’ rights. In the workers’ words: Video call is a tool, (…) a means to get to know relevant and important aspects of the behavior of the patients and their family members (…) Emotional bonding is shaped through the combination of procedures and techniques, which result in optimal interaction with the other. In this light, recognizing the value of these tools also demands the provision of adequate conditions for their use. The phone or video calls were often extremely sensitive, and had to be managed as part of the treatment and within strict ethical protocols. Some of the challenges evident during the implementation were having a suitable space that guarantees the participants their privacy during the video calls, allowing for the confidentiality of those involved; respecting the will and preference of those patients who prefer not to participate in video calls, and in those instances seeking other means of communication that comply with the patient’s consent.

Supervision of Workers One of the necessary elements that has become evident during this health crisis is front-line staff care. Literature has reported negative effects on the mental health of front-line workers such as anxiety, burnout, and depression (Liang et al. 2020; Passos et al. 2020; Roth, Upadhyay, and Paul 2020). In light of this evidence, the program incorporated regular, weekly support for workers, aiming to support their well-being and optimum performance. These supervision sessions took place in a telematic manner (Zoom), in one-hour sessions, in groups of approximately seven persons. The clinical supervision model that was adopted in this program provided a relational space for peers guided by an experienced supervisor, with the aim of 415

J. Farah Ojeda and S. Cillero Fuenzalida

promoting continuous and shared critical reflection, regarding both their daily professional work (assistance and case management, delivery of information, support and containment for patients and family members, contact between patients and family members, etc.) as well as containment and emotional support for self-care. In this way, this process became a virtual community of support among peers, appreciated by the workers themselves where a “space for reflection, self-care and containment is built, where experiences that allow professional improvement can be shared, by including perspectives and different tools to face the different situations that arise” (Participant Quote). In this way, ICTs allowed not only the delivery of services to Reconectando clients, but also a basis for the team’s own care.

Conclusion The experience of Reconectando was not only about how to use ICTs but how to create a model that incorporated digital clinical interventions in the context of a health crisis. The use of technology in social work practice indicates the need to use information technologies, not only from an instrumental rationality viewpoint, but also as a model, aiming at the development of services provided for citizens’ wellbeing. In this sense, digital service design is a concrete way of conceiving a service that meets the needs of its users (Viladás 2008). In the coming years, social workers will face the challenge of managing the social issues and long-lasting consequences of the pandemic (López Peláez et al. 2020; Muñoz et al. 2021). To that end, social workers will have to use technology to honor the mission to “facilitate change and development (…) engage people and structures, to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing” (IFSW 2014). Therefore, having a modern technological infrastructure in the social work field is imperative. When designing the occupation’s future, nothing indicates that its abilities and fundamental values will be questioned. On the contrary, these will continue to be part of the design foundations and minimal knowledge of the profession (Cree 2009). Social work has to believe that the digital components of our era are an ally, an asset to increase the impact and efficiency of social services. Is no longer possible for social work to design social interventions today without considering the digital era in which we are immersed and that was forced to accelerate due to the pandemic. Considering this will allow Chile to install digital social work as a branch of the profession, as other countries are already doing. Envisioning social work as a discipline embedded in the digital era means a core modernization of our work, where social services and programs, public or private, will incorporate digitalization and ICTs as part of our DNA and daily performance. If the digital is here to stay, then it becomes the new context of social intervention, as can be found in the experience of the Reconectando program, presented in this chapter.

Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge the following: 416

The Technologies as Allies in Social Work

The Chile Ministry of Health that commended this task to care for patients and families. Salesforce that donated 75 licenses of their CRM and Xappia and freely developed the recording system. The School of Social Work and the CIDENI Foundation team that rose up to the challenge. And each social worker, who in the context of the pandemic, decided to risk and move to the epicenter of the pandemic to care for patients and families.

References Alieva, D. 2018. “Reseña: El Trabajo Social ante el reto de la transformación digital.” Revista Hispana para el análisis de redes sociales 29(2): 307–309. Amengual, A. 1976. “El trabajo social ¿tecnología?: apuntes para una reflexión sistemática.” Revista de Trabajo Social 17: 51–61. Aquino-Canchari, C., R. Quispe-Arrieta, and K. Huaman. 2020. “COVID-19 y su relación con poblaciones vulnerables.” Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas 19(Supl. 1), e3341. Epub 10 June 2020. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1729519X2020000 400005&lng=es&tlng=es Bunge, M. 1960. La ciencia, su método y su filosofía. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veinte. Burrone, M., G. Reginatto, M. Solís-Soto, A. Basagoitia, M. Irarrázabal, P. Rincón, and S. Silvina y Arrossi. 2020. “Coronavirus e impacto psicosocial en Chile.” Revista Médica de Chile 148(8): 1224–1226. DOI: 10.4067/S0034-98872020000801224 Castillo de Mesa, J. 2019. El trabajo social en la era digital. Navarra: Aranzadi. Castillo de Mesa, J., L. Gómez-Jacinto, A. López Peláez, and A. Erro-Garcés. 2020. “Social networking sites and youth transition: The use of Facebook and personal well-being of social work young graduates.” Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00230 CEPAL. 2020. El desafío social en tiempos del COVID-19. Informe Especial COVID-19. Santiago: CEPAL. Coleman, N. 2011. E-social Work: A Preliminary Examination of Social Services Contact Centres. Warwick: University of Warwick. Cree, V. 2009. “The changing nature of social work”. In Social Work. Themes Issues and Critical Debates 3rd edition, edited by R. Adams, L. Dominelli, and M. Payne, 20–29. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Farah, J. 2010. “La consolidación de un espíritu gremial. Nacimiento y primeros pasos del Colegio de Asistentes Sociales (1955–1965).” In Historias del trabajo social en Chile 1925–2008: contribución para nuevos relatos, edited byM. González, 73–107. Santiago: Ediciones Técnicas de Educación Superior. Farah, J. 2018. La relación entre el estado chileno y sus ciudadanos desde los procesos de provisión de oferta pública. Granada: Universidad de Granada. González, M. 2010. “La visita de las moscas azules”. El concepto de «Visitación» como eje articulador de la formación de asistentes sociales en las primeras escuelas chilenas. Santiago, 1925–1935.” In Historias del trabajo social en Chile 1925 – 2008: contribución para nuevos relatos, edited by M. González, 23–51. Santiago: Ediciones Técnicas de Educación Superior. Havnen, A., F. Anyan, O. Hjemdal, S. Solem, M. Gurigard Riksfjord, and K. Hagen. 2020. “Resilience moderates negative outcome from stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated-mediation approach.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(18): 6461–6473. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6461 IFSW. International Federation of Social Workers. 2014. “Update on the review of the Global Definition of Social Work.” Retrieved 18 January 2021, from https://www.ifsw. org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/

417

J. Farah Ojeda and S. Cillero Fuenzalida Illanes, M. A. 2006. Cuerpo y sangre de la política. La construcción histórica de las Visitadoras Sociales (1887–1940). Santiago: LOM. Joseph, S. J., P. Gunaseelan, S. S. Bhandari, and S. Dutta. 2020. “How the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) could have a quivering impact on mental health?” Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences 11(2): 135. doi: 10.5958/2394-2061.2020.00016.6 Kuntz, J. G., D. Kavalieratos, G. J. Esper, N. Ogbur Jr., J. Mitchell, C. M. Ellis and T. Quest. 2020. “Feasibility and acceptability of inpatient palliative care e-family meetings during COVID-19 pandemic.” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 60(3): e28–e32. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.06.001. https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S08853924(20)30433-4/abstract Liang, Y., K. Wu, Y. Zhou, X. Huang, Y. Zhou, and Z. Liu. 2020. “Mental health in frontline medical workers during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease epidemic in China: A comparison with the general population.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(18) (irailak 9). doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186550 López Peláez, A. 2015. Social Work Challenges in the XXI Century: Perspectives From the USA. Pamplona: Aranzadi. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello. 2018. “El Trabajo Social en la Sociedad Digital.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social 25(116): 11–26. ISSN: 1130-7633. https://www.serviciossocial esypoliticasocial.com/-34 López Peláez, A., C. Marcuello, J. Castillo de Mesa, and P. Almaguer. 2020. “The more you know, the less you fear: Reflexive social work practices in times of COVID-19.” International Social Work 63(6): 746–752. DOI: 10.1177%2F0020872820959365 López Peláez, A., R. Pérez, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada. 2017. “e-Social work: Building a new field of specialization in social work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823 (2017). DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256 Marra, A., P. Buonanno, M. Vargas, C. Iacovazzo, E. W. Ely, and G. Servillo. 2020. “How COVID-19 pandemic changed our communication with families: Losing nonverbal cues.” Critical Care (London, England) 24(1): 297. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03035-w Matus, T. 1999. Propuestas contemporáneas en Trabajo Social: hacia una intervención polifónica. España. Espacio: Buenos Aires. MINSAL. 2020. “Ministerio de Salud.” Covid-19 en Chile: la realidad nacional en datos. Santiago: MINSAL. Disponible en https://www.gob.cl/coronavirus/cifrasoficiales/ Montauk, T. R., and E. A. Kuhl. 2020. “COVID-related family separation and trauma in the intensive care unit.” Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 12: 96–97. doi: 10.1037/tra0000839 Muñoz, C., K. González, M. O. Grau, J. Farah, P. Miranda, N. Alamo, X. de Toro, S. Cillero, and M. Cillero. 2021. “Lineamientos para una intervención social clínica hospitalaria en crisis sanitaria.” Centro de Políticas Públicas UC 16(135): 1–21. Passos, L., F. Prazeres, A. Teixeira, and C. Martins. 2020. “Impact on mental health due to COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional study in Portugal and Brazil.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(18): 6794. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186794 Pierce, M., H. Hope, T. Ford, S. Hatch, M. Hotopf, A. John …. and K. M. Abel. 2020. “Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population.” The Lancet Psychiatry 7(10): 883–892. doi: 10.1016/ S2215-0366(20)30308-4. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS22150366(20)30308-4/abstract Porcel-Gálvez, A., B. Badanta, S. Barrientos, and M. Lima-Serrano. 2021. “Personas mayores, dependencia y vulnerabilidad en la pandemia por coronavirus: emergencia de una integración social y sanitaria.” Enfermería Clínica 31(1): 518–523. ISSN 1130-8621. DOI: 10.1016/j.enfcli.2020.05.004 Raya Diez, E., and M. P. Santolaya Estefanía. 2009, “La Sociedad de la información y sus aportaciones para el Trabajo Social (The Information Society and its Contribution to Social Work).” Portularia IX(1): 83–92.

418

The Technologies as Allies in Social Work Roth, K., R. Upadhyay, and V. Paul. 2020. “The effects of Covid-19 on mental health during inpatient hospitalization.” Chest Journal 158(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.338 Simpson, N., S. Milnes, and D. Steinfort. 2020. “Don’t forget shared decision‐making in the COVID‐19 crisis.” Internal Medicine Journal 50(6): 761–763. doi: 10.1111/imj.14862. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322986/ Sonis, J., M. Kennedy, E. Aaronson, J. Baugh, A. Raja, B. Yun, and B. White. 2020. “Humanism in the age of COVID-19: Renewing focus on communication and compassion.” The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 21(3): 499–502. 10.5811/westjem. 2020.4.47596 Viladás, X. 2008. Diseño Rentable. 10 temas a debate. Barcelona: Index book.

419

35 INTEGRATING SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCIES A Comparative Example between USA and Spain Domingo Carbonero Muñoz, Mioara Diaconu, and Laura Racovita

Introduction Social work education has been identified for decades as a competency-based pedagogy. The concept of digital skills in general began taking shape in tandem with the development of distance learning. It became formalized with the use of electronic learning platforms and learning management systems when the COVID-19 Pandemic came into play (Miltchev and Chehlarova 2020). Research shows that digital skills capacity building may be influenced by the ability to differentiate between knowledge, qualities, and attitudes (Larsen et al. 2008) and the user’s perceptions of their own capacities (Vázquez-Cano et al. 2017). Furthermore, studies indicate that digital and technology skills are associated with other development skills, such as decision making, critical thinking, as well as the development of a sense of responsibility (Colas Bravo et al. 2018). The pre-pandemic literature already showed clear differences in perspectives regarding the use of technologies and eLearning in the higher education context (Racovita-Szilagyi, Carbonero Muñoz, and Diaconu 2018; Diaconu et al. 2019). At the beginning of the century, with the rapid development of technologies, eLearning systems were seen as limited to technical gadgets or organizational aspects of teaching such as learning management systems, rather than supporting the learning in itself (Tavangarian et al. 2004).

420

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-42

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

In addition, the literature has been demonstrating for a while the value and importance of skills development in social work education. Thus, over the years, different European countries developed and adopted a cross-curricular digital competences framework in order to address the need for a unified response to the growing use of digital technologies in practice across a wide variety of disciplines and sectors. For example, already in the late eighties and the nineties of the last century the first form of electronic education—Computer-Based Training (CBT)—was developed. After this, several changes have been occurring, whereby digital skills are not only used in distance learning, but also started to be used in face-to-face interactions, and being a part of daily interaction among teachers and students. Evidence started showing that it had clear positive results, and the Meeting of the Council of the European Union in 2002 started mapping the current use of electronic forms. Several universities and programs started including more content and new courses through eLearning. Additionally, the subproject ODL NET (Open and Distance Learning Network for Exchange Experiences) played a significant role in contact between countries. This project was developed within the framework of the European program Sokrates, which concentrates on the propagation of distance education based on information and communication technologies (Hubackova 2015). In 2006, the official journal of the European Parliament recognized eight key competences for lifelong learning, including digital competence in the areas of communication, mathematics, social, civic, and culture (European Commission 2018). A decade later, the United Kingdom’s Department of Business Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport presented a report on the digital skills for the UK economy, highlighting a digital skills gap, and outlining a proposal on how to teach and develop current digital skills (ECORYS 2016). Nevertheless, in the past, social work practice and educational programs have been slow to integrate digital technology into education and practice (ANECA 2004; IASSW 2019, 2020; Banks et al. 2020; Consejo General de Trabajo Social 2020). In order to address this issue, pre-pandemic, in the United States (US), the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE 2022) had already established through its accreditation policies and standards that all accredited social work programs should demonstrate that their students and graduates are competent in specific areas. This model has been adopted in Europe as well (Castilla and Virseda 2016; Youn 2017). Furthermore, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has included ethical principles and guidelines on the use of technology in social work practice in the most recent revision to its Code of Ethics (NASW 2021). With the spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic, social work programs, as well as social work practice had to shift dramatically from in-person interactions to the primary use of technology. This shift was necessary to safeguard the profession’s mission by ensuring the continuity of services in order to preserve the well-being of clients, especially the underserved and the most vulnerable (Jasen et al. 2015; van Laar et al. 2020). For example, although the concept of telehealth existed before the pandemic, as the pandemic continued, there was an increase in the use of technologies in mental and behavioral health practices (Mochari-Greenberger and Pande 2021). 421

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

When the COVID-19 Pandemic developed at the beginning of 2020, the need for education settings to quickly shift to remote virtual learning brought once more the importance of digital technology skills sharply into focus (Gardner 2020; Sen et al. 2020; Smoyer, O’Brien, and Rodriguez-Keyes 2020; Waller et al. 2020). As a result, there has been a renewed interest in understanding the relevance of the existing digital competence frameworks. For the current study, the authors chose to conduct a comparative study between two US based programs and a Spanish social work program. The choice between these two countries was decided because both countries, in their own rights, represent trailblazers in the area of adopting digital skills: the US across industries and education, and Spain as one of the most prominent adopters and implementers of digital skills education in the European Union (ANECA 2004; Duffin 2020).

Digital Competence Framework The Spanish Perspective The promotion of digital skills has been in development by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training in collaboration with the Spanish regions since 2010 (MEVT) (Diario Oficial de Extremadura 2015). The Spanish Ministry of Education, through its order 65/2015, included digital competencies among the seven types of key competencies of the educational system across disciplines, which mirror those of the European Union: language, mathematics, social, civic, and cultural competencies (Boletin Oficial del Estado 2015). Additionally, the MEVT promotes (1) students’ digital skills through initiatives related to training and collaboration with families; (2) teachers’ digital skills through specific guidelines for self-evaluation and continuous development; and (3) digital competence training in educational centers, which provide guides for digitally competent organizations. In social work education, the relevant guidelines include teaching students to appreciate technologies as an element of social change, and as a necessary instrument for the development of tasks related to professional supervision or direct intervention (ANECA 2004).

The US Perspective Social work education is increasingly recognizing the growing need for digital and technology skills due to the widespread use of learning management systems in the educational processes. As a result, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) has initiated the inclusion of digital skills and competencies in the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) 2022 draft by including “Data Driven Standards” as one of the five priority areas of inclusion in the new educational policy (CSWE 2019). This research study has adopted The Digital Competence Framework 2.0 developed by the European Commission as its research framework. This framework identifies five digital competencies dimensions/areas, each including several key 422

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

components: (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation, (4) safety, and (5) problem solving (Vuorikari et al. 2016; European Commission, n.d.). The above-identified digital framework was chosen due to its applicability to social work education and practice (García and Virseda 2016; van Laar et al. 2020). A sixth dimension, creativity and innovation, was added to the study. This dimension, creativity and innovation, is part of the original research instrument, but is not included in the EU Digital Competence Framework 2.0. The decision to include this sixth dimension was at the discretion of the researchers and is based on the fourth CSWE competency standard (CSWE 2015), as well as on the ethical professional mandate (NASW 2021). Both US based professional bodies highlight and encourage social work students and practitioners to be contributors to the social work body of knowledge. Since the professional knowledge base emphasized in this research was related to digital skills, the authors believe that it is important to assess perceptions related to creativity and innovation in this specific context.

Methodology The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought to the forefront the imperative need for the use of digital and technological skills. This research study’s primary focus was to identify current perceptions of using digital technologies in social work education and practice through the lens of a digital competence framework. A comparative two-country case study (Spain and the US), provided an opportunity for in-depth analysis of these perceptions. The selected three educational programs within the two countries (Spain and the US) include public and private faith-based educational providers and thus reveal a range of perspectives regarding the use of digital technologies in social work education and practice.

Research Design, Target Population, and Sampling Design This research study employed a quantitative, non-experimental two-country case study design. The target population for this study comprised of social work students, field instructors and supervisors, as well as field liaisons, defined as social work program representatives charged with coordinating, mediating, and consulting with the field placement agencies regarding the educational experiences and needs that will help the student fulfill educational requirements (Ligon and Ward 2005). A convenience sampling design was employed. Each university reached out to their current social work students enrolled in practicum courses as well as to those students enrolled at the time of the swift change to emergency remote learning due to the pandemic. The researchers also reached out to current and previous field instructors and supervisors, as well as field liaisons. Invitations to participate in the research study were sent out by email following ethics (Institutional Review Board) approval to conduct the research. A link to the SurveyMonkey data collection platform was included in the email.

423

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

Data Collection Instrument During the research design stage, different existing data collection instruments were explored. An in-depth literature search revealed that the overwhelming majority of existing instruments were tailored to the very specific needs of computing or web design and security fields. Other instruments (Ikanos n.d.), were tailored to specific employment purposes. The eLene4Work Self-Assessment Tool, developed by the European Union (eL4w Project n.d.), was considered by the authors to be the most relevant to the needs of the research study, considering that it provides a comprehensive tool relevant across disciplines, previous assessment tools having focused on specialized digital skills most applicable in the areas of information technology or computer programming (Hecker and Loprest 2019). Given that the original instrument is very long, measuring twelve dimensions of digital and technology skills, a modified version was drafted. The modified version addresses five dimensions/areas of the EU Digital Competence Framework 2.0 plus a sixth dimension. Each of the six dimensions studied was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1–3 indicated different levels of disagreement, 4 = Neither disagree nor agree, 5–7 indicated different levels of agreement).

Findings and Discussions Data analysis was conducted through the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Demographic Information A total of 260 individuals participated in this research study. The demographic information of each subsample (Spain and the US) is presented in Table 35.1. The Spanish subsample was composed of 161 research participants (82% females, 14.9% males, and 2.4% others). The predominant age was 20–29 (54%). Most of the research participants were social work students (87%), followed by field instructors (7.4%), other social work professionals (3.1%), field liaisons (1.2.%), and task supervisors (commonly defined as direct student supervisors who may not have social work degrees, but a degree in related disciplines) (0.6%). The US subsample was composed of 99 research participants (85% females, 13.6% males, and 1.2% others). The predominant age was 20–29 (49.4%). Most of the research participants were social work students (75.6%), followed by field instructors (18.3%), task supervisors (4.9%), and field liaisons (1.2.%), showing a similarity between the two countries’ subsamples.

Dimensions of Digital Competence Framework Given that the data generated is ordinal, the authors have used the median to show the central tendency of the responses, which is acceptable in cases in which the data shows high positive or negative skewness (Streiner 2000). In order to highlight the

424

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies Table 35.1 Description of each subsample

Sample Size Gender

Age

Educational Institution

Roles

Female Male Other 18–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50 and older Spanish University US Private University US Public University Others Student Field Instructor Field Liaison Task Supervisor Others

Spanish subsample

US subsample

161 82.6% 14.9% 2.4% 32.9% 54% 4.8% 3% 4.9% 100% – – – 87% 7.4% 1.2% 0.6% 3.1%

99 85.2% 13.2% 1.2% 0% 49.4% 26.5% 16.8% 7.2% – 62.2% 36.6% 1.2% 75.6% 18.3% 1.2% 4.9% –

most relevant scale items in the cross-country comparison of each dimension, the authors report both the mean and median as central measurements. For the purposes of this report, it is important to note that a mean score of higher than 4.5 (Min = 1, Neutral = 4, Max = 7) indicates agreement that the research participants considered the scale item important. As stated previously, from the Digital Competence Framework 2.0 developed by the European Commission (n.d.), four of the five identified dimensions/areas have been found significant in this research study and are presented in this section: (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation, (4) safety, and (5) problem solving. A sixth dimension, creativity and innovation, was also included in the study.

Dimension#1: Digital Information and Data Literacy The digital dimension#1 encompassed scale items related to information and data literacy as presented in Table 35.2. The three highest-ranking scale items in the Spanish subsample are: “I believe it is important to have information and data processing skills” (M = 6.23; SD = .92); “I analyze, evaluate, and integrate information from different sources” (M = 5.84; SD = 1.04); and “I know that there are different copyright and license rules for intellectual propriety products” (M = 5.77; SD1.31). The three highest-ranking scale items in the US subsample are: “I analyze, evaluate and integrate information from different sources” (M = 5.73; SD = 1.15); “I am able to 425

I adapt search strategies to a specific search engine, application, or device I recognize the usefulness, timeliness, accuracy, and integrity of the information I analyze, evaluate, and integrate information from different sources I am able to synthesize information from multiple online sources I distinguish reliable information from unreliable sources I believe it is important to have information and data processing skills 6.3

7.7

13.8 2.5

3.1

6.9

0.6

11.9

0.6

2.5

8.2

1.9

426 96.9

79.4

89.2

91.3

87.5

89.9

7

5

6

6

6

6

Mdn

6.23

5.33

5.61

5.84

5.65

5.67

M

.92

1.31

1.05

1.04

.96

.91

SD

0

5.2

3

4

2

5.1

5.1

11.3

6.1

7.1

4.1

15.3

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Agree (%)

Disagree (%)

Neutral (%)

US respondents

Spanish respondents

Table 35.2 Dimension#1: Comparison between digital information and data literacy in the Spanish and US subsamples

94.9

83.5

96.9

88.9

93.6

79.6

Agree (%)

6

5

6

6

5

5

Mdn

5.52

5.19

5.58

5.73

5.34

5.07

M

0.59

0.83

1.04

1.15

0.65

0.86

SD

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

I know that web-based content should be referenced I am able to create visual representations of knowledge using digital media (e.g., diagrams, infographics) I am able to find, critically select, and integrate already existing digital contents I know there are different copyright and license rules for intellectual property products I act according to authoring and copywriting practices/rules I am able to find information on copyright and license rules for the resources I want to use

427 14.4

10.7

6.3

16.3

11.9

5.7

25.5

10.6

15.6

13

12.6

4.4

69.4

61.5

83

82.4

73.8

83.3

6

5

6

6

6

6

5.14

4.95

5.77

5.46

5.15

5.68

1.65

1.67

1.31

1.20

1.58

1.27

21.2

5.1

5.1

7.1

11.1

2

15.2

8.2

8.1

17.2

18.2

10.1

63.6

86.7

86.9

75.8

70.7

87.9

5

5

5

5

5

5

4.54

5.22

5.10

4.88

4.81

5.20

1.14

.89

0.92

0.91

1.04

.83

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

synthetize information from multiple online sources” (M = 5.58; SD = 1.04); and “I believe it is important to have information and data processing skills” (M = 5.52; SD = .59). The Spanish research participants’ highest median score item was “I believe it is important to have information and data processing skills” (Mdn = 7). The same US item’s median value was (Mdn = 6). The following similar values of the median (Mdn) indicate similarities between the Spanish and US research participants (Mdn = 6): “I analyze, evaluate, and integrate information from different sources”, and “I am able to synthesize information from multiple online sources”. These responses highlight how social work students and practitioners are adept at using different search engines, and applications, and distinguishing between reliable sources from different platforms.

Dimension#2: Digital Communication and Collaboration The digital dimension#2 encompassed scale items related to digital communication and collaboration as presented in Table 35.3 (Digital Communication) and Table 35.4 (Digital Collaboration). The three highest-ranking digital communication scale items in the Spanish subsample are: “In online and/or virtual communication I use appropriate, relevant, and compelling content and imagery to illustrate a topic” (M = 5.78; SD = 1.16); “The visuals in my digital and/or virtual presentations match well with the information I am communicating” (M = 5.75; SD = 1.10); and “I identify my audience and tailor my digital communication according to the audience” (M = 5,41; SD = 1,50). The three highest-ranking digital communication scale items in the US subsample are: “I edit information to communicate it through online platforms (such as: email presentation slides, post in social networks, blog, etc.)” (M = 5.38; SD = .66) “I identify my audience and tailor my digital communication according to the audience” (M = 5.36; SD = .67), and “I filter the digital communication I receive (e.g., sorting out emails, deciding whom to follow on social sites and social networks” (M = 5.28; SD = .75). The median indicates differences between the Spanish and US research participants, with the Spanish subsample scoring higher than the US subsample on eight items (see Table 35.3). These results raise the question: what is the most appropriate professional social work digital communication vehicle? In order to be able to identify and explore collaborative and responsible professional communication practices across various online platforms, including social media, the answer to this question needs to be set in the context of each country in general and each academic program in particular. The three highest-ranking digital collaboration scale items in the Spanish subsample are: “I am selective in the information I share with different audiences” (M = 5.80; SD = 1.20); “I share digital content and information using on collaborative platforms (e.g., Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.)” (M = 5.49; SD = 1.54); and “I use social media exclusively for non-professional engagement” (M = 5.06; SD = 1.87). The three highest-ranking digital collaboration scale items in the US subsample are: “I am selective in the information I share with different audiences” (M = 5.57; SD = .49); “I share digital content and information using on collaborative platforms (e.g., Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.)” (M = 5.15; SD = .97); and “I use social media exclusively for nonprofessional engagement” (M = 4.33; SD = 1.47). 428

My digital communication is clear and 5 transparent In online and/or virtual communication I use 3.7 appropriate, relevant, and compelling content and imagery to illustrate a topic I edit information to communicate it through 13.1 online platforms (such as: email, presentation in slides, post in social networks, blog, etc.) I identify my audience and tailor my digital 8.1 communication according to the audience I construct different e-profiles according to my 21.7 targeted audience (e.g., professionals, friends, etc.) I adapt to different virtual/online 10.6 communication cultures and practices

75.2 89.4

75.6

80.6 61.5

75.8

19.8 6.8

11.3

11.3

429 16.8

13.7

5

5

6

6

6

6

Mdn

5.15

4.68

5.41

5.24

5.78

5.36

M

1.58

1.91

1.50

1.78

1.16

1.24

SD

3.1

28.3

2

2

7.5

8.1

12.2

21.2

55.1

4

23

16.2

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

US respondents

Spanish respondents

Table 35.3 Dimension#2: Comparison between digital communication in the Spanish and US subsamples

84.7

50.5

92.9

93.9

69.5

75.8

Agree

5

5

5

5

5

5

Mdn

.73

1.41

.67

.66

.75

1.07

SD

(Continued)

5.12

4.23

5.36

5.38

4.97

4.85

M

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

Mdn

M

SD

69.5 78.9

88.8

76.4 72.7

23 8.7

8.1

9.3

430 14.9

6

6

6

6

5

5.27

5.17

5.75

5.25

5.22

1.46

1.44

1.10

1.57

1.33

5.1

12.1

2

4

5.1

5

13.1

12.1

6.1

14.1

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

US respondents

Spanish respondents

I consider cultural barriers when planning my 7.5 online/virtual communication strategies I filter the digital communication I receive 12.4 (e.g., sorting out emails, deciding whom to follow on social sites and social networks) The visuals in my digital and/or virtual 3.1 presentations match well with the information I am communicating During virtual meetings I find it easy to listen 14.3 to what other people have to say During virtual meetings I pay attention to 12.4 non-verbal behavior [e.g., avoiding eye contact with the camera, signs of boredom]

Table 35.3 (Continued)

89.9

74.7

85.9

89.9

80.8

Agree

5

5

5

5

5

Mdn

5.08

4.87

5.09

5.28

4.98

M

.91

1.06

.67

.75

.92

SD

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

I share digital content and information using social networks to collect feedbacks I share digital content and information using on collaborative platforms (e.g., Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.) I am selective in the information I share with different audiences I use social media to promote the results of my professional work I use social media exclusively for nonprofessional engagement I use the collaborative features of software packages and web-based collaborative services (e.g., track changes, comments on a document or resource, tags, contribution to wikis, etc.) 9.3 19.4 10.1 64.5

43.8

18.2

13.8

10

8.1

4.3

15.6

16.9

431 21.5

71.7

36.9

86.3

81.9

67.5

4

5

4

6

6

5

Mdn

4.04

5.06

3.7

5.80

5.49

4.82

M

1.26

1.87

1.95

1.20

1.54

1.77

SD

10.1

30.3

48.5

0

9.1

22.2

68.7

9.1

15.2

0

7.1

28.3

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

US respondents

Spanish respondents

Table 35.4 Dimension#2: Comparison between digital collaboration in the Spanish and US subsamples

21.2

60.6

36.4

100

83.8

49.5

Agree

4

5

4

6

5

4

Mdn

4.11

4.33

3.61

5.57

5.15

4.32

M

1.19

1.47

1.58

.49

.97

1.36

SD

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

Although listing different median values, the three highest-ranking digital collaboration scale items are similar in the two subsamples. Furthermore, both subsamples have a common median (Mdn = 6), “I am selective in the information I share with different audiences”. Thus, the results show agreement between the two subsamples regarding participants’ views on digital collaboration.

Dimension#3: Digital Content Creation The digital dimension#3 encompassed scale items related to digital content creation as presented in Table 35.5. The three highest-ranking scale items in the Spanish subsample are: “I am able to combine different media to express myself creatively (e.g., text, images, audio, and video)” (M = 5.81; SD = 1.14); “I try to always explore new ways/original formats for content creation” (M = 5.48; SD = 1.36); and “I am able to find, critically select, and integrate already existing digital contents” (M = 5.46; SD = 1.20). The three highest-ranking scale items in the US subsample are: “I am able to combine different media to express myself creatively (e.g., text, images, audio, and video)” (M = 5.04; SD = .83); “I am able to find, critically select, and integrate already existing digital content” (M = 4.88.; SD = .91); and “I am able to judge which software/application fits best with the particular type of content I want to create” (M = 4.64; SD = 1.08). The median values for the six items listed conclude that the Spanish subsample is ranking higher on four items (Mdn = 6). The US subsample ranks lower in all six items (Mdn = 5).

Dimension#4: Digital/Online Safety The digital dimension#4 encompassed scale items related to the digital/online safety as presented in Table 35.6. The highest-ranking scale item in the Spanish subsample is “I protect myself and others from online threats/abuses” (M = 5.59; SD = 1.20). The same scale item is also the highest-ranking in the US subsample, although showing lower values for SD (M = 5.32; SD = .77). The median values are indicating differences between subsamples on the first item, “I protect myself and others from online threats/abuses”. The Spanish subsample (Mdn = 6) vs. the US subsample (Mdn = 5). However, both subsamples have equal ranking on the second item “I track my digital footprint” (Mdn = 4).

Dimension#5: Digital Problem Solving The digital dimension#5 encompassed scale items related to digital problem solving as presented in Table 35.7. The three highest-ranking scale items in the Spanish subsample are: “I know how to explore the world-wide web when searching for solutions” (M = 5.23; SD = 1.48); “I am able to integrate new technologies into my social work practice environment” (M = 5.23; SD = 1.31); and “I know how to explore my own online network when searching for solutions” (M = 5.14; SD = 1.35).

432

I construct different e-profiles according to my targeted 21.7 audience (e.g., professionals, friends, etc.) I am able to judge which software/application fits best 20.1 with the particular type of content I want to create I am able to combine different media to express myself 4.4 creatively (e.g., text, images, audio, and video) I try to always explore new ways/original formats 8.2 for content creation I am able to find, critically select, and integrate already 5.7 existing digital contents I am able to create visual representations of knowledge 15.6 using digital media (e.g., diagrams, infographics) 88.1 75.5 82.4 73.8

16.4 11.9 10.6

62.3

17.6 7.5

61.5

16.8

433 6

6

6

6

5

5

Mdn

5.15

5.46

5.48

5.81

4.86

4.68

M

6.1

7.1

1.58 11.1

1.20

1.36 16.3

1.14

1.66 13.1

1.91 28.3

SD

18.2

17.2

23.5

11.1

20.2

21.2

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

US respondents

Spanish respondents

Table 35.5 Dimension#3: Comparison between digital content creation in the Spanish and US subsamples

70.7

75.8

60.2

82.8

60.7

50.5

Agree

5

5

5

5

5

5

Mdn

4.81

4.88

4.56

5.04

4.64

4.23

M

1.04

0.91

1.06

0.83

1.08

1.41

SD

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

I protect myself and others from online threats/abuses I track my digital footprint

9.3 24.2

34.8

Neutral

5.6

Disagree

Spanish respondents

434 41

85.1

Agree

4

6

Mdn

4

5.59

M

1.89

1.20

SD

35.1

5.1

Disagree

20.6

6.1

Neutral

US respondents

Table 35.6 Dimension#4: Comparison between digital/online safety in the Spanish and US subsamples

44.3

88.9

Agree

4

5

Mdn

3.92

5.32

M

1.55

.77

SD

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

“I am aware of the latest digital technologies 27.3 used by others to problem solve” “I am capable of implementing technological 22.4 fixes in order to solve problems” “I know how to explore the world-wide 11.8 web when searching for solutions” “I know how to explore my own online 8.1 network when searching for solutions” “I am able to integrate new technologies into 6.8 my social work practice environment”

49.7 59.6 73.3 69.6 70.8

23 18 14.9

435 22.4 22.4

5

5

6

5

4

Mdn

5.23

5.14

5.23

4.54

4.27

M

1.31

1.35

1.48

1.61

1.54

SD

6.8

8.1

11.8

22.4

26.3

22.4

22.4

14.9

18

20.2

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

US respondents

Spanish respondents

Table 35.7 Dimension#5: Comparison between digital problem solving in the Spanish and US subsamples

70.8

69.6

73.3

59.6

53.5

Agree

5

5

5

5

5

Mdn

5.13

5.11

5.39

4.50

4.30

M

.63

.79

.6

.98

1.14

SD

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

The three highest-ranking scale items in the US subsample are: “I know how to explore the world-wide web when searching for solutions” (M = 5.39; SD = .6); “I am able to integrate new technologies into my social work practice environment” (M = 5.13; SD = .63); and “I know how to explore my own online network when searching for solutions” (M = 5.11; SD = .79). From the five items listed, the median value of the Spanish subsample is ranking higher on one item “I know how to explore the world-wide web when searching for solutions” (Mdn = 6). The US subsample ranks lower in all five items (Mdn = 5). These results show that research participants felt able to find solutions online for practice related issues.

Dimension#6: Digital Creativity and Innovation The digital dimension#6 encompassed scale items related to digital creativity and innovation as presented in Table 35.8. From the two scale items listed under the creativity and innovation dimension, the highest-ranking item for both subsets is: “I have the skills to use digital tools and technologies to explore creative ideas” (Spanish subsample: M = 5.31; SD = 1.34; and the US subsample: M = 5.22; SD = 1.4). The results for the second scale item “I have the knowledge on how to use digital tools creatively in the innovation process” closely follow the results for the first item (Spanish subsample: M = 5.13; SD = 1.42; and the US subsample: M = 5.05; SD = 1.48). Both subsamples have the same median values (Mdn = 6) for the first scale item and (Mdn = 5) for the second scale item. This indicates that there are no differences between the Spanish and the US subsamples for this particular dimension.

Discussion Since the two subsamples shared demographical similarities, it was expected that there would be a broad consensus among the respondents on most scale items. However, the subsamples have showcased several aspects that highlight and align with each country’s emphasis on digital skills, especially when looking at the first two dimensions: the digital information and data literacy, and digital communication and collaboration. In the area of information and data literacy skills, the Spanish subsample placed a higher emphasis on information and data processing skills, whereas the US subsample perceived that the evaluation of online sources was more important. Even though both subsamples believed that evaluating and integrating information from electronic sources was important to them, the results from this specific scale reflect Spain’s social and educational emphasis on teaching and learning digital skills and data information. The Spanish subsample also highlighted creativity in the responses related to communication, while the US subsample ranked the more pragmatic “editing and crafting” electronic messages as most important. These responses once again reflect the social and educational contexts of the two different countries. When it comes to digital collaboration skills, all respondents agree that using different online platforms for collaboration that is specific to different 436

“I have the skills to use digital tools and 8.8 technologies to explore creative ideas” “I have the knowledge on how to use digital tools 14.1 creatively in the innovation process”

76.1 69.7

15.1 16.2

437 5

6

Mdn

5.13

5.31

M 9.1

1.42 13.2

1.34

SD

11.3

19.2

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

US respondents

Spanish respondents

75.5

71.7

Agree

5

6

Mdn

Table 35.8 Dimension#6: Comparison between digital creativity and innovation in the Spanish and US subsamples (additional dimension)

5.05

5.22

M

1.48

1.40

SD

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

audiences is important. At the same time, both subsamples also agreed that social media platforms are used exclusively for non-professional engagement, therefore, potentially missing out on the collective wealth of knowledge that social networks that engage at professional levels could provide. Similarly, both subsamples agree that creativity, the ability to combine different media, and integrating technologies to explore and present ideas and content are important. Additionally, the respondents also agree that online safety is important, highlighting their awareness of the power of online bullying and other abusive tactics, combined with the knowledge and ability to keep track of their own digital footprint, and express their creativity through exploration, creation, and innovation while using their digital knowledge and skills. These findings are aligned with the body of literature that describes the digital natives, or the generations born since the internet became a well-known and household tool, which reflect the majority of the sample for this study (Kincl and Štrach 2021). It was interesting that while the two subsamples shared several similarities, including demographics as well as ranking of scale items, the Spanish subsample ranked higher in their perceptions on each of the scale items with very few exceptions. This aspect once again reflects the Spanish social, cultural, and educational context that focuses on the teaching and learning of digital skills, following the European Union framework. While the US respondents believe in their digital knowledge and skills, the results show a more tentative approach to formalizing and expressing that knowledge. Therefore, the US social work programs should highlight and emphasize the digital skills that are taught in the in-person or virtual classrooms, as well as through practice and professional engagements. This would provide a more distinct framework for social work students, as well as current and future practitioners, a framework where digital skills are not only part of the personal life or relegated to specific tasks but can be integrated and recognized as such throughout professional engagements from the micro to macro practice.

Limitations Given its non-experimental case study design and the very limited number of higher education and practice institutions involved in the research study, the findings cannot be generalized to the entire social work field. Furthermore, the validity and the reliability of the original instrument were compromised by the modifications made to the instrument in order to tailor it to the chosen research framework.

Recommendations for Social Work Education and Practice It is important that, through self-learning as well as through curricula and CEU development, social work students, educators, and practitioners learn how to: 1

Engage in data literacy. Data literacy is considered to be “the ability to read, work with, analyze, and communicate with data” (Qlik 2019). By becoming data literates, students, educators, and practitioners will be able to (a) develop 438

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies

2

3 4 5

6

7

the ability to accurately read data, (b) develop data analysis skills for the purpose of understanding various types of data and data sources, and (c) develop data utilization skills for the purpose of informed decision-making. Engage in digital literacy. “Being digitally literate means mastering these basic concepts [digital media representation, language, production, and audience] and acquiring a conceptual understanding of the Internet and digital media culture through these concepts” (Rantala 2010, 123). Develop and share new knowledge through professional networks, community, and inter-agency presentations, as well as professional peer-reviewed publications. Employ pertinent digital communication skills and encourage collaboration. Understand the constant threats to online safety and data security. Thus, it is important to raise awareness regarding: (1) how data can be misused or stolen by third parties and (2) possible new ethical challenges (e.g., identity verification, online confidentiality and anonymity, communication platform conformity with privacy regulations) (Button, Tapley, and Lewis 2013; Özsungur 2020). Employ judicious use of the existing online information for the purpose of problem solving. As a result, social work educators could teach their students discernment and critical thinking, while social work practitioners could save time and resources by drawing on the plethora of knowledge readily available online. Engage creatively in the development of digital content. This will assist social work educators to facilitate better learning experiences, while social work practitioners will be able to reach a wider client population and respond more effectively and efficiently to the specific needs of special populations.

Conclusion Currently, given the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, in some EU countries as well as in the USA, the use of technology has permeated many facets of the social work profession and education. As a result, in both geographical areas, more and more undergraduate and graduate social work programs have become available online. These programs have proven to be an ideal option for both traditional and non-traditional students given that they open the door for many individuals to pursue a degree in social work that otherwise may not be available to them. Additionally, social work field supervision and administration has been altered significantly to include many online components even for traditional and hybrid programs. The online mental health resources and services that were introduced into practice as early as 1982 with the development of remote self-help support groups (Reamer 2018) have been expanded to include a much wider range of digital options, thus enabling social workers to remotely engage with clients more efficiently and inexpensively. As a result, the consolidation of technology use within the social work field continues across various educational and practice areas. In the context of the different social work educational processes and curriculum foci in the two countries of study, the current research study’s primary focus was to 439

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al.

identify current perceptions of using digital technologies in social work education and practice through the lens of a digital competence framework. The adopted digital competence framework showed that various elements of the six dimensions/ areas identified (digital information and data literacy, digital communication and collaboration, digital content creation, digital/online safety, digital problem solving, and digital creativity and innovation) have current relevance in social work education and practice in both countries. Furthermore, the above-listed recommendations, if adopted, could lead to a more robust implementation of the digital competencies in social work education and practice.

References ANECA. 2004. White Paper. Degrees in Social Work. [Libro Blanco. Título de Grado en Trabajo Social]. Madrid: ANECA. www.aneca.es Banks, S., T. Cai, E. de Jonge, J. Shears, M. Shum, A. Sobocan, and M. Weinberg. 2020. Ethical Challenges for Social Workers during COVID: 19. A Global Perspective. Rheinfelden, Switzerland: International Federation of Social Workers. Accessed on 19 July 2020, at www.ifsw.org Boletin Oficial Del Estado. January 29, 2015. Disposiciones generales. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura, y Deporte. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2015/01/29/pdfs/BOE-A-2015-738.pdf Button, M., J. Tapley, and C. Lewis. 2013. “The ‘fraud justice network’ and the infrastructure of support for individual fraud victims in England and Wales.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 13: 37–61. Castilla, F. J., and E. Virseda. 2016. “Inclusión de competencias digitales en los estudios de grado en Trabajo Social.” Opción 32(9): 802–820. https://produccioncientificaluz.org/ index.php/opcion/article/view/21776 Colas Bravo, P., P. Magnoler, and J. Conde-Jiménez. 2018. “Identification of levels of sustainable consciousness of teachers in training through an E-Portfolio.” Sustainability 10(3700): 1–18. Doi: 10.3390/su10103700 Consejo General del Trabajo Social. 2020. Social Work and COVID-19. [Trabajo Social ante el COVID-19]. Madrid: Consejo General del Trabajo Social. www.CGtrabajosocial.es CSWE. 2015. 2015 Educational Policies and Accreditation Standards. Council on Social Work Education. https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/ 2015-EPAS/2015EPASandGlossary.pdf CSWE. 2019. 2022 EPAS. Council on Social Work Education. https://www.cswe.org/ Accreditation/Information/2022-EPAS CSWE. 2022. Early Accreditation. Council on Social Work Education. https://www.cswe.org/ about-cswe/cswe-a-brief-history/early-accreditation/ Diaconu, M., L. D. Racovita, D. Carbonero Muñoz, and S. J. Flaubert. 2019. “Social work educators’ perceived barriers to teaching with technology: the impact on preparing students to work with younger clients.” Social Work Education 39(6): 785–812. doi: 10.1080/ 02615479.2019.1683155 Diario Oficial de Extremadura. 2015. Resolución de 2 de junio de 2015, de la Secretaría General de Educación por la que se publica el Porfolio de Competencia Digital Docente de Extremadura. Diario Oficial de Extremadura. Obtenido de recursos.educarex.es/pdf/porfolio/porfolio/ publicadoendoe.pdf Duffin, E. February 6, 2020. E-Learning and Digital Education – Statistics and Facts. Statista. https:// www.statista.com/topics/3115/e-learning-and-digital-education/#topicHeader__wrapper EKORIS UK. 2016. Digital Skills for the UK Economy. EORIS UK. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492889/ DCMSDigitalSkillsReportJan2016.pdf

440

Social Work Practice and Technology Competencies eL4w Project (n.d.). Learning to Learn for New Digital Soft Skills for Employability. eLene4work. http://elene4work.eu European Commission. 2018. Commission Staff Working Document: Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Key Competences for LifeLong Learning. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri = CELEX:52018SC0014&from = EN European Commission (n.d.). The Digital Competence Framework 2.0. www.joint-research-centre. ec.europa.eu https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcomp/digital-competenceframework-20_en García, F., and E. Virseda. 2016. “Integrating digital competencies in social work higher education [Inclusión de competencias digitales en los estudios de grado en Trabajo Social].” Opción 32(9): 802–820. https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/opcion/ article/view/21776 Gardner, L. 2020. “COVID-19 has forced higher ed to pivot to online learning. Here are 7 takeaways so far.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 20(5): 1–6. https://www.chronicle. com/article/covid-19-has-forced-higher-ed-to-pivot-to-online-learning-here-are-7-takeaways-so-far/ Hecker, I., and P. Loprest. 2019. Foundational Digital Skills for Career Progress. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100843/foundational_digital_ skills_for_career_progress_2.pdf Hubackova, S. 2015. “History and perspectives of elearning.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191: 1187–1190. ISSN 1877-0428, 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.594. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815028542 IASSW. 2019. Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles. www.ifsw.org/global-socialwork-statement-of-ethical-principles/ IASSW. 2020. Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development: Fourth Report. Strengthening recognition of the importance of human relationships. Rheinfelden, Switzerland: David, N. Jones. IFSW. https://www.ifsw.org/social-work-action/the-global-agenda/ Ikanos. (n.d.). Ikanos.eus. Accessed at Ikanos.eus: https://ikanos.eus/ Jasen, E., M. Magnée, J. Teunisse, and N. Zwiekker. 2015. “Capabilities, technology and the social world. Challenges and opportunities for social worker education.” Der Pädagogische Blick 23: 147–156. Kincl, T., and P. Štrach. 2021. “Born digital: Is there going to be a new culture of digital natives?” Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 31(1): 30–48. DOI: 10.1080/ 21639159.2020.1808811 Larsen, A. K., R. Sanders, A. Arias Atray, and G. O. Hole. 2008. “E-teacher challenges and competences in international comparative social work courses.” Social Work Education 27(6): 623–633. doi: 10.1080/0261547080220 Ligon, J., and J. Ward. 2005. “A National Study of the Field Liaison Role in Social Work Education Programs in the United States and Puerto Rico.” Social Work Education 24(2) (March 2005): 235–243. doi: 10.1080/0261547052000333153. Miltchev, R., and N. Chehlarova. 2020. “Development of digital competencies and skills in the field of use of cloud services and electronic communication.” Science, Engineering & Education 5(1): 41–50. https://dl.uctm.edu/see/node/jsee2020-1/7_20-07_p_41-50. pdf Mochari-Greenberger, H., and R. L. Pande. 2021. “Behavioral Health in America During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Meeting increased needs through access to high quality virtual care.” American Journal of Health Promotion 35(2): 312–317. 10.1177/0890117120983982d. NASW. 2021. Code of Ethics. National Association of Social Workers. https://www. socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English Özsungur, F. 2020. “Network security and privacy in social work.” Journal of Sensor Networks and Data Communications 6(1): 1–4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 344947460_Network_Security_and_Privacy_in_Social_Work Qlik. 2019. Data Literacy. https://www.qlik.com/us/bi/data-literacy

441

Domingo Carbonero Muñoz et al. Racovita-Szilagyi, L., D. Carbonero Muñoz, and M. Diaconu. 2018. “Challenges and opportunities to eLearning in social work education: perspectives from Spain and the United States.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 836–849. Rantala, L. 2010. “Chapter 6 – Digital literacies as school practices.” In Practising Information Literacy, edited by A. Lloyd and S. Talja, 121–141. Chandos Publishing, ISBN 9781876938796. 10.1016/B978-1-876938-79-6.50006-6. ( https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/B9781876938796500066) Reamer, F. 2018. “Ethical standards for social workers’ use of technology: Emerging consensus.” Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics 15(2): 71–80. Sen, R., B. Featherstone, A. Gupta, C. Kerr, C. McIntyre, and A. Quinn-Aziz. 2020. “Reflections on social work 2020 under Covid-19 online magazine.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1116–1126. 10.1080/02615479.2020.1823364 Smoyer, A. B., K. O’Brien, and E. Rodriguez-Keyes. 2020. “Lessons learned from COVID-19: Being known in online social work classrooms.” International Social Work 63(5): 651–654. 10.1177/0020872820940021 Streiner, D. L. 2000. “Do you see what I mean? Indices of central tendency.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 45: 833–836. Tavangarian, D., M. Leypold, K. Nölting, M. Röser, and D. Voigt. 2004. “Is e-learning the solution for individual learning?” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 2(2): 273–280. van Laar, E., A. van Deursen, and J. van Djik. 2020. “Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review.” SAGE OPEN 10(1): 1–14. doi: 10.1177/215824401990 Vázquez-Cano, E., V. Marín Díaz, G. A. Maldonado Berea, and E. García-Garzón. 2017. “La competencia digital del alumnado universitario de ciencias sociales desde una perspectiva de género.” Prisma Social 19: 348–367. Vuorikari, R., I. Punie, S. Carretero, and L. Van den Brande. 2016. DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. JRC Science for Policy Report by Joint Research Centre, European Union. Waller, G., M. Pugh, S. Mulkens, E. Moore, V. A. Mountford, I. Carter, A. Wickstreet, A. Maharaj, T. D. Wade, L. Wisniewski, and N. R. Farrell. 2020. “Cognitive‐behavioral therapy in the time of coronavirus: Clinician tips for working with eating disorders via telehealth when face‐to‐face meetings are not possible.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 53(7): 1132–1141. 10.1002/eat.23289 Youn, E. 2017. “The relationship between technology content in a master of social work curriculum and technology use. Social work practices: A qualitative research study.” Journal of Technology in Human Service 25(1/2): 45–59. doi: 10.1300/J017v25n01_03

442

36 PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION IN SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS DEALING WITH EMERGENCY SITUATIONS A Digital Social Work Perspective Ángel De-Juanas, Francisco Javier García-Castilla, and Raquel Pelta

Introduction Most experts would agree in defining humanitarian aid as material and logistical assistance provided to people in need in response to crisis situations caused by natural disasters or human actions (wars, armed conflicts, persecutions, etc.), and also indicate that the objectives of humanitarian aid are to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity (Rouleau and Redwood-Campbell 2009; De Torrenté 2013; Montes del Castillo and Montes Martínez 2020; Abrisketa and Pérez de Armiño n.d.; Humanitarian Coalition n.d., among others). This coincides, wholeheartedly, with the objectives of social work, an academic discipline ‘that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people’ (IFSW n.d., paragraph 1). The immediate intervention of social workers in such situations is imperative and includes responsibilities such as accompanying and supporting victims as well as providing psychosocial counselling. However, Ábalo (2011, 138) highlights that social worker intervention is essential for multiple reasons, and that this role is also critical in the construction of social capital for sustainable disaster relief and management. In line with Ábalo (2011), Castillo de Mesa and López Peláez (2019) argue that in social emergencies, social workers play a strategic role by making existing resources available to service users. Once social workers have assessed the needs of the population, they are responsible for finding and managing resources; activating communication and solidarity networks;

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-43

443

Ángel De-Juanas et al.

setting intervention objectives; ensuring action and coordination mechanisms are in place between different organisations; and fostering people’s social development and resilience by providing mechanisms to help them to recover from the situation. However, resilience in the context of a disaster must be understood as something that affects an entire population and not just the individual, in other words, community resilience. The role of the social worker is also important in developing disaster management programmes for prevention and recovery, designing scenarios, and planning measures and means to deal with humanitarian crises. From a human rights perspective, they also work for ‘human dignity, participation, equitable use of resources, transparency, accountability, and the obligation of governments to protect people’s rights during disasters’ (Barney 2020, 28). Moreover, social workers’ sphere of action is now expanding owing to the emergence of the still incipient phenomenon of digital social work (e-Social work). This environment of digital infrastructures and social networks connects individuals globally and enables them to reach places that were previously difficult or practically impossible to access (García-Castilla et al. 2018). Thus, for example, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, social workers were able to attend to people confined to their homes, manage resources, and mobilise and monitor groups remotely using Information and Communication Technologies. However, while social networks connect users and bring together communication and solidarity networks (Castillo de Mesa and López Peláez 2019), digital social workers also have their own collaborative work platforms (for example, Miro, Mural, Microsoft whiteboard, Creately, monday, among others) and videoconferencing platforms (Skype, Google Meet, Zoom, etc.) at their disposal. This makes it possible to organise workshops in real time – when they cannot be held in person – to share ideas, encourage active dialogue and build group knowledge in order to reach consensus and make commitments – actions that are at the core of participatory evaluation. Although we live in increasingly digitalised societies, we cannot ignore the digital divide. This phenomenon primarily affects the most disadvantaged and tends to increase during humanitarian emergencies. However, from a participatory evaluation perspective, e-Social work can reduce the divide by bringing technology closer to users, training them in its use and empowering them by taking into account their voices and experiences. As a result, this chapter presents partial results from the Erasmus+ KA2 project – Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices (InovHumbRE Projects). The main objective of the programme was to analyse data about the types of participatory evaluation methods used by different organisations involved in the project in the context of emergency situations. It also aimed to 1) assess the participatory evaluation actions performed by the organisations participating in the study; 2) determine the main strengths and weaknesses of the evaluations performed by the organisations; 3) identify the participatory evaluation actions developed by the organisations in response to emergency situations and 4) investigate the digital tools used by the organisations to perform online evaluations. This chapter selectively analyses the demographic findings and those related to the use of digital tools. Regarding this last section, it is observed that participants from their organisations have used conventional digital tools 444

Participatory Evaluation

on occasion for collaborative communication in social work carried out in emergency situations for various purposes. Namely, for intervention, communication between professionals and organisations, training and for evaluation processes.

Methodology A mixed research approach was used to analyse quantitative and qualitative data collected from professionals working in social organisations, using a non-generalisable descriptive and interpretive method.

Participants Purposive sampling was used based on an analysis of the main non-profit organisations (NGDOs) in Spain working in emergency situations. Participant recruitment was performed by the Fundación Magtel given its connections and easy access to the sampling units. In order to achieve greater saturation, participants were asked to send the questionnaire to others to increase participation via snowball sampling. The selection of participants was based on the criterion that they had to be managers and/or professionals of leading non-profit organisations in Spain involved in emergency situations in the field of social services. A total of 14 participants from various social organisations and entities participated in the study. The data from each individual, in relation to the organisation in which they work, are presented in the results section.

Research Method A 30-item questionnaire in an open and closed-ended response format was used. The questionnaire was administered asynchronously by sending an email access link (Bryman 2012), of which, for this publication, only items 1 to 8 and 27 to 30 are analysed. The tool design was based on three criteria (Flick 2018): a focus on the themes relevant to the study; the object of study, and the process to understand the object of study. To this end, a brief presentation about the study was made and a funnel logic approach was followed to divide the questionnaire. The questions were arranged from general to more specific in order to encourage participation and focus the participants’ attention on each of the research topics. The items analysed were then distributed into four large sections including: 1 2

Socio-demographic data pertaining to the participating organisations and the participatory evaluations they perform (8 items: 1–8) Participatory assessment and online digital tools (4 items: 27–30)

Procedure The questionnaire on participatory evaluation in emergency situations was conducted online via Google Forms (part of Google’s web-based apps suite) during the months of 445

Ángel De-Juanas et al.

June and July 2021. Prior to sending the questionnaire, a review was performed by several research collaborators in line with the intersubjective verifiability criterion inherent to such research processes (Pérez 1994). The versatility of the software helped to reduce research costs in terms of resources and distribution time. Similarly, it also minimises the social desirability of the participants’ responses as there is no direct, faceto-face intervention by the researchers during the narration of the discourse (Fricker and Schonlau 2002). The questionnaire was performed with the consent of the participants once they had been informed of the purpose of the study, in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Data Analysis The participants’ responses were systematically processed using a database automatically generated in Google Sheets. Quantitative data were analysed to provide descriptive statistics, percentages and frequencies. The qualitative data were analysed taking into account the content of the participants’ responses and systematically processing the statements made in answer to the open-ended questions. A simple category system was created to structure and organise the open discourse data. The data units were then subjected to a process of open coding to split them into different categories (Strauss and Corbin 2002; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Kuckartz and Rädiker 2019).

Results I.

Participating organisations and the participatory evaluations they perform

Participatory evaluation is defined by Núñez and Úcar (2013, 44) who argue that participatory evaluation is ‘a social and educative methodological strategy that privileges knowledge and experience of the people in each community where these [evaluation] processes are implemented, a strategy that aims to evaluate the programs but also generate shared learning, to stimulate people and groups and enable the structuring and transformation of the territory. Participatory evaluation combines the expertise in the evaluation of the community technicians with the knowledge of community members about their own lives and circumstances’ [sic]. From this precept, the information in the sections under Epigraph I is compiled. A total of 14 representatives from 13 organisations, all NGDOs, responded to the questionnaire, namely: Red Cross Spain, CODENAF, Open Arms, ONG AIRE, Asociación de Apoyo al Pueblo Sirio (AAPS), Infancia sin Fronteras, Asociación Diversidades, Fundación Prolibertas (2 representatives), DIACONIA, Farmacéuticos sin fronteras de España, Asociación Paz y Bien, Plan Internacional España, and Fundación Sevilla Acoge. Most of the participants in the study stated that their organisations perform participatory evaluations (N = 10, 71.4%), while only four (28.6%) stated that they did not. 446

Participatory Evaluation Table 36.1 Types of participatory evaluations performed by social organisations Internal evaluation

External evaluation

Final evaluations of plans, programmes and projects aimed at practitioners’ own performance. (9 statements) ‘Internal or external evaluations (mainly through local universities).’ ‘Overall evaluations of implemented projects.’ ‘Mid-term and final evaluations of external and internal development cooperation and humanitarian aid grants/projects, real time review and post-distribution monitoring.’ ‘Evaluations for strategic, equality, and quality plans, for human resources.’ Interim participatory evaluations for monitoring and for resolving situations and/or reaching agreements. (3 statements) ‘Mid-term and final evaluations of external and internal development cooperation and humanitarian aid grants/projects, real time review and post-distribution monitoring.’ Evaluations of training courses. (2 statements) ‘Evaluation of training courses.’ External evaluations of satisfaction with the care received answered by users. (3 statements) ‘We have developed an evaluation for the beneficiaries with a final questionnaire on the satisfaction of the refugee programmes.’ ‘Internal and external evaluations (mainly through local universities).’

Types of Participatory Evaluations Performed by the Organisations Qualitative data was collected on the types of participatory evaluations performed by the NGDOs. The main categories were established on the basis of the statements collected. Some examples are given in Table 36.1:

Conducting Participatory Evaluations: In-house Capacity and Outsourcing Participants were asked whether their organisations had the internal capacity to perform participatory evaluations and almost all stated that they did (N = 12, 85.7%), while only two participants stated that they did not (14.3%). This response corresponds to the fact that 11 of the participating organisations stated that they do not outsource more than 25% of the evaluations they conduct, while only one participant (7.1%) stated that their organisation outsources less than 50% of the evaluations they conduct. In turn, two participants stated that their organisations outsource between 75% and 100% of the evaluations they conduct (see Figure 36.1).

447

Ángel De-Juanas et al. 1.2 7.1

78.6 Less than 25%

Figure 36.1

25-50%

51-75%

More than 75%

Participatory evaluations outsourced by organisations

Staff Involved in or Responsible for Evaluations Participants were asked about the number of staff in their organisations who participate in or are responsible for the participatory evaluations they perform. The results show that seven participants responded that less than 25% of staff are involved, while only two participants (14.3%) responded that staff participation was half or just under. In turn, four key informants responded that more than half of the staff participate, but not more than 75% (28.6%). Only one participant responded that staff participation was very high, over 75% (see Figure 36.2).

Demand in Participatory Evaluation Training In relation to the participatory evaluation training that participants felt they should receive in order to improve evaluation processes, 12 open-ended responses were collected and organised into three broad categories (see Table 36.2). 7.1

28.6 5000%

14.3 Less than 25%

Figure 36.2

25-50%

51-75%

More than 75%

Entity staff involved in or responsible for evaluations

448

Participatory Evaluation Table 36.2 Demands in participatory evaluation training Quantitative and qualitative impact indicators of final and process evaluations by different actors involved in the intervention Evaluation methodologies and techniques

Evaluation plan design

II.

(4 quotes) ‘Training in impact assessment’; ‘Knowing how to approach indicators in a way that corresponds to real needs.’ (6 quotes). ‘Evaluation techniques.’ ‘Methodologies in MfDR,’ ‘Training in evaluation applied to international cooperation,’ ‘Community and participatory approach evaluation methodologies.’ (2 quotes). ‘Learning about which methodology is more appropriate for each stage and for each process,’ ‘Definition of protocols and unified forms to evaluate the same indicators.’

Participatory evaluation and online digital tools for social work and intervention in emergencies

López Peláez and Marcuello Servós (2018, 28) argue that digital technologies are changing the nature and practice of social intervention given that, ‘The range of digital procedures has opened up a broader dimension in research, therapies, interventions and social networks in the field,’ and ‘affects all our [social worker] activities transversally’ even in the traditional field ‘giving rise to new areas of specialisation,’ which irrefutably includes humanitarian aid. Participants were asked whether their organisations had ever used conventional digital tools for collaborative communication in social work performed in emergency situations. Most participants said that they did (N = 11, 84.6%), while two said that they did not (15.4%). Those who responded that they did use digital tools also responded when they used them and for what purpose. Their responses are shown below, broken down by category Table 36.3: It is observed that the usefulness of digital tools increases in adverse contexts. For the development of social work in humanitarian emergencies, digital tools have been a great resource for social intervention and thus avoid the risk of collapse and the impossibility of attending to the target population. Thanks to these tools, interventions have maintained open channels of synchronous and asynchronous communication that have enabled actions for social change from a distance. In this sense, in reference to this, it is important to mention that Madsen (2007) and McLaughlin (2009) have both stated that users are ‘experts by experience’ who are capable of critically analysing their own experiences. In consequence, ‘the subject of social work is the provision of the context in which people can solve their own … problems in collaboration with social workers’ (Kustec 2020). This is where the promotion and empowerment of the target 449

Ángel De-Juanas et al. Table 36.3 Use of digital tools for social work in emergency situations Intervention

•

•

Communication between professionals and entities

• •

•

Training

• • •

•

Assessment

•

‘With the pandemic … these tools have become fundamental resources for intervention, and without them there would have been a collapse in social interventions.’ ‘In all projects, especially for workshops and meetings with target populations. To have direct contact and receive their message in person.’ ‘Zoom connections and the like with beneficiaries.’ ‘With the pandemic … these tools have become fundamental resources for intervention, and without them there would have been a collapse in social interventions.’ ‘In all projects, especially for workshops and meetings with target populations. To have direct contact and receive their messages in person.’ ‘Zoom connections and the like with beneficiaries.’ ‘E-learning platforms.’ ‘During the COVID-19 pandemic, to rethink the training strategy and methodology for an investment and production project in rural Andean areas.’ ‘For team-building talks, surveys, immediate collaborative communication, sharing of activities and problem-solving.’ ‘Monitoring and assessments due to COVID-19 restrictions and lockdown.’

group, through the use of participatory methods, become particularly important in the diagnosis stage (Trull-Oliva et al. 2022). In the same way, greater coordination between professionals and social entities with public institutions is important to shorten timeframes, analyse information, as well as avoid unnecessary risks in difficult environments. The Good Enough Guide (Oxfam 2007) emphasises that in some social emergencies, data gathering can be difficult and dangerous for both project staff and beneficiaries. As a result, it is important to coordinate with other local and international organisations and involve women and men in the assessment team given that an all-male team might find it difficult to assess women’s vulnerabilities. In turn, the existence of power dynamics cannot be ignored (Falkenburg 2021), which might make beneficiary participation difficult to implement due to factors such as community organisation, level of education, local politics, etc. (PROLOG 2007). The participants also responded on the level of use of conventional digital tools for participatory evaluations performed by NGDOs. They scored their responses from 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not at all’ and 5 being ‘all the time.’ None of the participants gave a score of 5. The level of use was scored as follows: not at all (N = 2, 15.4%), a little 450

Participatory Evaluation

(N = 1, 7.7%), quite a lot (N = 4, 30.8%), a lot (N = 6, 46.2%). The results show that most organisations use conventional digital tools ‘quite a lot’ and ‘a lot.’ Among the most commonly used tools are: WhatsApp (N = 9, 33%), Zoom (N = 8, 31.3%), Skype (N = 2, 5.4%); WeChat (N = 1, 2.7%); LINE (N = 1, 2.7%), Facebook Messenger (N = 1, 2.7%); Teams (N = 1, 2.7%); Adobe Connect (N = 1, 2.7%), Drive (Forms) (N = 1, 2.7%); Google Forms (N = 1, 2.7%), Meet (Google) (N = 1, 2.7%), among others. These results show that the most used tools are WhatsApp for mobile and desktop messaging; Zoom for online meetings and video calls, and Skype for video calls. On the other hand, digital tools have also facilitated the development of training actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, synchronous tools such as Zoom, Skype, Teams, Meet (Google) or Whatsapp have been used as synchronous communication tools, or blogs, forums or email as asynchronous communication in a multitude of educational and professional spaces. In addition, monitoring and measuring the impact of interventions, the establishment of indicators adjusted to each reality to be analysed, the use of evaluation techniques focused on international cooperation, the design of participatory evaluation methodologies from a community approach, or the definition of protocols and ad hoc forms have also been used for evaluation. All of this has demonstrated that, in the face of restrictions and confinements, greater digitalised planning of social entities can be carried out through a participatory evaluation model in emergency situations. In short, we have seen that in the Information and Knowledge Society, the use and development of technology can favour social interventions and participatory evaluations in certain projects and/or situations with the aim of making people’s lives easier. To this end, it is important that the development of digital social work continues to advance as a further indicator in the development of the wellbeing and functioning of both cities and areas with few resources. To address these difficulties, e-Social work supports and extends face-to-face social work interventions through its valuable contribution to the different stages of participatory evaluation – preparatory actions, plan design, construction of knowledge, and the dissemination and exploitation of results (Rotondo 2001). We cannot end without highlighting the importance of training social workers in the digital competences they must acquire as active professionals (García-Castilla et al. 2017), as well as those professionals active in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula in the field of social emergencies. It is clear from the findings of this study that increased opportunities are required for training in participatory evaluation using digital tools that facilitate monitoring methodologies, indicators adapted to each type of emergency, online reporting, measuring the impact of interventions, as well as the use of protocols and forms for immediate response applied expertly by each social entity.

References Ábalo, J. L. 2011. “Respuesta a un desastre y recuperación: el papel de los trabajadores sociales en centrelink –una agencia australiana.” Revista de Servicios Sociales y Política Social 94: 137–154.

451

Ángel De-Juanas et al. https://www.cgtrabajosocial.es/app/webroot/revista_digital/publicas/no_94_intervencion_ social_en_situaciones_de_emergencias_sociales_ii/ [Fecha de consulta: 19/01/2022]. Abrisketa, J., and K. Pérez de Armiño. (s.f.). “Acción humanitaria: concepto y evolución.” Diccionario de Acción Humanitaria y Cooperación al Desarrollo. Universidad del País Vasco/ Hegoa. https://www.dicc.hegoa.ehu.eus/listar/mostrar/1 Barney, R. 2020. “How social workers can use a human rights approach to disasters: Lessons learned from the international community.” Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 5: 28–38. 10.1007/s41134-019-00111-2. Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Castillo de Mesa, J., and A. López Peláez. 2019. “Redes sociales online y emergencias sociales.” In Respuestas del Trabajo Social ante emergencias sociales y problemáticas complejas de México y España, edited by L. Cano Soriano, and E. Pastor Seller. Madrid: Dykinson. Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Oaks, CA: SAGE. De Torrent‚, N. (2013). “The Relevance and Effectiveness of Humanitarian Aid: Reflections about the Relationship between Providers and Recipients.” Social Research 80(2): 607–634. Falkenburg, N. 2021. “An introduction to participatory monitoring and evaluation: the missing link between inquiry and impact.” ActivityInfo. https://www.activityinfo.org/ blog/posts/2021-03-15-an-introduction-to-participatory-monitoring-and-evaluationthe-missing-link-between-inquiry-and-impact.html Flick, U. 2018. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Los Ángeles: SAGE. Fricker, S., and M. Schonlau. 2002. “Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys: evidence to the literature.” Field Methods 14: 347–367. García-Castilla, F. J., Á. De-Juanas, and J. Páez Gallego. 2017. “E-social work and the digital skills in the training of social workers.” In Comunidades sostenibles: dilemas y retos desde el trabajo social, edited by A. Lima. Editorial ARANZADI, S.A.U. García-Castilla, F. J., Á. De-Juanas Oliva, E. Vírseda-Sanz, and J. Páez Gallego. 2018. “Educational potential of e-social work: social work training in Spain.” European Journal of Social Work. DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1476327 Humanitarian Coalition. n.d.. “What is a humanitarian emergency?” Humanitarian Coalition. En: https://www.humanitariancoalition.ca/what-is-a-humanitarian-emergency [Fecha de consulta: 19/01/2022]. IFSW. n.d. “Definición global del Trabajo Social.” International Federation of Social Workers. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/definicionglobal-del-trabajo-social/ Kuckartz, U., and S. Rädiker. 2019. Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio and Video. Cham: Springer. Kustec, K. 2020. “The spiral participatory model in social work with creative media.” Ljetopis socijalnog rada 27(1): 179–194. 10.3935/ljsr.v27i1.250 López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello Servós. 2018. “El Trabajo Social en la Sociedad Digital.” Servicios Sociales y Política Social, XXXV (116). https://www.serviciossocialesypoliticasocial. com/-34 Madsen, W. C. 2007. Collaborative Therapy with Multi-stressed Families, 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press. McLaughlin, H. 2009. “What’s in a name: “Client”, “patient”, “customer”, “consumer”, “expert by experience”, “service user”—what’s next?” British Journal of Social Work 39: 1101–1117. 10.1093/bjsw/bcm155 Montes del Castillo, A., and A. Montes Martínez. 2020. “Formas de Cooperación al Desarrollo y funciones del Trabajo Social.” Universitas. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 33: 145–162. 10.17163/uni.n33.2020.07 Núñez, H., and X. Úcar. 2013. “Participatory evaluation of community actions as social and educational intervention strategy. Theoretical and methodological contributions.” PEDAGOGY Theory & Praxis 8: 44–55. En: https://www.academia.edu/5389947/

452

Participatory Evaluation Participatory_Evaluation_of_Community_actions_as_social_and_educational_intervention_strategy_Theoretical_and_methodological_contributions_2013_ Oxfam. 2007. The Good Enough Guide. Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies. London: Oxfam. in: https://www.alnap.org/help-library/good-enough-guide-impactmeasurement-and-accountability-in-emergencies Pérez, G. 1994. “Investigación cualitativa.” Retos e interrogantes. Vol.II. Técnicas y análisis de datos. La Muralla. PROLOG Consult. 2007. Evaluation of Humanitarian Aid by and for NGOs. A Guide with Ideas to Consider When Designing Your Own Evaluation Activities. European Commission. Humanitarian Aid. https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/evaluation/2007/humanitarian_guide.pdf Rotondo, E. 2001, 2008. Guía de evaluación participativa para proyectos de desarrollo rural cofinanciados por el FIDA. «Todos aprenden y enseñan». Ruta de Aprendizaje PREVAL y PROCASUR. https://evalparticipativa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/04.-guc3adade-evaluacic3b3n-participativa-proyectos-desarrollo-rural.pdf Rouleau, K., and Redwood‐Campbell, L. (2009). “International development and humanitarian aid. In times of economic crisis, should Canada maintain its spending?” Canadian Family Physician. Le M‚decin de famille canadien. 55: 575–577. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 2002. Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Colombia: Colección Contus. Trull-Oliva, C., A. Janer, L. Corbella, P. Soler-Masó, and J. González-Martínez. 2022. “Sobre las estrategias metodológicas de los/as educadores/as para contribuir al empoderamiento juvenil.” Educación XX1 25(1): 459–483. 10.5944/educXX1.30014

453

37 DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK IN ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY TIMES The Italian Experience Roberta T. Di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici

Introduction All over the world, and in Italy as well, the pandemic crisis has accelerated a digitization process, in almost all workplaces, as well as in our personal life. The emerging phenomena that, until a few years ago, scholars of various disciplines theorized by coining new terms such as “information society” (Castells 1997), “net economy” (Shapiro and Varian 1999), “digital revolution” (Coyle 2008) have now assumed such relevance that they have become an integral part of contemporary societies. The generalized lockdown offered further possibilities of experimenting with digital technologies, which seem to work to integrate, if not replace, functions traditionally performed in presence. In the digital era, also social work, traditionally based on face-to-face social relationships, has been pushed to integrate communication technologies, that are offering new possibilities, as well as challenges for social work practice (Dominelli 2005; Csiernik et al. 2006; Hill and Ferguson 2014; Mishna et al. 2014; López Peláez et al. 2018; Byrne and Kirwan 2019; Fontana 2019). As in other countries, in Italy the introduction of numerous platforms, whose use exploded during the quarantine, provided opportunities previously underestimated if not ignored, to meet and interact with people in various digital contexts. In this chapter, we explore how Italian social work has adapted to these unprecedented changes, considering its still uncommon and much unexplored use of digital resources in the pre-pandemic stage.

454

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-44

Digital Social Work in Italy

Digitalization Processes Before the Pandemic Even if social work has been involved in processes of transformations induced by ICT (Banzato et al. 2002; Rideout 2008; López Peláez and Marcuello Servos 2018), the studies of specific national situations show profound differences. In terms of human capital, before the pandemic among European Union countries, Italy ranked 26th, with an average of 32.6% compared to the EU average of 48%. Only 44% of Italians between 16 and 74 had basic digital skills, while the percentage of people who had intermediate digital skills was equal to 19% (The Digital Economy Society Index 2019). Even more worrying was the figure of the habitual use of the Internet by young people between 16 and 24 years of age, which sees Italy in the last position among the 28 EU member countries with a percentage of 92%, compared to a 97% average of the EU (The Digital Economy Society Index 2019). In the latest Skills Outlook 2019 report, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development depicted a worrying scenario: the Italian population did not, in fact, possessed the basic skills necessary to thrive in a digital world. Only 21% of the population between 16 and 65 had a satisfactory level of digital literacy, reaching level 3 of the specific PIAAC (Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) test; only 36% were able to use the Internet in a complex and diversified way1 (OECD 2019). Italy have been suffering from various structural deficiencies, made even more acute in the last decade by the economic policy recipes adopted for the restructuring of the exponential national public debt. The factors that have hampered the development of digital competences in Italy are complex and intertwined: the lack of computer literacy in education, the slowness in the activation of services and infrastructures to facilitate the diffusion of technologies, cultural factors, such as the low perception of usefulness of digital tools within society, socio-economic variables, as well as the digital divide in specific population groups (Di Rosa et al. 2019). A duality of the attitude toward digital technologies has been observed: on the one hand, organizations and workplaces with super-speed and hyper-connections, on the other hand, social services with network infrastructural deficiencies (Auriemma and Iannaccone 2020). The reasons for this duality are to be sought in the considerable delay in attention on the part of Italian politics and industry, not able to foster the development of new technologies at the dawn of the information revolution since the Seventies, when the first experiments were initiated and implemented in other countries (Caio et al. 2014). In the public sector, the first pioneering attempts at coordinating policies and the experiences of computerization at a national level can only be traced back to 1993, with the establishment of the Authority for Information Technology in public administration. The introduction of digital technologies in social work is even more recent. (Di Rosa et al. 2018) found that in Italy, the first online presences of social workers originated and developed only in the early years of the Second Millennium, thanks to the research for innovation carried out by some associations of social workers (Asit, SOS, Servizi Sociali On Line, etc.).

455

Roberta T. Di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici

Starting from the past decade, in several professional contexts, the use of technology for experimentation on new channels started to be seen as an opportunity to get out of the professional operational difficulties emerged in austerity times (Bruni et al. 2013; Di Rosa et al. 2019). The digital field has been perceived as a resilient form and useful strategy for bringing key welfare issues into the public debate, stimulating and spreading social innovations (products, services and models) in responding to social needs. In addition, it offered the possibility to create new social relationships and partnerships (Murray, Grice, and Mulgan 2014, 1–4), and showed how the use of social media (FB, Twitter, Istagram, etc.) allows new ways of relating, organizing projects and getting together. This forward impulse towards innovation in communication and management of social problems had strongly called into question social work practice, requiring the restructuring of the profession and the practitioners’ working conditions. Moreover, it drew attention to the need to rethink university education and lifelong education of social workers. However, the attitude towards digital practices in social work remained one of ambivalence. On the one hand, they were perceived as a way of facilitating contacts and relations between colleagues and service users. On the other hand, in professional and organizational cultures – still very much centered on “physical presence”, and mainly based on meetings and interviews not mediated by technologies – the professionals pioneering new digital practices were viewed with a certain degree of diffidence by colleagues who were still digitally illiterate, or who saw in the digital environment only a space for entertainment (if not also of deviance and asociality). Also in the academy, until recently, no significant investment was made to develop digital competencies within the social work courses. In 2020, a new social work code of ethics was approved in Italy (CNOAS 2020), acknowledging for the first time “international indications on the use of new information and communication technologies”. Article 21 sets out rules of conduct related to the social media use, consistent with the principles of the profession, and Article 37 expressly refers to the rules for privacy in digital contexts. In this move, the way has been opened up for the use of digital means by social workers, with the consequent need for the development of their digital capabilities in order to meet professional standards, fulfill social work values and ethics, enable relationship-based practice, and connect people to online groups and virtual spaces for support.

Suddenly Digital: Transformations in Social Work Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic The pandemic has imposed substantial stress on the social, economic and mental well-being of individuals and communities, and has brought unprecedented disruptions into social life. The use of digital technologies has been regarded as an alternative to maintain economic and social activities and interactions. A survey carried out in April 2020 (Sanfelici et al. 2020), during the first weeks of the outbreak in Italy, made evident some of the immediate consequences of the health crisis. The study revealed how a lack of, or the unavailability of, personal protection equipment forced the switch to remote working for the majority of social 456

Digital Social Work in Italy

workers: 22.0% were working from home only and 41.5% were alternating days at the office and days at home. Digital technologies became a way to tackle the dilemma raised from one of the most difficult trade-offs in this time: staying united and together as a way of caring, and the necessity to stay at a distance to ensure the safety of workers and service users. However, a frequently reported problem was related to the unpreparedness of both professionals and agencies in the use of digital technologies. During the first weeks of the crisis, the unavailability of platforms, smartphones, or adequate broadband connections was partially tackled through personal tools, suggesting that the use of digital technologies was more widespread in the personal life of social workers than in their workplaces. In the majority of cases (Sanfelici et al. 2020), improvisation and common sense were the main guides in this stage, with different reactions of professionals to the new working conditions. Some of the social workers were mainly “skeptical”, describing a “forced” use of digital technologies, as the only chance to communicate, given the measures to contain the infection. Their perception was to live an “impoverished” relationship with the client, especially regarding the absence of messages exchanged through body language. Other professionals highlighted instead the “discovery” of the potentials of digital tools, not only in interacting with people who regularly use them, but also involving service users not used to these means of communication. In the survey’s answers to the open-ended questions about “good practices to tackle the challenges imposed by the health emergency” (Sanfelici et al. 2020), several respondents described the innovative use of digital technologies for social work practice, even if mostly experimental. Digital tools have helped both social workers and people to stay connected, mitigating the feelings of anxiety and suffering, due to forced isolation in a situation of total uncertainty. Virtual interviews with individuals and groups have been particularly effective with more vulnerable people assisted through daily stimuli and feedback, particularly at a time when making sense of the new situation and trying to build a “new kind of normality” was a common goal. In residential settings, the use of video calls during the lockdown has been essential both to allow residents in those settings to communicate with their loved ones, and to keep family members informed by caregivers regarding the health of the residents in the care homes (Sanfelici 2020). The online platforms have also been used to carry on activities and tasks with unemployed people, migrants or other more vulnerable groups, such as online training and continuous learning, fundamental for their experience of social inclusion. In some cases, digital tools have been used to build participation and share solutions, points of view, good practices with service users: group chats in which both service users and professionals shared thoughts, doubts, and suggestions, Facebook pages created for people and family members who could not access day care facilities, whose activity had been suddenly suspended. Virtual groups, mutual-aid groups, virtual spaces allowed exchanges between generations to encourage mutual storytelling between older people and students. Communication through digital tools has also been fundamental to update the population on prevention rules, public benefits, ways to access services during the pandemic. Written or video-recorded messages 457

Roberta T. Di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici

disseminated through digital channels were widely used to reach groups with fewer social ties in the community where they live, but skilled in the use of social networks, such as people in recent immigration contexts (Sanfelici 2021). Effectiveness in the use of time, greater possibilities to create connections, also across different locations, sharing useful information, and exchanging good practices all contributed to strengthening the sense of being part and belonging to professional or inter-professional communities. These experiences were often described as a “discovery”, “something unthinkable until recently”. The respondents also highlighted circumstances in which practices mediated by digital technologies were not the appropriate solution, for example, with people suffering from cognitive disorders or in cases of personal crisis. Moreover, during the pandemic, working and communicating remotely through digital tools was not everyone’s privilege, and a process of “e-exclusion” became an unwanted consequence of working remotely. Some of the respondents described their efforts to provide devices and increase the skills to use them, especially among more vulnerable people, but disparities and digital inequalities require broader macro practice intervention, a point not mentioned by the respondents in this survey. Another main shortfall highlightd by the study is related to the fact that innovative and experimental digital practices have not been included in a supervised process within the agencies. Several organizations seemed not prepared to support these transformations and to include them in processes of organizational learning. Moreover, additional research is needed to support the evaluation of the appropriateness of techniques that involve digital tools and the challenges they unavoidably imply. The aim should be to foster the development of specialized skills, and to assess the relationship between organizational structure and the effective use of digital technologies in different contexts, and for different social work tasks. An interesting contribution is offered by the work of two social workers (Okely and Biraghi 2020), analizing and exploring both the perspective of the professionals and of the service users.

Digital Competencies and Social Work Education The lockdown imposed harsh challenges and at the same time offered a powerful laboratory to experiment with alternative ways of practicing social work, in the absence of the possibility of physical co-presence. The analysis presented in the previous paragraph has shed some light on how, during the pandemic in Italy, social work has adapted to the condition of imposed physical distancing, which activities have been managed even better than in ordinary times, and which instead required physical presence. The integration of new technologies into practice presents challenges and opportunities (Bullock and Colvin 2015): through the appropriate use of digital channels, social workers can increasingly go from being a single spot with limited connections to a “hub operator”, increasing their role as hinge and director between the nodes of the networks that link individuals, institutions and communities. However, remote working, already introduced as an opportunity in the Italian 458

Digital Social Work in Italy

legislation, and then imposed by anti-Covid-19 measures, requires an in-depth study to improve understanding of the new opportunities to perform social work functions and interventions. A strong evidence-based knowledge should be developed as a guide to understand how different groups of people with specific needs use different online services and technologies for their wellbeing, to identify and balance the benefits and the risks of digital technologies. Possible risks include online sexual exploitation, grooming, fraud and financial abuse. In addition, it is fundamental to protect data security, given the large amount of personal information social workers have access to, and the risk of “boundary issues”, as private lives become more public on social media. Social workers should aspire to make a positive difference through the use of digital technologies by developing and maintaining digital professionals’ competences (Ryan and Garrett 2018). Digital media offers social workers opportunities to develop new roles in social work, such as designing and co-producing technology, apps and systems, together with tech developers and people with lived experience. Several issues remain open and need to be addressed, and particularly the availability of service spaces, IT equipment, logistics and timing, so as to give meaning and non-superficial value to a presence guaranteed not only virtually (Grison and Maino 2020; Okely and Biraghi 2020). The access to digital tools worldwide has created opportunities for innovative teaching and learning strategies (Kunz and Cheek 2016). Social work programmes in several countries have been increasingly implementing online or through blended courses (Phillips 2013; Reamer 2013), integrating traditional teaching methods (Phelan 2015). On the training side (Dellavalle 2011), ICT has also opened up new frontiers with the implementation of platforms for distance learning and supervision, the creation of forums and chats where students, teachers and professionals can interact, and new opportunities to experiment with innovative ways of transmitting knowledge. In Italy, at least until before the pandemic, e-learning in social work education was not widespread and there had been few experiences of blended courses. Fargion et al. (2020) pointed out several reasons why the sudden switch to distance learning imposed by the health emergency was highly challenging in Italy. The vast majority of teaching staff on social work courses is composed by professionals whose main job is not in the academy, but in the field of practice, so that little time is available to them to update or evaluate their teaching techniques. In addition, generally, most universities have embraced a more traditional approach to teaching that has not included digital technologies. As a consequence, at the time of the COVID-19 outbreak, also in the academic field “the staff had to be creative or to improvise in trying to solve issues, innovate the ways to involve students in active learning and experiment group work with the new technologies” (Fargion et al. 2020, 3). This process brought challenges and opportunities at the same time. Starting from March 2020, all the universities introduced the use of platforms for online teaching, and the staff learned about the potential and opportunities brought on by online courses. In the first stage of the pandemic, there have been several initiatives to support each 459

Roberta T. Di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici

other and share new ways of teaching and involving students. One of these was a Facebook group composed of social work educators, from 21 social work courses out of a total of 36, with the aim to share teaching methods and educational resources for e-learning (Fargion et al. 2020). It also became more evident than before that generally today students are more aware of technology capabilities and skilled in using digital media. The aim to value students’ competencies informed an initiative carried out jointly by the social work programmes of the University of Siena and the University of Trieste (Sanfelici and Bilotti 2022). A “digital social work laboratory” involved students, professionals and academics in a process of co-construction of knowledge, aimed at developing and evaluating an educational approach to empower more oppressed and marginalized people. The aim was twofold: on the one hand, fostering awareness and critical reflection on social issues that require collective responsibility; on the other hand, sharing and increasing competencies in the use of digital technologies to promote social justice. The laboratory also offered the occasion to reflect on social issues that originate in virtual spaces (for example, cyberbullying or pro-anorexia groups), increasing awareness about the fundamental role of social work in tackling these new challenges. An overarching research project was performedto evaluate the impact and the outcome of this laboratory, and to develop a model to design digital social work courses focused on macro practice skills. This period of rapid and sudden transformation presents new opportunities and risks as well. The debate among academics and more generally educators has included concerns regarding educational outcomes, lack of opportunity for real life socialisation, and the level of student engagement in the online classroom (Phelan 2015). It is essential to develop change capabilities, to help our institutions to learn while experimenting with new activities carried out to cope with changes, imposed by the wider transformations in society. Another goal is to foster a culture of evaluation, to avoid simplistic discussion on the value or risks of digital technologies in both social work practice and education and encouraging the assessment of each technology and its own potentials and shortfalls in a specific context for specific tasks.

Conclusion: The (Possible) Future of e-Social Work in Italy In the last decade, scholarly research has demonstrated a growing interest in the use of digital technology as a bridge to maintain social connections and interactions, while reducing isolation and loneliness. At the same time, studies highlight how the risk of social exclusion (Raya Diez 2018) may easily increase for more vulnerable groups that do not have access to information technologies. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated an already ongoing process of digitization within social and health services. The measures introduced to tackle the spread of the virus imposed rapid transformations and, in a few weeks, digital technologies were integrated into all aspects of professional life, showing positive and negative effects (López Peláez et al. 2020). Digital technologies have helped professionals, by providing virtual bridges and building connections. However, several challenges arose in different workplaces, including for the social work profession, mainly due to a lack of preparation and digital inequalities as a widespread issue in the country. 460

Digital Social Work in Italy

The COVID-19 emergency unmasked the pre-existing shortfalls in technological competences and infrastructures in several sectors of activities (Auriemma and Iannaccone 2020); several social work agencies did nothave the necessary technical and IT coverage to access the web and the appropriate and efficient equipment to use it as a working tool. The digital divide (Iannone 2007) is a new source of inequality and social exclusion that needs to be tackled, addressing the issue both at a structural and a cultural level. Tackling the uneven distribution of opportunities to access and use digital resources should be a social work commitment, given the resources exchanged in these networks, and considering that the distribution of media resources is skewed towards the wealthy and powerful groups and countries. Professionals are required to develop technological competencies that enable them to explore new spaces of inclusion and e-inclusion (Diez 2018), empowering individuals and communities. In the era of digital media, social work has no choice but to study and reflect on the ongoing social transformations, raise awareness about new social needs and resources, and develop the specialistic knowledge required to tackle new issues and take advantage of new opportunities for social good. More and more people are able to connect, exchange communication and produce meaning through media, providing an important resource for new movements for social justice and social progress. The search for new teaching methods is a direction towards which we should strive and intensify our efforts, in line with the practice of reflexivity and innovation typical of the social work profession.

Note 1 The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) is an international study for measuring, analyzing, and comparing adults’ basic skills of literacy, numeracy, and digital problem solving. The assessment focuses on the basic cognitive and workplace skills needed for individuals to participate in society and for economies to prosper. Data from PIAAC are meant to help countries better understand their education and training systems and the distribution of these basic skills across the adult working-age population. Developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PIAAC is intended to be administered at least once a decade. PIAAC was first conducted in 2011 and the same survey instruments were administered twice more through 2017. In total, 39 countries participated in PIAAC in Cycle I (2011-17). Cycle II of PIAAC, with revised survey instruments, will begin in 2022, with 33 countries scheduled to participate in the first round of administration.

References Auriemma, V., and C. Iannaccone. 2020. “COVID-19 Pandemic: Socio-Economic Consequences of Social Distancing Measures in Italy.” Frontiers in Sociology 5: 575791. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2020.575791. Banzato, S., A. Battistelli, and P. Frattone. 2002. Internet per il servizio sociale. Manuale per l’uso della rete. Roma: Carocci. Bruni, C., G. Devastato, E. Nocifora, L. F. Peris Cancio, E. Pugliese, G. Ricotta, G. Sammarco, and E. Spinelli. 2013. Servizio sociale e crisi del Welfare. Bologna: Maggioli.

461

Roberta T. Di Rosa and Mara Sanfelici Bullock, A. N., and A. D. Colvin. 2015. “Communication Technology Integration into Social Work Practice.” Advances in Social Work 16(1): 1–14. Byrne, J., and G. Kirwan. 2019. “Relationship-Based Social Work and Electronic Communication Technologies: Anticipation, Adaptation and Achievement.” Journal of Social Work Practice 33(2): 217–232. Caio, F., J. M. Scott, and G. Pogorel. 2014. Rapporto Caio – Achieving the Objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) in Italy: Prospects and Challenges. Roma: Government Commissioner for the implementation of the Digital Agenda. Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume II. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. CNOAS. 2020. Codice Deontologico degli Assistenti Sociali. Roma: Consiglio nazionale dell’Ordine degli Assistenti Sociali. https://cnoas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Ilnuovo-codice-deontologico-dellassistente-sociale.pdf (accessed April, 08, 2022). Coyle, D. 2008. Computers Are Your Future. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Csiernik, R., P. Furze, L. Dromgole, and G. M. Rishchynski. 2006. “Information Technology and Social Work – The Dark Side or the Light Side?” Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work 3(3/4): 9–25. Dellavalle, M. 2011. Il tirocinio nella formazione al servizio sociale. Un modello di apprendimento dall’esperienza. Roma: CarocciFaber. Di Rosa, R. T., G. Musso, M. Dellavalle, and G. Gucciardo. 2018. “Social Work Online: A Recognition of Experiences and Practices in Italy.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 889–901. DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1469473 Di Rosa, R. T., S. Mordeglia, and G. Argento. 2019. “Social Work and Welfare System in Italy: Change, Critical Issues, Resiliences.” In Austerity Social Work and Welfare Policies: A Global Perspective, edited by E. J. Gomes Ciriano and A. López Peláez, 111–136. Madrid: Aranzadi-Thompson & Reuters. Dominelli, L. 2005. Il servizio sociale. Una professione che cambia. Trento: Erickson. Fargion, S., M. Sanfelici, and A. Sicora. 2020. “‘A Community No Matter What’: Fostering Social Work Professional Connections in Italy in COVID-19 Times.” Social Work Education 39(8): 993–1001. DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1829581 Fontana, M. P. 2019. “Il lavoro sociale nell’era digitale.” Animazione sociale 328(5): 29–48. Grison, D., and G. Maino. 2020. Inclusione digitale. Di quali competenze abbiamo bisogno? https://www.secondowelfare.it/terzo-settore/inclusione-digitale-di-quali-competenzeabbiamo-bisogno.html (accessed January 30, 2021). Hill, K., and S. Ferguson. 2014. “Web 2.0 in Social Work Macro Practice: Ethical Considerations and Questions.” Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics 11(1): 2–11. Iannone R. 2007. Società dis-connesse: La sfida del Digital Divide. Roma: Armando. Kunz, M. B., and R. G. Cheek. 2016. “How AACSB-Accredited Business Schools Assure Quality Online Education.” Academy of Business Journal 1(1): 105. López Peláez, A., and C. Marcuello-Servós. 2018. “e-Social Work and Digital Society: Reconceptualizing Approaches, Practices and Technologies.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803. DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475. López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “e-Social Work: Building a New Field of Specialization in Social Work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256. López Peláez, A., C. Marcuello-Servós, and J. Castillo de Mesa. 2020. “The More You Know, the Less You Fear. Reflexive Social Work Practices in Times of COVID-19.” International Social Work 63 (6): 746–752. DOI: 10.1177/0020872820959365. Mishna, F., M. Bogo, J. Root, and S. Fantus. 2014. “Here to Stay: Cyber Communication as a Complement in Social Work Practice.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 95(3): 179–186.

462

Digital Social Work in Italy Murray, A., J. C. Grice, and G. Mulgan. 2014. Il libro bianco sulla Innovazione Sociale. https:// www.felicitapubblica.it/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Libro_bianco_innovazione_sociale. pdf (accessed April, 10, 2022). OECD. 2019. OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/df80bc12-en. (accessed February 12, 2021). Okely O., and C. Biraghi. 2020. “L’assistente sociale e i suoi strumenti al tempo del COVID 19.” Animazione Sociale http://www.animazionesociale.it/isuoistrumenti/ (accessed January 10, 2021). Phelan, J. E. 2015. “The Use of eLearning in Social Work Education.” Social Work 60(3): 257–264. doi: 10.1093/sw/swv010 Phillips, T. M. 2013. “Challenges and Opportunities for Online Graduate Social Work Education.” NACSW Convention Proceedings 1–6. Raya Diez, E. 2018. “e-Inclusion and e-Social Work: New Technologies at the Service of Social Intervention.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 916–929. DOI: 10.1080/ 13691457.2018.1469472 Reamer, F. G. 2013. “Distance and Online Social Work Education: Novel Ethical Challenges.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 33(4/5): 369–384. doi: 10.1080/08841233 .2013.828669 Rideout, V. N. 2008. “Digital Taylorization of Social Service Work.” Canadian Journal of Communication 33(4): 685–700. Ryan, D., and P. M. Garrett. 2018. “Social Work ‘Logged on’: Contemporary Dilemmas in an Evolving ‘techno-habitat’.” European Journal of Social Work 21(1): 32–44. DOI: 10.1080/ 13691457.2016.1278520 Sanfelici, M. 2020. “The Impact of COVID-19 on Residential Care Facilities: Findings From a National Survey Administered to Social Workers During the Lockdown in Italy.” Relational Social Work 4(2): 33–51. Sanfelici, M. 2021. “The Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Marginal Migrant Populations in Italy.” American Behavioral Scientist 65(10): 1323–1341. Sanfelici, M., and A. Bilotti. 2022. “Teaching Advocacy in the Digital Era: An Experimental Project.” Journal of Sociology of Education 14 (1): 227–245. Sanfelici, M., L. Gui, and S. Mordeglia. 2020. Il servizio sociale nell’emergenza COVID-19. Milano: Franco Angeli. Shapiro, C., and H. R. Varian. 1999. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Los Angeles: Etas. The Digital Economy Society Index (2019). Index of Digitalization of the Economy and Society. Italy. Bruxelles: DESI. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/italy (accessed January 09, 2021).

463

38 DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMME Conditional Cash Transfer in Colombia César Sánchez-Álvarez

Introduction In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many Latin American countries started social and economic reforms, reorganizing their welfare states and adopting digital innovation strategies to support their social protection systems. Such innovation was organized at the national level and gave Social Work a specific role, namely to produce socioeconomic impact for intended beneficiaries. In Latin American countries, Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs have significant importance as national strategies to improve social protection systems, providing several social benefits, cost-effectiveness, and local flexibility in both the short- and long terms (Freeland 2007; Barrientos 2009; Samson et al. 2010). In Colombia, social workers pay a great deal of attention to the “conditional criteria” of CCT resources, because CCT programs affect the quality of life of millions of beneficiaries. This chapter focuses on the Colombian social program Familias en Acción, a social policy that benefits 3.9 million households and approximately 8.5 million beneficiaries. The chapter highlights the role and functions of social workers in Familias en Acción in which they are mainly tasked with the identification and support of potential beneficiaries, as well as assessing whether they meet the conditions for taking part in the program. Social workers in Familias en Acción assume the following responsibilities: i) promoting co-responsibility and support of families (local level), ii) creating and connecting family groups in territories (regional level), and iii) investigating, designing, and evaluating the activities of the program (national level). At all these levels, social workers produce and process digital information that, in turn, feeds into and informs other local and national social programs.

464

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-45

Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme

This chapter draws on research with social workers in Colombia to illustrate the role of social work in relation to digital information, in particular, regarding the following question: Which digital skills are required by Colombian social workers to deliver meaningful outputs in their work in Familias en Acción? This chapter will set out a theoretical framework for social work and social-digital innovation, followed by an explanation of the functions of CCT programs as a social policy response to poverty in Colombia. An overview of the methodology of the study which aimed to address this topic will be provided, followed by a discussion of key findings and concluding observations.

Theoretical Framework Social and Digital Innovation in Digital Work Social work is a profession with an ethical responsibility to promote systems and interventions (Ladhani and Sitter 2020, 39) that lead to change and transformation in socially unequal environments, improving living conditions for individuals, groups, and communities (IFSW 2020). When social workers are involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of social protection programs, their professional duties are amplified beyond these ethical responsibilities to also include a focus on social innovation. Social innovation is a fundamental part of social work because it acts at the intersection of social activism and social policy (Alonso and Echevarria 2016). Social workers are always innovating to improve their social impact (Alonso and Alonso 2019). Therefore, digital innovation and new technologies can result in changing practices of social work (Lopez et al. 2018), mainly affecting the management of agencies, programs, and projects (Eito et al. 2018). This is not to say that digital tools are hitherto alien to the profession. Social workers organize their services and interventions with all tools generally available to them. Hence, emergent technologies constantly transform social work and the digital tools that support it (Lopez et al. 2018). But digital innovation is not merely concerned with how it affects the administrative aspects of social work practice. As a result of modern rationalization practices, social workers have employed digital and technological tools in social interventions (Eito et al. 2018), as the latter can be effectively facilitated by virtual communication software such as (video) chat applications. With the introduction of these tools, digital social work requires new approaches in professional training and upskilling on the application in practice of digital skills (Recmanová and Vávravá 2018). Higher education must be oriented towards the development of students’ competencies and capabilities in digital innovation and creative processes (Perron et al. 2010; Garcia-Castilla et al. 2018; Di Rosa et al. 2018) to foster the capacity of social workers to be more adaptive to their changing technological environment and sufficiently knowledgeable to integrate these innovations into their work.

465

César Sánchez-Álvarez

Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes CCT programs are becoming popular in low income countries and are increasingly promoted as viable components of social protection measures by international institutions and aid agencies alike (Ladhani and Sitter 2020). The World Bank and the United Nations promoted CCT programs in the mid-1990s. They were designed as global policies but have had a higher impact in developing countries. The International Labour Organization (ILO), for example, led the promotion and support of social protection programs (Samson et al. 2010) and was responsible for the more widespread introduction of social protection institutions in developing countries (Barrientos and Hulme 2008, 10–11). For two decades, Latin America witnessed reforms in its social protection models and labor markets and CCT programs became a strategy to guarantee social rights and increase opportunity in vulnerable populations. In adopting CCT, national policies shifted from universalist to selective (i.e., focalized) social protection. Such programs share four defining characteristics: i) interventions use socioeconomic data to identify beneficiaries, ii) beneficiaries are usually mothers or household caregivers, iii) beneficiaries must commit to undertaking concrete actions, and iv) CCT are supply-side economic measures that are designed with the aim of improving the supply and quality of services used by beneficiaries (Adato and Hoddinott 2010). CCT programs aim to decrease poverty rates and promote better supply-demand equilibrium in the local economy (Hanlon et al. 2012, 27–28). They are, therefore, popular with governments across the ideological spectrum, as they are considered to be a positive strategy to improve the quality of life of vulnerable groups of people (Barrientos 2013, 10). Consequently, governments are increasingly using cash transfers to households and individuals as a way of helping them to exit poverty (Barrientos, 2020, 334). Due to their popularity, CCT programs have been the main anti-poverty policy of many Latin American governments in recent decades (Sacchet et al. 2021, 2). Social workers in CCT programs are tasked with helping families achieve the aim of the program and evaluate their social development, most notably whether they eventually successfully exit poverty and extreme poverty.

Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Colombia: Familias en Acción Familias en Acción was created in the late 1990s as a program to protect and increase investments in families living in poverty and vulnerable economic circumstances (DPS 2019, 15). Nowadays, the program has a broader remit and it aims at promoting human capital and improving citizenship through the implementation of a community and solidarity-based approach, therefore, working in two ways: through monetary incentives and community welfare. In Colombia, the CCT program together with other social protection measures such as Red Unidos, Jóvenes en Acción, Mi Negocio, Red Seguridad Alimentaria, Familias en Su Tierra, Iraca, Emprendimiento Colectivo, and Casa Digna – Digna Vida engages in social protection policies overseen by the Department of Social Prosperity. Familias en Acción is a focalized social policy aimed at supporting families with children and

466

Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme

teenagers who are living in conditions of poverty or extreme poverty. Eligible families receive cash payments as a monetary incentive to help them improve their health conditions and as a means of providing educational assistance. Social workers and other social welfare workers in Familias en Acción carry out the following tasks: They oversee the selection of eligible families, help with their registry and verification of commitment, define exit conditions, carry out administrative changes, and confirm payment of the cash transfers. Consequently, social workers with Familias en Acción must collaborate with social workers in other programs of the Department of Social Prosperity as mentioned above. The program’s first phase started in 2000 and finished in 2006. This phase focused on 622 municipalities and 340 thousand families. The second phase started in 2007 and finished in 2011. The program was implemented as a core component of the country’s strategy to overcome poverty. In this period, it was focused on families with children under 18 years. From 2012 to 2022, the program’s orientation was modified to emphasize childhood, the eradication of child labor, strategies to retain students in school, as well as tackling regional and gender equality. Familias en Acción now has three main strategies (DPS 2019, 20): Health incentives, education incentives, and community welfare. While health and education incentives are direct monetary transfers, the community welfare dimension of the program aims at creating spaces for the social participation of participating families and the improvement of their living conditions. An evaluation of Familias en Acción found that the program increased the consumption and quality of food in both rural and urban areas (Attanasio and Mesnard 2006). Furthermore, the program produced a positive impact on total household income (Hincapie 2012) and reduced the risk for families falling below the poverty line. At the same time, school attendance rates increased, although evidence of the overall impact on educational outcomes remains inconclusive at this point in time (Arteaga et al. 2018).

Familias en Acción During the Covid-19 Pandemic At the time of writing, the world is immersed in the Covid-19 pandemic and the high socioeconomic costs that accompany it. The social situation in many parts of the world had been deteriorating prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, and social costs had already negatively impacted populations around the world, but nowhere is the situation more severe than among vulnerable populations in developing countries (ECLAC 2020). In Andean countries, social and economic costs were the result of decreased health rates, increased unemployment, reduced social welfare rates, and decreased household income (Castilleja-Vargas 2020, 2). Covid-19 added high costs associated with these factors. For instance, ever since the start of the pandemic, 205 governments across the world have planned or implemented an aggregate of 1,055 social protection measures. In considering social assistance measures specifically, 638 measures can be identified, including 298 cash transfer programs across 153 countries (Gentilini et al. 2020, 2). 467

César Sánchez-Álvarez

Colombia, in particular, has widened eligibility for its cash transfer program. While the uptake of the CCT program amounted to 9.37% of the total population in 2019, it increased to 26.69% in 2020 (Gentilini et al. 2020, 11). This increase is linked to three main strategies that improved social protection in Latin America: i) adjustments to social programs, ii) the provision of additional social assistance to beneficiaries, and iii) the expansion of social programs (Beazley 2020, 4). This increase in social impact correlates with the increased use of digital tools (i.e., analysis software and virtual co-working spaces) to improve communications with beneficiaries. During Covid-19, Colombia implemented different mechanisms (i.e., bonds, tax refunds, solidarity income) to respond to the emergent needs of the population. Social workers changed their strategies and intervention protocols and shifted to digital social strategies and virtual communications with beneficiaries. This enforced digitalization of social work highlights the importance of digital innovation in addition to the points raised above, bringing additional relevance to the research question which was posed in the study with social workers: What are the requirements of digital competency for Columbian social workers to produce positive social impact for beneficiaries in these highly complex social circumstances?

Research Study Method and Design To tackle this question, the research design of the study adopted a standardized, open-ended interview methodology, which was applied in interviews with three Colombian social workers. All had been employed at the Departamento de Protección Social (Department of Social Protection) for over four years prior to the interview and worked there at the time of the interviews. Communication with the interviewees was facilitated by mobile phones and virtual platforms. The interview schedule was comprised of open and explorative questions, asking interviewees to describe social workers’ roles, digital skills, social innovation by social workers, and relevant training. All interviewees were specialists in social management within Familias en Acción. Following Corbin and Strauss (2008), interviewees’ answers were coded in three ways: open codification, axial codification, and selective codification. These were then integrated to formulate the findings relevant to the primary research question on social work and digital innovation.

Evidence from Professionals: Social Workers’ Role in Colombian CCT Programs General Skill and Competency Requirements The research participants were asked the following question: “What skills and competencies are needed by social workers to create a positive impact within a CCT program?” In their replies, the interviewees described a range of skills and competencies in community interventions that illustrate the professional profile of Colombian social workers. 468

Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme

Generally, the research participants described how competencies and skills are linked to the different levels of intervention (local, regional, and national). At the local level, social workers need more creativity because Colombian households have inadequate access to the internet and difficulties accessing digital technologies. At the regional level, planning skills and monitoring activities become essential. Therefore, social workers need the ability to lead teams and should be able to create training programs at this level. At the national level, on the other hand, interviewees highlighted operational functions. These functions are aimed at guaranteeing operational functionality, monitoring, and large-scale problem-solving. In addition, research and the creation of small-scale activities are indispensable. The data found a shared perception that social workers working at all of these levels lack digital skills and competencies, for instance, regarding Big Data processing and interpretation. Since CCT programs impact large proportions of the population, professionals have to manage big amounts of data and, therefore, require adequate computer skills (i.e., management of spreadsheets and statistical software). Furthermore, the ability to create a community/territory social map (community profile) and operate digital tools are relevant. The interviewees expressed similar perceptions of social workers’ digital competencies with regard to community intervention. In their view, social workers need to promote program activities in their communities. Outside of the pandemic situation, this means that social workers need skills in adopting strategies to promote activities in social and other digital media, which in turn requires skills related to the management of digital platforms and social media networks: (…) social media management is very important, and I believe it’s something that’s going to stay. Everything that has to do with organizing groups, education platforms, and virtual information, getting information through TEAMS, Facebook Live and other interactive tools that now exist to assist virtual meetings, is basic (Interviewee 3). Furthermore, in accordance with the literature, the interviewees expressed the view that the context of the Covid-19 pandemic has stimulated the use of digital tools and that increasingly, social workers are complementing their social interventions in the local community with the adoption of digital tools. One participant (Interviewee 1) explained how Familias en Acción requires that social workers possess community work skills so that they can assess the population’s needs, as well as knowledge of social communication to create social relationships and enhance community leadership. The Covid-19 context, thus, demonstrates the necessity for hybrid approaches that combine social network management and face-to-face intervention. As Interviewee 3 suggested, the pandemic situation can, in this sense, be considered an opportunity to generate alternative approaches to establishing and continuing relationships with communities, beneficiaries, and households. Analysis of the data also revealed that the interviewees hold the view that social workers have to modify their communication styles when carrying out interventions 469

César Sánchez-Álvarez

via virtual platforms or social media because the conditions for successful communication differ from the necessary conditions in face-to-face interviews. Such adaptation happens whenever social workers need to improve their relationship with either other professionals or the programs’ beneficiaries. This implies a need among social workers for constant improvement of digital capacities and lifelong learning to help create a positive impact for families and community groups. The findings indicate that the competencies of social workers in community development programs must be oriented toward processes of social innovation in the community, such as community welfare generation through the promotion of community solidarity and reciprocity: (…) we must work more on building solidarity, I believe that we are focusing on the creation of individualities as individual participation, but we must promote social networks as relationships of solidarity, reciprocity, and our support must be rebuilt. In this way, we must innovate with new dynamics in line with communities’ expectations because the expectations are already different (Interviewee 3).

Social Workers’ Digital Skills The interview schedule also included the following question: “What digital skills should social workers have when working with social policies?” This question aimed to elicit views on the digital skills that social workers need in Familias en Acción and similar social programs. The interviewees agreed that social workers require digital skills. This includes both computer skills (i.e., analytical and tool usage) and a highly developed ability to engage in digital communication with communities and regional agencies. Digital skills, it was suggested, tie in with communicative know-how, and information management, although many obstacles are evident because “the new digital functions and approaches are not easy” (Interviewee 2). Digital skills also involve qualitative and quantitative information processing when managing digital networks and platforms. Social Work focuses on the ability to establish clear and genuine communication processes with beneficiaries. The lockdown period boosted digital platform management, and its functionalities and relevance became clearer because the lockdown obligated social workers to shift from the physical sphere to the virtual sphere. During the pandemic, we proposed actions without physical presence. Many actions generated resistance and created pros and cons for professionals. Some people think that you can try and others think that there is no point in it. (…) Now let’s start evaluating what we’ve been able to achieve (Interviewee 2). In summary, the interviewees’ answers confirm that digital skills are fundamental to managing data (national level) and impacting social programs (local level). In 470

Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme

addition, they identified a requirement for a change in the communication style of social workers within the new digital paradigm.

Social Innovation and the Role of Social Work Participants were also asked to address the following question: “How does the Policy of Monetary Transfers relate to social innovation in social work?” This question is aimed at identifying social work activities oriented toward social innovation in the pandemic context. Familias en Acción has a particularly social orientation in its communitarian welfare (Bienestar Comunictario) approach: When Bienestar Comunitario started, the entire community organization worked well at the time (…) not only giving money to people but also generating community organization. There are community homes and other organizations that achieve other processes, and they are pretty interesting (…) (Interviewee 1) The Community homes, referred to in this response, are led by women (community mothers) in both rural and urban areas. These women take care of vulnerable children in their own homes and they receive a stipend to cover costs. They do not receive a salary and their activities are considered as volunteer work. Social innovation in social work is crucial to assess and – more importantly – adapt to developing needs. It offers opportunities to understand the communication styles that people employ on social media and other new communication forms. The internet as well as other communication infrastructures are new mediatic spaces that facilitate social interaction in a way that is different from physical spaces. Thus, the digital sphere is an additional context to consider in both professional education and practice. In particular, social workers must engage with digital citizens, a new type of individual that emerges in virtual communities. One interviewee provided a clear example of social innovation regarding the use by social workers of community radio stations during the pandemic. This practice yielded a hybrid form of community intervention in which social workers utilized radio stations, social networks, social platforms, virtual applications (Teams, Facebook Live, WhatsApp), and cell phones, all of which were significant tools. The research also revealed that other forms of traditional communication methods, such as community broadcasters, delivery of guidelines in brochures and manuals, that had long been discarded in social work practice have also been restored. Social workers used these tools to provide information to beneficiaries. The lockdown situation revealed several gaps, including access to the use of tools by users and competence in design methodologies among professionals, (…) there is still a gap between the conceptual and what reaches people. That’s where methodology plays an important role. I think we need more 471

César Sánchez-Álvarez

tools to get to people and sometimes we start to think about an ideal audience (…) but the reality is different (Interviewee 2). In summary, social innovation is useful when social workers need to create new forms of community relationships. It requires validation by digital communities and other communities of interest and can be valuable if it reduces relationship gaps and removes barriers in methods of communication with vulnerable populations.

Social Workers’ Digital Training for Social Intervention Finally, interviewees were asked the following question: “Do you think that training creates digital skills in social workers?” This question focuses on the gap between skill requirements and current levels of skill competence. The interviewees agreed on the need to strengthen social workers’ basic skills in the use of statistical software for the management of large amounts of data. At the same time, social workers need to understand the complex context of the data at the time of analysis. In addition, social workers need to better understand how digital tools can promote communication and collaboration between professionals as well as how they can improve people’s access to information on the social services on offer to the general public. Furthermore, Covid-19 increased the feasibility of delivering services in the context of non-face-to-face interaction, but, it remains necessary that the implementation of digital tools and virtual spaces must be evaluated. In addition, the research revealed agreement among the participants on three issues that need to be addressed within social work education programs: 1 2 3

Skills development equips social workers with the assessment and evaluation skills that they need in order to measure the impact of CCT programs. Skills development regarding the collection and interpretation of quantitative data through computer tools and statistical software analysis. The inclusion of instruction on digital tools and virtual space management with a particular focus on the development of effective digital communication styles and abilities.

The above points illustrate a professional role that builds new relationships with beneficiaries. It must consider the emergent digital citizenships in the age of digital tools and virtual spheres.

Conclusion In social protection policies, social workers bridge social and digital innovation. This chapter has considered findings from a research study that set out to highlight the importance of social work for social and digital innovation as well as its social component and relationship with the community. As has been shown, virtual tools and new technologies change professional intervention and professional daily life. The evidence suggests a need for social workers to engage with new digital tools, 472

Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme

data analysis software, and virtual communication tools. Furthermore, this chapter considered the effect of enhanced coordinating competencies on the part of social workers and also the digital skills that social workers need in order to improve social protection policies. Moreover, the study revealed the need for social workers to be competent in the evaluation of programs, including the quantitative and digital skills necessary to collect, collate and analyze Big Data. Many articles about digital work recommend improving digital and virtual skills in professional social work training (Eito et al. 2018; López et al. 2018; Marchant and Sánchez 2021). In Colombia, CCT programs require social workers to possess high competencies in the practice of community social work as well as a good command and knowledge of virtual tools. The Covid-19 pandemic directed our attention towards the quality of digital relationships between social workers and program beneficiaries. This has further highlighted the need for social policies to focus more clearly on the provision of services in rural areas where technology is not always readily available. Furthermore, Colombia’s geographical territory in general presents challenges concerning technical infrastructure and access to the internet which will need to be addressed as society becomes more and more digitized. Social protection programs emphasize the provision of basic levels of assistance in poverty situations. The consensus among social scientists establishes that CCT programs help to fight poverty in developing countries. To succeed, they require a constant supply of information for intended beneficiaries that social workers are well placed to compile and roll out if they have the necessary competencies to do so. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Colombia’s poverty rate increased, and the vulnerability of the middle class became harsher, with the need for the introduction of social promotion and social policies enhancing their financial and physical resources. Social workers need more digital skills to combat social inequities and increase their social impact. So, the future of social protection lies in the digital and virtual conditions to improve its social and economic impact. The research findings reported in his chapter offered insights into the need for social work education to include digital skills and the skills needed for the processing and interpretation of Big Data. Finally, the most relevant finding is how hybrid methods in social work, that include both digital and traditional tools, can guarantee impactful social intervention with beneficiaries. The research study reported here suggests that social program beneficiaries benefit from the delivery of social innovation strategies in combination with the use of digital and virtual spaces which facilitate and increase social and community intervention. To this end, Colombian social workers are expanding their practice to include competencies in digital social assessment, and the use of hybrid methodologies which aim to improve their impact on digital citizenship.

References Adato, M., & Hoddinott, J. 2010. Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America. International Food Policy Research Institute.

473

César Sánchez-Álvarez Alonso González, D., and A. Alonso Puelles. 2019. “Can and Should Social Workers Innovate? Two Case Studies of Hidden Social Innovation.” Journal of Social Work Education and Practice 4(2): 1–11. Alonso Puelles, A., and J. Echeverría Ezponda. 2016. “¿Qué Es La innovación Social? El Cambio De Paradigma Y Su relación Con El Trabajo Social.” Cuadernos De Trabajo Social 292: 163–171. doi: 10.5209/CUTS.51752. Arteaga, N. X., C. L. Trujillo, and L. C. Gómez. 2018. Evaluación de impacto Familias en Acción. Departamento Nacional de Planeación, Retrieved from http://centrodedocumentacion. prosperidadsocial.gov.co/2020/Familias-en-Accion/Evaluaciones/Impacto/Evaluacio %CC%81n-de-Impacto-Familias_Accio%CC%81n-Oct-2019.pdf Attanasio, O., and A. Mesnard. 2006. “The Impact of a Conditional Cash Transfer Programme on Consumption in Colombia.” Fiscal Studies 27(4): 421–442. doi: 10.1111/ j.1475-5890.2006.00041.x Barrientos, A. 2009. “Understanding Conditions in Income Transfer Programmes.” Global Social Policy: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Policy and Social Development 9(2): 165–167. doi: 10.1177/1468018109104623 Barrientos, A. 2013. Social Assistance in Developing Countries. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139856058 Barrientos, A. 2020. Transnational actors and institutionalization of social protection in the global south. Schmitt, C. (ed.). From Colonialism to International Aid: External Actors and Social Protection in the Global South. 333–356. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38200-1_13 Barrientos, A., and D. Hulme (eds.). 2008. Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/978-0-230-58309-2_1 Beazley, R. 2020. Las respuestas de protección social a la pandemia COVID-19 en América Latiana y el Caribe. Paper version July, 2020. WFP America Latina y el Caribe. Castilleja-Vargas, L. 2020. La clase media andina frente al shock del Covid-19. New York: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. doi: 10.18235/0002377 Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452230153 Departamento Administrativo para la Prosperidad Social (DPS). 2019. Manual operativo “Familias en Acción”. http://centrodedocumentacion.prosperidadsocial.gov.co/2020/ Familias-en-Accion/Manuales/M-GI-TM-3-MANUAL-OPERATIVO-FAMILIASEN-ACCIO%CC%81N-V5.pdf Di Rosa, R., G. Musso, M. Dellavalle, and G. Gucciardo. 2018. “Social Work Online: A Recognition of Experiences and Practices in Italy.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 889–901. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1469473 ECLAC. 2020. Latin America and the Caribbean and the COVD-19 pandemic. Economic and social effects. Special Report Covid-19 nª1 3 April, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/ 11362/45351 Eito Mateo, A., M. J. Gómez Poyato, and C. Marcuello Servós. 2018. “E-social work in Practice: A Case Study.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 930–941. doi: 10.1080/13 691457.2018.1423552 Freeland, N. 2007. “Superfluous, Pernicious, Atrocious and Abominable? The Case Against Conditional Cash Transfers.” IDS Bulletin 38(3): 75–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2 007.tb00382 García-Castilla, F., A. De-Juanas Oliva, E. Vírseda-Sanz, and J. Páez Gallego. 2018. Educational Potential of e-Social Work: Social Work Training in Spain. European Journal of Social Work 22(6): 897–907. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1476327 Gentilini, U., M. Almenfi, O. Dale, A. V. Lopez, and U. Zafar. 2020. Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19: A Real-Time Review of Country Measures. Living paper version 10, 22 May 2020. The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 590531592231143435/Social-Protection-and-Jobs-Responses-to-COVID-19-A-RealTime-Review-of-Country-Measures-June-12-2020 (accessed January 1, 2021).

474

Digital Social Work and Social Protection Programme Hanlon, J., A. Barrientos, and D. Hulme. 2012. Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution From the Global South. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press. Hincapié, D. 2012. “The Impact of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program on Household Income in Colombia.” Policy Perspectives 19: 6–22. doi: 10.4079/pp.v19i0.10423 IFSW. 2020. The global definition of social work in What is social work. Retrieved from https://www.ifsw.org/ (accessed January 12, 2021). Ladhani, S., and K. C. Sitter. 2020. “Conditional Cash Transfers: A Critical Review.” Development Policy Review 38(1): 28–41. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12416 López Peláez, A., R. Pérez García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “e-Social Work: Building a New Field of Specialization in Social Work?” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 804–823. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256 Marchant-Araya, P., and C. Sánchez-Álvarez. 2021. “Incorporación de competencias digitales en la formación de trabajo social digital profesional. Un estudio comparado.” In Desafíos del trabajo social digital en Latinoamerica, edited by P. E. Almaguer Kalixto, S. Vázquez González, and O. García Rendón. Aranzadi-Civitas. Perron, B., H. Taylor, J. Glass, and J. Margerum-Leys. 2010. “Information and Communication Technologies in Social Work.” Advances in Social Work 11(2): 67–81. Recmanová, A., and S. Vávrová. 2018. “Information and Communication Technologies in Interventions of Czech cial Workers When Dealing with Vulnerable Children and Their Families.” European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 876–888. doi: 10.1080/13691457. 2018.1441137 Sacchet, T., S., Mariano, and C. M., Carloto. 2021. Women Gender and Conditional Cash Transfers: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Studies of Bolsa Famí lia. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Samson, M., I. van Niekerk, and K. McQuene. 2010. Designing and Implementing Social Transfer Programmes: A Guide to Management Arrangements for Social Transfers in the form of Cash, 2nd ed. Cape Town, South Africa: Economic Policy Research Unit, EPRI Press.

475

PART 6

Digital Social Work Future Challenges, Directions and Transformations

39 ‘HARNESS TECHNOLOGY FOR SOCIAL GOOD’ A Grand Challenge for Social Work Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

Introduction In 2013, the American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare (AASWSW) brought together leaders from across the field of social work as a volunteer panel with the goal to focus the field toward a vision for solving some of the most pressing problems affecting marginalized communities (Uehara et al. 2013). The group elicited feedback from a national audience of stakeholders and received dozens of suggestions about problems in need of focus, which they synthesized into ten grand challenges. Among the list of ten, the challenge to “Harness Technology for Social Good” (HTSG) was chosen as a timely goal. Unlike the other Grand Challenges for Social Work, which are problems to be solved, this challenge focuses on the opportunities of technology to improve our field through practice innovation and the use of big data. The idea of “Grand Challenges” comes from an early 1900’s list of unsolved mathematical puzzles that required collective community problem-solving due to complexity, and since then has come to represent a way for disciplines, foundations, agencies, and so on to conceptualize unsolved problems in their fields (Uehara et al. 2013; Kaldewey 2018). During the official Grand Challenges launch in 2015, HTSG produced concept papers that provided a scan of the current state of innovation in the social work field related to the grand challenges, which included policy recommendations related to issues including technology access for vulnerable populations (Costner Berzin et al. 2015; Coulton et al. 2015). This chapter describes the broad vision of the goal to Harness Technology for Social Good Grand Challenge situated within a set of Social Work Grand Challenges, the capacity of the Grand Challenge to meet its goals of Harnessing Technology for Social Good in our field, and offers the work products developed to date including findings of a systematic literature review of the current state of the international (English or translated) research written by social work academics DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-47

479

Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

between 2015–2019. We discuss important research gaps, and considerations for ways that the social work field might work toward harnessing technology for social good over the next five years.

What is a Grand Challenge? The overarching goal of Grand Challenges is generally to bring together highlyskilled talent to address important problems in need of attention. Other possible benefits are garnering the attention and interest of the field and interdisciplinary stakeholders as well as drawing attention to a set of issues that may be of interest to funding agencies. Grand Challenges have been adopted for a number of social issues, including by non-profit organizations, government agencies, and scientific disciplines (Kaldewey 2018). They have not been broadly embraced by academic disciplines, although Engineering is an exception, and was the first academic field in the United States to articulate a set of Grand Challenges. Broadly, the characteristics of Grand Challenges include: • • •

A limited set of high-level and high-priority aspirations (typically under 20) Addressing the aspirations has significant societal implications The solutions are unclear but appear to be solvable with current or emerging resources, given the appropriate attention.

In the last decade, the Grand Challenges framework saw adoption in more academic spaces, commonly adopted as a university-level initiative to encourage a shared identity, direction, and exposure. Scholars have additionally identified today’s four most pressing Grand Challenges of higher education itself, including student success, university financial health, reputation and relevance, and the competition from easily accessible training (Grajek and Christopher Brooks 2020). Fittingly, many of the Grand Challenges faced across society, and especially in academic arenas, arise from the rapidly-changing context of technology in society.

The Social Work Grand Challenges As outlined at the Grand Challenges website (grandchallengesforsocialwork.org), in a 2012 leadership roundtable, Rick Barth, President of the American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare (AASWSW), offered the AASWSW as a leadership platform for organizing the Social Work Grand Challenges. The goal was to focus on areas of practice amenable to change within the next ten years. The academic leaders in Engineering who formulated the Grand Challenges in their academic discipline served as consultants, and their experiences offered lessons learned. An Executive Committee made up of Social Work Deans and organizational leaders in the field laid a foundation for the selection of the Social Work Grand Challenges. The five criteria were that the challenge must be: (1) big, important, and compelling; (2) amenable to analysis, assessment, and improvement, (3) able to assess examples of demonstrable progress within a decade; (4) in need of 480

‘Harness Technology for Social Good’

cross-section, interdisciplinary collaboration; and (5) one in which the solutions require significant innovation. The Committee announced twelve grand challenges in 2013. There was mixed reception from social work educators and practitioners, with several questioning the absence of poverty and racism as explicit categories to be addressed. The Challenges underwent minor changes in the pursuing years. Currently, there are thirteen Grand Challenges for Social Work grouped into three categories: Individual and family well-being • Ensure healthy development for youth • Close the health gap • Build healthy relationships to end violence • Advance long and productive lives Stronger social fabric • Eradicate social isolation • End homelessness • Create social responses to a changing environment • Harness technology for social good Just society • Eliminate racism • Promote smart decarceration • Build financial capability and assets for all • Reduce extreme economic inequality • Achieve equal opportunity and justice In 2019, the Grand Challenges transitioned from being a program of the AASWSW to an independently administered entity housed in the University of Maryland’s School of Social Work. A steering committee remains in place, including many of the original organizing members. The Grand Challenge networks are not financially supported in any way at this time, although the organizing body is funded by donations from sponsor schools and others to manage an administrative position and other high-level activities. Each Grand Challenge is organized by volunteer network leads, primarily made up of social work scholars who conduct research in areas related to their challenge. The Network Leads meet occasionally together and with the Executive Committee, and some Grand Challenge activities are guided, such as shared investment in policy papers and collaborative work to write a Grand Challenges book. However, the networks organize their own work for each Grand Challenge in a variety of ways; some use spoke and hub networks, in which the challenge divides itself into a number of subcommittees that encourage outside participation, leading to formal participation in the dozens. Other networks remain fairly small and research-focused, drawing on the Grand Challenges initiative’s ability to highlight and integrate their own scholarship. To date, major accomplishments of the Grand Challenges initiative focus on increasing exposure to the social work field and some of its pressing problems across a variety of groups, from high-school students to policy-makers. This is 481

Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

accomplished through a set of papers describing the history and process of the initiative (Cosner Berzin et al. 2015, 2017; Coulton et al. 2015), a book that includes chapters about each Grand Challenge (Fong et al. 2018), short books aimed at emerging adults who are still exploring vocations, and a number of policy and research papers. The Network Leads of each Grand Challenge, sometimes with the support of others interested in the issues, have published brief reports, peerreviewed articles, and stand-alone books. The Social Work Grand Challenges website houses many of these resources.

Harness Technology for Social Good The purpose of the Harness Technology for Social Good (HTCH) Grand Challenge is to consider the ways that emerging technologies might address a number of other social challenges; in this way, it is different from the other Grand Challenges which focus on a problem to eliminate. Technology is not a problem to eliminate. Rather, the challenge is to envision technology as an opportunity to enhance problemsolving across a number of social justice issues. In 2015, the first HTCH Concept Papers were written. They were divided into two broad categories: Practice Innovation through Technology, and Harnessing Big Data. The Practice Innovation paper conceptualized the possible near future of the field, and authors Cosner Berzin, Singer, and Chan (2015) imagined these as including gaming and gamification, mobile technology, social media, robotics, the quantified self, and wearable technologies. However, they noted barriers to these goals, including: • • • •

Practitioner knowledge and education Practitioner misconceptions about technology Few evidence-based practices involving technology in the social work field Limited funding for technology innovations in social work practice settings

In order to circumvent these challenges, the Practice Innovation paper proposed greater inclusion of technology training in the social work curriculum, funding incentives to support evidence about the role of technology in practice approaches, and support for innovations in existing agencies alongside training for the current workforce. The authors envisioned greater attention to interdisciplinary collaboration, e.g., with computer scientists and engineers, as a tool that would also help achieve these goals. The Harnessing Big Data paper tackled a different issue: the immense amount of data collected by social service organizations, and the slow adoption of social services agencies to integrate data-driven findings in their practice settings. The authors, Coulton et al. (2015), conceptualized the Grand Challenge as the need to address data use for its potential to improve services, data silos (the lack of interconnected systems), and the ethical and legal use of personal data as it becomes more easily shared. 482

‘Harness Technology for Social Good’

As in the Practice Innovations paper, the Big Data paper identified the barriers to achieving the goals of harnessing big data, including: • • • • • •

Data security and privacy concerns The structure of the data; for instance, one data set is not easily compatible with another The use of data for purposes other than originally collected Data silos and digital divides The risks of big data increasing bias against marginalized people (e.g., as it is used in the insurance sector to increase rates to people in poor communities) The overreliance of data at the expense of human decision-making

The authors suggested that progress might be found by looking at the promising uses of large federal administrative datasets, linkages of datasets to improve multisystem understanding about the pathways of marginalized people who use multiple systems, and the use of public data made available through social media and internet archives. They noted that important goals necessary to accomplish these tasks include researchers’ improved access to data archives, building better data security and management strategies, preparing a pipeline of researchers who understand how to use big data, and promoting the use of big data as a resource for social work policy and practice. They suggested social work collaboration with the government, the private sector, and social movements to accomplish these tasks.

Policy Recommendations In 2016, the HTSG Grand Challenge published a brief set of recommendations focused on policy initiatives necessary to begin to address the challenge of Harnessing Technology in the social work sector (Cosner Berzin et al. 2017). The three nearfuture recommendations addressed marginalized communities, big data, and social work practice, as follows: • • •

Expand internet connectivity for underserved households Unlock government data to drive solutions to social problems Open the possibility of social work practice across state lines

The authors of this policy brief called upon the government sector and the U.S. Association of Social Work Boards to address these issues.

Harnessing Technology Grand Challenge Today At the time of this writing in 2021, the Harnessing Technology for Social Good Grand Challenge is halfway through the decade of the Grand Challenges initiative, thus primed to look at the progress made at addressing the original assumptions: that we are able to analyze, assess, and demonstrate progress regarding a problem in

483

Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

which the solutions require attention and innovation. The six Network Leads, spanning interests across areas of technological innovation, continue to meet to answer calls from the Executive Committee and to highlight areas of promising practice in technology innovation. To this end, Network Leads have facilitated webinars, met with doctoral students and engaged in other outreach activities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HTSG Network Leads were called upon to facilitate national discussions about practicing social work online, teaching online, and supervising students from a distance (see Silk 2021 for a brief review of activities from the first 5 years).

What Changed in the First Five Years? Between 2019 and 2021, the HTSG network conducted a review and synthesis of the international peer-reviewed literature about technology in which a social worker was an author or co-author, written between 2014–2019 (Hitchcock et. al., forthcoming). Nearly 600 articles were reviewed for inclusion, each reviewed by two scholars, and narrowed to only research studies. The findings point to the academic conversations currently undertaken by social work scholars about technology. Primary findings include that recent social work research is primarily descriptive (providing a lower level of evidence) versus experimental interventions (which provide a higher level of evidence about how technology impacts social work practice). Much of the existing literature in the social work field regarding technology focuses on the academic use of technology, and the tone about the utility of technology in social work is typically positive. This review grouped studies hierarchically by levels of evidence, including observational, cross-sectional, case-controlled studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews. We excluded commentaries, theoretical papers, and descriptive case studies. Observational studies, including surveys and qualitative research, are those that sought to describe the use of technology, and most of the reviewed articles fit this category. Examples from this category sought to assess the perceptions of technology use by social workers in the workplace (Gillingham 2016; Sage and Sage 2016; Wolf and Goldkind 2016; Curry et al. 2017) and how young people are impacted by technology, such as cyberbullying (Beran et al. 2015; Hong et al. 2016). Other examples of observational studies include surveys that collect data about types of help is available online and how people access it (Oh and Cho 2015; Schwartz, McMahon, and Broadnax 2015), qualitative studies that observe the ways social services workers use technology in their workplaces (Jang 2015; Warburton et al. 2014), and the types of posts that users make on Twitter about topics like mental health, gang involvement, or other topics of social work interest (De la Torre-Díez, Díaz-Pernas, and Antón-Rodríguez 2012; Patton, Frey, and Gaskell 2019). These studies are helpful in understanding the ways social workers and service users engage with technology. The academic use of technology is a common theme in social work research related to technology. These studies often report on a single use of technology in a 484

‘Harness Technology for Social Good’

social work classroom (Reinsmith-Jones et al. 2015; Hitchcock and Young 2016; Anthony and Jewell 2017; Teixeira 2018). They typically report on student satisfaction and student perceptions that the assignment met learning outcomes. Because curricular guidelines in social work classrooms mostly lack clear learning objectives related to technology in the social work classroom, these research articles are beneficial in providing examples and justifications for how to prepare social workers for technology-mediated settings. However, oftentimes those findings are about teaching processes, such as how to teach a practice skill in an online platform or strategies for engaging students in asynchronous courses. There is a gap in this area of literature as it applies to technology skills that transfer directly to practice: for instance, effective use of telehealth and technology-mediated interventions. Few of the studies undertook experimental designs that used control groups. Where these studies existed, they most frequently focused on computer-mediated interventions for manualized therapies. For instance, they compared an online parent training intervention to a no-treatment control group (Razuri et al. 2016), offered cognitive mediation strategies online compared to a sham treatment (Vereenooghe et al. 2015), and tested the effects on mood of a nature movie versus a generic movie in people with dementia (Reynolds et al. 2018). Generally, these studies demonstrated that computer-mediated interventions were efficacious in some way. As compared to studies that simply test the use of technology in the classroom, these studies, using controls, demonstrate that technology can improve social work outcomes. This research is important in that technology-mediated interventions can be easier to disseminate, improving efficiency related to cost, convenience, and reach. Research in fields such as psychology and medicine has established convincing evidence that telehealth and self-help internet interventions are as effective as face-to-face services at addressing many behavioral and physical health concerns through the use of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. However, more research is needed that demonstrates the effectiveness of technology-mediated services in marginalized populations, where clients often have multiple marginalized identities. This research needs a social work lens that is mindful of social justice issues and who may be left out, left behind, or even newly included when social work embarks on technology interventions. Social work scholars noted the accelerated diffusion of technology during the pandemic offers an opportunity to harness technology across fields (Nissen 2020; Wilkerson et al. 2020; Chui and Ko 2021). This is an important moment for social work when it comes to the public workforce, where the necessity to use technology for everyday tasks may introduce the need for retraining existing swaths of employees within human services systems. The technology acceleration promises innovation and accessibility for clients, and perhaps also an increased divide for service users who may have limited access to technology. The increasing reliance on technology for daily activities and interactions could easily contribute to increased social isolation for those without access at the same time that it offers increased opportunities for connection to others. While many of the social justice concerns named in the Grand Challenges focus on longstanding problems where bureaucracy and politics interfere with the 485

Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

ability to make noticeable changes in one’s lifetime, technology moves at such a rate that research collected last year is almost outdated. The shifts related to COVID-19 are likely to increase the complexities related to nuance about who benefits and who is most at risk due to these transformations. Thus, social work meets a turning point: what do we want to keep related to the use of technology during the pandemic, and what will we go back to as face-to-face restrictions lift? Will we continue to use video visits between children and parents, for instance, for children in foster care? This time-saving effort might improve the frequency of time together for families, but at what cost, and what efficiency does this make more time for? There are perhaps times when technology might save time, money, or be preferential to people served, and still not improve outcomes when compared to faceto-face services. One grand challenge for social workers is to find technology opportunities in the pandemic crisis while not losing sight of unanswered questions related to the efficacy of technology-mediated social work.

Challenges to the Technology Grand Challenge Leadership In the past 5 years, the Harness Technology Grand Challenges Network has had some changes in leadership but mostly consisted of five scholars who were either tenure-seeking, needed to prioritize their own scholarship, or were in leadership positions that consumed much of their service time. Early on, team meetings focused on to make the network successful, such as subcommittees for curriculum, policy, research, and practice. Our social work lens informs the need to span settings, outreach across disciplines, and network with legislators. We envisioned a subcommittee with a representative from each other grand challenge, given that technology intersects with all of them. However, after some attempts at recruiting help to manage this complex network, our vision changed. We did not have the administrative resources to manage this type of volunteer network. Instead, we turned our attention to answering immediate calls from the administrative team for book chapters and problem summaries. During COVID-19, many of us offered extra outreach to support tech integration at our schools or local agencies which further increased our service loads. And our team fulfilled roles as speakers at events hosted by multiple institutions. We took on small projects that we could manage within our network, like this book chapter and the aforementioned systematic review. Many other networks operated in a similar capacity.

Implications Undoubtedly, the Grand Challenges have resulted in a broader exposure to research within a set of thirteen areas of foci. The attention to a select number of issues led to an attractive framework for other thematic work: for instance, the two major US social work conferences, Society for Social Work Research and Council on Social Work Education’s Annual Program Meeting, have both hosted meetings focused on the Challenges. Several journal special issues have highlighted the Grand Challenges. 486

‘Harness Technology for Social Good’

The Grand Challenge to Harness Technology for Social Good, in particular, helps legitimize the attention to the intersection of social work and technology in our increasingly-digital environments. This is a helpful undertaking for a field that is often dubious about the benefits of technology in social work. Scholars who serve as leads to the Grand Challenges, selected for their existing scholarship and leadership in the areas, continue to produce work that exemplifies opportunities for technology to improve the field of social work. The Grand Challenges model could be made more robust by increased support for the networks should one want to replicate it on a similarly grand scale. This might look like: •

•

• • • •

Clear network organization structures: for instance, policy, practice, curriculum arms for each network with opportunities for subcommittee collaboration across the networks Administrative support for organizing network committees and subcommittees, including technology tools and administrative time; for instance, possibly a funded Graduate Research Assistant for each network A lobbyist to work on behalf of supporting funding for the Grand Challenges with policymakers and grant funders A fundraiser to support activities of the networks A structure to support interdisciplinary capacity of the networks Internal funding to support innovative pilot research

The future goals of the Harness Technology for Social Good Grand Challenge will strive to elicit continued attention to social workers and encourage them to think about technology. Grand Challenges activities, such as the systematic literature review undertaken by the committee, can highlight gaps, but the Grand Challenge alone is insufficient for moving the field toward the research needed at this intersection given the speed of societal changes.

The Future of the Grand Challenge to Harness Technology for Social Good One of the biggest challenges for social work has been to recognize and respond the the importance of technology in social work education, practice, policy and scholarship. The Harness Technology network co-leads worked diligently on this challenge. The single most important factor in getting social work to accept technology was the COVID-19 pandemic. Within days of the shelter-in-place orders, students, educators, practitioners at all levels, scholars, and policy makers adopted technological solutions. The challenge moving forward is to recognize and solidify those changes in social work attitudes and practices related to technology. Social workers could have an important role related to shaping the uses of technology in society, especially among society’s most vulnerable. However, this task assumes improved comfort in working across disciplines. For instance, one rapidly-emerging area of technology is the use of machine learning as applied to governmental data. Machine learning typically relies on past data to predict future 487

Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer

outcomes. However, computer scientists who build algorithms based on government data often do not understand the complexities related to data collection, worker bias during data collection that could show up in databases, and the other ways that machine learning might produce poorly-informed recommendations. To bring their training in social justice and understanding of data in social welfare to this field of work, social workers must be able to work effectively with engineers and also be able to understand statistical models that guide this work. Accomplishments such as those stated in the Grand Challenges will likely see better success when interdisciplinary strategies are implemented. Absent formal collaborations, social workers have opportunities to shape the scope of ethical work at the intersection of technology and social work. Because this work is increasingly led by the private sector, social workers may find themselves returning to the subfield of occupational and industrial social work. They may answer questions such as how wearable monitoring technologies (step tracking watches, heart rate monitors, sleep sensors, etc) should be used by employers, for instance, addressing complex issues about who is advantaged and disadvantaged by sharing this data. They may work with the industry on the design of wearables or machine learning to ensure fairness, or they may write state policy that governs the fair use of face recognition software, considering what marginalized groups might be disadvantaged by its use. Amongst fears that technology will replace social workers, it may actually be more likely that there are more rules for social workers than ever, and especially social workers who are equipped to work alongside technology, advocate in ways that are knowledgeable about the risks and benefits of technology, and in supporting people with both access to and protection from technology, informed by research from our field about who is served and who is harmed by our growing reliance on these tools. Grand Challenges aside, social workers have knowledge that benefits how people engage with, are affected by, and have access to technology tools. Especially relevant are the ethical issues related to technology applications in our field and others. Perhaps one of the major accomplishments of the Grand Challenges is positioning technology as one of the major opportunities for our field. We hope that more social workers will see their role in helping to harness technology for social good.

References Anthony, B., and J. R. Jewell. 2017. “Students’ perceptions of using Twitter for learning in social work courses.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(1): 38–48. Beran, T., F. Mishna, L. B. McInroy, and S. Shariff. 2015. “Children’s experiences of cyberbullying: A Canadian national study.” Children & Schools 37(4): 207–214. Chui, C. H.-K., and A. Ko. 2021. “Converging humanitarian technology and social work in a public health crisis: A social innovation response to COVID-19 in Hong Kong.” Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development 31(1–2): 59–66. Cosner Berzin, S., C. J. Coulton, R. Goerge, L. Hitchcock, E. Putnam-Hornstein, M. Sage, and J. Singer. 2017. Policy Recommendations for Meeting the Grand Challenge To Harness Technology for Social Good (Policy Brief No. 8; Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative). American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare. https://openscholarship. wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1791&context=csd_research

488

‘Harness Technology for Social Good’ Cosner Berzin, S., J. Singer, and C. Chan. 2015. Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: A grand challenge for social work (Working Paper 12; Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative). American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare. https:// grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP12-with-cover.pdf Coulton, C. J., R. Goerge, E. Putnam-Hornstein, and B. de Haan. 2015. Harnessing Big Data for Social Good: A Grand Challenge for Social Work (Working Paper Number 11; Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative, pp. 1–20). American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare. https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/12/WP11-with-cover.pdf Curry, S. R., J. van Draanen, and B. Freisthler. 2017. “Perceptions and use of a web-based referral system in child welfare: differences by caseworker tenure.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(2): 152–168. 10.1080/15228835.2017.1330725 De la Torre-Díez, I., F. J. Díaz-Pernas, and M. Antón-Rodríguez. 2012. “A content analysis of chronic diseases social groups on Facebook and Twitter.” Telemedicine and E-Health 18(6): 404–408. Fong, R., J. Lubben, and R. P. Barth (Eds.). 2018. Grand Challenges for Social Work and Society, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gillingham, P. 2016. “Predictive risk modelling to prevent child maltreatment and other adverse outcomes for service users: Inside the ‘black box’ of machine learning.” British Journal of Social Work 46(4): 1044–1058. 10.1093/bjsw/bcv031 Grajek, S., and D. Christopher Brooks. 2020. “A grand strategy for grand challenges—A new approach through digital transformation.” Educause Review 12: 10–23. Hitchcock, L. I., and J. A. Young. 2016. “Tweet, tweet! Using live Twitter chats in social work education.” Social Work Education 35(4): 457–468. Hong, J. S., J. Lee, D. L. Espelage, S. C. Hunter, D. U. Patton, and T. Rivers Jr. 2016. “Understanding the correlates of face-to-face and cyberbullying victimization among US adolescents: A social-ecological analysis.” Violence and Victims 31(4): 638–663. Jang, K. 2015. “Technology could be harmful rather than beneficial: An empirical investigation of caseworkers’ perceptions using a knowledge management framework.” Journal of Social Service Research 41(2): 246–268. 10.1080/01488376.2014.983260 Kaldewey, D. 2018. “The grand challenges discourse: Transforming identity work in science and science policy.” Minerva 56(2): 161–182. 10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2 Nissen, L. 2020. “Social work and the future in a post-Covid 19 world: A foresight lens and a call to action for the profession.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 38(4): 309–330. Oh, Y. S., and Y. Cho. 2015. “Examining the relationships between resources and online health information seeking among patients with chronic diseases and healthy people.” Social Work in Health Care 54(2): 83–100. Patton, D. U., W. R. Frey, and M. Gaskell. 2019. “Guns on social media: Complex interpretations of gun images posted by Chicago youth.” Palgrave Communications 5(1): 1–8. 10.1057/s41599-019-0330-x Razuri, E. B., A. R. Hiles Howard, S. R. Parris, C. D. Call, J. H. DeLuna, J. S. Hall, K. B. Purvis, and D. R. Cross. 2016. “Decrease in behavioral problems and trauma symptoms among at-risk adopted children following web-based trauma-informed parent training intervention.” Journal of Evidence Informed Social Work 13(2): 165–178. https://doi.org/10/ dn2c. Reinsmith-Jones, K., S. Kibbe, T. Crayton, and E. Campbell. 2015. “Use of second life in social work education: Virtual world experiences and their effect on students.” Journal of Social Work Education 51(1): 90–108. Reynolds, L., S. Rodiek, M. Lininger, and M. A. McCulley. 2018. “Can a virtual nature experience reduce anxiety and agitation in people with dementia?” Journal of Housing for the Elderly 32(2): 176–193. https://doi.org/10/ggmcxr. Sage, M., and T. Sage. 2016. “Social media and e-professionalism in child welfare: Policy and practice.” Journal of Public Child Welfare 10(1): 79–95.

489

Melanie Sage and Jonathan Singer Schwartz, R., S. McMahon, and J. Broadnax. 2015. “A review of sexual assault information on college web sites.” Health & Social Work 40(4): 275–282. Silk, K. 2021. Harness Technology for Social Good: 5 Year Impact. Grand Challenges for Social Work. https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/resources/harness-technology-for-socialgood-five-year-impact/ Teixeira, S. 2018. “Qualitative geographic information systems (GIS): An untapped research approach for social work.” Qualitative Social Work 17(1): 9–23. Uehara, E., M. Flynn, R. Fong, J. Brekke, R. P. Barth, C. Coulton, K. Davis, D. DiNitto, J. D. Hawkins, J. Lubben, R. Manderscheid, Y. Padilla, M. Sherraden, and K. Walters. 2013. “Grand Challenges for Social Work.” Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 4(3): 165–170. 10.5243/jsswr.2013.11 Vereenooghe, L., S. Reynolds, L. Gega, and P. E. Langdon. 2015. “Can a computerised training paradigm assist people with intellectual disabilities to learn cognitive mediation skills? A randomised experiment.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 71: 10–19. https://doi. org/10/gjmcsp. Warburton, J., S. Cowan, R. Winterton, and S. Hodgkins. 2014. “Building social inclusion for rural older people using information and communication technologies: Perspectives of rural practitioners.” Australian Social Work 67(4): 479–494. Wilkerson, D. A., S. N. Wolfe-Taylor, C. K. Deck, E. A. Wahler, and T. S. Davis. 2020. “Telebehavioral practice basics for social worker educators and clinicians responding to COVID-19.” Social Work Education 39(8): 1137–1145. Wolf, L., and L. Goldkind. 2016. “Digital native meet friendly visitor: A Flexner-inspired call to digital action.” Journal of Social Work Education 52(sup1): S99–S109.

490

40 DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK Support at Your Fingertips Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

Introduction Technology continues to increasingly pervade every aspect of daily life including social work. This use of digital technologies for social work practice and research has been further accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Figueroa and Aguilera 2020). Social workers in practice settings have generally been skeptical about the integration of technology and automated programs. At the core of this conflict is whether technology improves people’s lives or whether it interferes with connecting with clients (Parrott and Madoc-Jones 2008). There are real challenges and barriers to integrating apps into social work services, both from a system and a consumer perspective. From a system perspective, the barriers include policy-level challenges, such as regulatory and licensing requirements; and provider-level challenges, such as fears surrounding deprofessionalization, therapeutic alliance disruption, and technology failures and limitations. From a consumer perspective, the barriers include access to technology, digital literacy, and confidentiality and privacy issues. Despite valid concerns, adjacent fields in areas such as health and mental health are rapidly developing and proliferating technology-based interventions and apps. If social work does not advance similarly, key knowledge and expertise from social work practitioners and researchers will be absent in the development and implementation of digital health. This could result in excluding considerations of social justice and the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, thus exacerbating existing inequities. Digital and mobile health (mHealth) applications are playing an increasingly integral role in the provision of social work services. Digital health applications have aimed to improve the scale, quality, and engagement in interventions for health and mental health. Many apps have been shown to bridge cracks in access to and continuity of social work services, facilitate assessments and clinical interventions, and support client coping, self-management, and self-efficacy. Yet, the potential of further blending digital tools into social work services to expand their reach is

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-48

491

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

immense. As you will see in further detail in this chapter, technology integration has mostly been studied in health and mental health settings. However, innovative programs have also been applied to prevent interpersonal violence ( Hawkins et al. 2009; Sorbring, Bolin, and Ryding 2015; Glass et al. 2017; Hegarty et al. 2019), improve case management in homeless settings (Bender et al. 2014, 2015; Greeson et al. 2020) and address parenting challenges (Lee and Walsh 2015; Chow et al. 2016). It is important to understand the strong base that social work can build upon to influence the integration of technology into care. Although there are many reviews of digital health interventions, few focus specifically on applications in social work settings or studies conducted by social work faculty. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a scoping review of the existing literature on the use of technology and digital interventions in social work. Our overarching research question is: what does the technology landscape look like within the field of social work as measured by peer-reviewed articles that: a) evaluate digital interventions designed by/ with social workers; b) involve social workers in the implementation and/or delivery of a digital intervention; or c) are led by social work faculty and researchers.

Methods Overview We conducted a scoping review based on the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), which involves: identifying a research question; identifying relevant studies; selecting studies; charting data; and summarizing and reporting results. Scoping reviews aim to explore and map the evidence landscape, particularly in complex and understudied domains, in order to better understand the potential size and scope of available literature (Grant and Booth 2009). A scoping review was appropriate for this chapter, as there is currently a paucity of information regarding the extent to which technology has been integrated into social work settings.

Inclusion Criteria We were primarily interested in digital interventions designed to support service provision and delivery to clients; thus, we looked at client/patient-facing technology, as opposed to provider-facing technology. We focused our search on mobile applications, but we also included relevant studies utilizing other forms of technology, such as text messaging, computer-based programs, and virtual reality. We did not place any limitations on the study population, setting, publication date, or study design. However, we excluded studies describing the hypothetical use or development of digital tools, as we wanted to highlight existing interventions.

Search Process We conducted a literature search in PsycINFO, Social Services Abstracts, PubMed, and CINAHL from their inception through December 28, 2020. We utilized the 492

Digital Social Work

following search strings: a) “social work” AND “digital intervention” and b) “social work” AND “app.” An initial search in these 4 electronic databases yielded 309 citations. Using the same two search strings, we reviewed the first 100 results populated in Google Scholar. Additionally, we hand-searched the staff directories of 6 large social work programs in the United States to identify faculty members in the field of e-health and digital interventions. For staff directories that included a search function, we filtered results by research specialties and looked at the publications of faculty members who study technology-related topics. For directories that did not have filtering capabilities, we perused a list of expanded publications for each faculty member and used the search bar to locate any of the following words: tech, digital, electronic, online, web, computer, mobile, phone, app, mHealth, eHealth. Studies that included one or more of these terms were considered.

Data Extraction Titles and abstracts of retrieved citations were screened, and relevant studies were reviewed in full. Following study selection, we extracted and charted the following data from each study: authors, publication date, social work domain, relation to social work, intervention name, intervention type, technology utilized, service delivery method, target issue, population, language, geographic focus, outcomes, and theoretical mechanisms of action.

Summary and Reporting After data extraction, we mapped the nature and distribution of included studies to better understand the focus of existing literature. We organized the studies thematically according to social work domain and social work involvement.

Results Forty-six studies describing digital interventions in social work were selected for this scoping review. Types of technology utilized include smartphone apps, tablet-based apps, text messaging, web-based programs, online curriculum, personal digital assistants, and virtual reality.

Social Work Involvement Only 7 of the 46 studies included social workers in the design process. Six studies relied on interdisciplinary teams of social workers, health professionals, engineers, and/or computer programmers to design digital tools ( Lee and Walsh 2015; Brown et al. 2016; Doarn et al. 2019; Heiney et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2020; Vilardaga et al. 2020). The remaining study utilized a Participatory Action Research approach to involve social workers (Ravalier et al. 2020). In 19 of the 46 studies, social workers assisted with implementing the digital intervention. Social workers provided individual therapy and case management 493

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

(Crawford et al. 2013; Bender et al. 2014, 2015; Ruggiero et al. 2015; Castel et al. 2018; Cohen et al. 2020; Greeson et al. 2020), facilitated support groups and group therapy (Rotondi et al. 2005; Elgán et al. 2016; Aguilera et al. 2017), served as study coordinators (Perry et al. 2010; Sorbring, Bolin, and Ryding 2015), tested digital tools (Chow et al. 2016; Rönkkö 2018), conducted screenings and interviews (Hawkins et al. 2009; Hughes et al. 2017), referred patients to health apps (Beer et al. 2020), tracked client progress (Crunkilton and Robinson 2008), and made home visits (Xiang et al. 2020). In the remaining 20 articles, study authors included social work researchers and faculty members, but there was no explicit mention of social workers being involved in the design or implementation of the digital intervention.

Behavioral Health Of the 46 included studies, 19 studies described digital interventions for behavioral health care. These 19 studies targeted depression and suicidality, anxiety disorders, trauma, substance use, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder, and mental wellbeing and coping.

Depression and Suicidality In a clinical trial of a text messaging intervention designed to supplement group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression, low-income, Spanish-speaking Latino patients received daily mood monitoring messages, skills-building messages, and medication and appointment reminders on their mobile phones (Aguilera et al. 2017). Patients receiving the text messaging adjunct stayed in group therapy significantly longer and attended more sessions (median of 13.5 out of 16 weeks and 6 sessions before dropping out) than patients receiving paper-based worksheets and projects (median of 3 weeks and 2.5 sessions before dropping out). Both treatment groups experienced significant decreases in depressive symptom severity. Improvements in treatment engagement and depressive symptoms were also noted in another study investigating the impact of CBT on depression in home care older adults (Xiang et al. 2020). Social work graduate students trained participants to complete tablet-based modules that included didactic text with voice-over, video clips, and CBT exercises. Participants completed a mean of 4.7 out of 8 therapy sessions and reported decreased symptoms of depression and anxiety, along with the increased quality of life. Two studies tested the feasibility and validity of digital tools for depression and suicide prevention in youths (Cohen et al. 2020) and underserved Latino patients (Jin and Wu 2020). Jin and Wu (2020) compared depression screening via SMS text messaging to in-person interviewer assessments in safety net primary care settings. SMS text message screening had good internal consistency, high test-retest reliability, and concordance with the in-person interviewer assessment mode. Additionally, technology-mediated assessments were associated with increased selfdisclosure of depression and anxiety symptoms. In Cohen et al.’s (2020) study, 494

Digital Social Work

mental health professionals tested a machine learning smartphone app designed to gauge suicide risk in adolescents receiving outpatient therapy. The suicide risk prediction model and voice collection technology had good discriminative ability and could be integrated into the therapy workflow.

Anxiety Disorders A pilot study aimed at treating anxiety disorders among children tested the effectiveness of a computer-assisted CBT program that used exposure therapy and coping techniques to reduce fear and anxiety (Crawford et al. 2013). Children completed half the sessions independently on a computer and the other half of the sessions with a licensed social worker or mental health clinician. Significant reductions in anxiety severity and impairment were noted. Vogel et al. (2014) conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing videoconference-assisted exposure and response prevention (ERP) treatment, self-help ERP, and no treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in patients receiving outpatient treatment at specialized clinics. Compared to self-help ERP and no treatment, patients receiving videoconference ERP reported significantly greater reductions in all OCD symptoms, and their treatment gains were maintained at 3-month follow-up.

Trauma Two studies used web-based interventions accessed via tablets to deliver traumafocused CBT to children who had experienced trauma and exhibited symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Both studies targeted underserved populations, with one sample consisting of 86% Black children and the other study recruiting from a Midwestern rural county. In Ruggiero et al.’s (2015) study, children, social workers and other mental health providers evaluated an e-workbook that included videos, interactive homework assignments, touch screen games, and drawing applications designed to improve patient engagement and treatment fidelity. In Anderson and Cook’s (2015) study, children created digital stories to describe a traumatic experience. Both interventions were well received and elicited positive feedback. Additionally, Anderson and Cook (2015) found that participants demonstrated clinically significant improvements in psychological distress and well-being post-intervention. Freedman, Eitan, and Weiniger (2020) implemented a Virtual Reality visuospatial task in a hospital emergency department to interrupt patients’ memory consolidation following a traumatic event. This intervention had previously been shown to decrease acute pain during wound care and physical therapy, but no significant differences in PTSD symptom levels were found between intervention and control groups in this RCT.

Substance Use Two studies describe the development of smartphone apps targeting adolescent substance use. Schinke, Schwinn, and Hursh’s (2015) app aims to equip Hispanic 495

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

American youths with the cognitive-behavioral skills necessary to avoid drug use. Patterson Silver Wolf et al.’s (2020) app uses psychoeducational tools, didactic worksheets, and games to increase adolescent engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. The app was integrated into clients’ treatment plans, and those who used the app most extensively were more likely to attend, engage in, and complete treatment. Treatment progress was also achieved by drug court participants who completed an internet-based journey mapping program (Crunkilton and Robinson 2008). Social workers monitored their clients’ progress as participants created structured digital narratives that helped them achieve behavioral and cognitive change through increased self-reflection. An interdisciplinary team of primary care providers, social workers, and technology specialists designed a tablet-based app that disseminated patient-centered outcomes research to facilitate smoking cessation counseling and shared decisionmaking between physicians and patients (Doarn et al. 2019). Each professional brought unique, and at times, differing, perspectives, thus necessitating effective communication and compromise to create a user-friendly version acceptable to both patients and providers.

Schizophrenia Persons with schizophrenia and their family members were assigned to receive a telehealth intervention or usual care in an RCT (Rotondi et al. 2005). The telehealth intervention was a web-based psychoeducation program that provided reading materials, relevant news and activities, question and answer forums, and online group therapy facilitated by social workers and PhD clinicians. Participants in the telehealth intervention group reported significantly less perceived stress and greater perceived social support than those in the usual care group.

Autism Spectrum Disorder Adults with autism spectrum disorder were randomized to receive computerized virtual reality job interview training or treatment as usual (Smith et al. 2014). Those in the intervention condition participated in interactive role-play simulations and demonstrated improved job interview skills, enhanced self-confidence, and progressively higher performance scores.

Mental Wellbeing and Coping Social workers played a key role in the development of two smartphone apps promoting self-care and stress management. In Ravalier et al.’s (2020) study, a Participatory Action Research approach involving interviews and focus groups was employed to design a wellbeing and stress management intervention with and for social workers in the United Kingdom. The app included psychoeducation, a communication portal, and access to a vocational rehabilitation assistant, which 496

Digital Social Work

improved working conditions and communication. In Liu et al.’s (2020) study, experts in social work, nursing, gerontology, engineering, and technology developed an app with readings, exercise videos, a chat room, coaching, and community resources to promote self-care in Chinese immigrant caregivers. The app had high usability and acceptability. Social workers have also helped to implement preventive digital mental health interventions. In one study, social workers and psychologists moderated weekly chat meetings that took place via an online group chat platform (Elgán et al. 2016). The manual-based sessions were designed to strengthen protective factors, decrease alcohol consumption, and prevent mental illness in 15–25 year-olds whose parents have substance use problems and/or mental illnesses. In another study, social work researchers interviewed caregivers of dementia patients about their experiences using a mobile app designed to assess behavior, task performance, and stress levels to detect and prevent caregiver burnout (Hughes et al. 2017).

Physical Health Of the 46 studies included in our scoping review, 18 discussed digital interventions for physical health. Ten studies addressed health conditions and chronic diseases, while the other eight targeted sexual health and physical activity.

Health Conditions and Chronic Diseases Digital tools have been designed to promote self-management of health conditions through symptom monitoring, behavioral interventions, remote support from healthcare professionals, and access to health information and resources. Many of these tools were designed for and tested with diverse and underserved communities. One smartphone app was designed by nurses, social workers, and computer engineers to help older African Americans with heart failure monitor symptoms, increase health literacy, and build self-efficacy (Heiney et al. 2020). The app improved patients’ self-care maintenance, management, and confidence. Also developed for self-management of heart failure, Portz et al.’s (2018) tablet-based app helped older adults monitor cardiac symptoms, health status, care utilization, and costs. Patients found the app easy to use, understandable, and acceptable. Two studies utilized technology (text messages and tablet-based apps) to target type 2 diabetes care management in low-income Latino adults (Watterson et al. 2018) and older adults in rural Taiwan (Yu et al. 2020). Participants experienced reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (Watterson et al. 2018) and increased health awareness and perceived sense of support (Yu et al. 2020). Three additional digital health tools are undergoing testing. One is a web-based pain tracking tool developed by social workers, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and nurses to reduce chronic pain through acceptance and commitment therapy exercises (Vilardaga et al. 2020). The second is a mobile app that provides burn patients with recovery content, instructional videos, psychosocial functioning support, and behavioral activation messages (Abrams et al. 2019). Finally, a mindfulness-based stress 497

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

reduction intervention was adapted for mobile delivery and tailored to survivors of lung cancer and their family members, the majority of whom were Black (Beer et al. 2020). The above interventions were primarily designed for patients, but there have also been digital tools developed for caregivers. One web-based tool streamlined communication between health care providers and caregivers of patients with dementia in home care and primary care settings (Brown et al. 2016). Throughout the design process, researchers, social workers and local service providers considered the increased obstacles faced by Black and Hispanic caregivers. Another web-based tool enabled family caregivers to track and manage their loved ones’ behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (Kales et al. 2018). Caregiver distress significantly decreased after one month of tool use. A third study assessed a technologyenabled peer-mentoring program for renal teams working with young adults with chronic kidney disease (Perry et al. 2010). Social workers in dialysis units served as study coordinators and shared informational DVDs and online patient community websites with renal team members to improve their understanding of patient experiences and treatment adherence issues.

Sexual Health Digital interventions have been developed to reduce sexual risk behaviors and prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV among adolescents and young adults. Four studies were conducted by social work faculty to investigate the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of such interventions. Cordova et al. (2020) found that youths who participated in digital storytelling and interactive body health activities demonstrated higher youth-clinician risk communication, improved prevention knowledge and self-efficacy, and increased STI/HIV testing. Results from the other 3 studies showed that digital interventions were highly acceptable, interesting, informative and usable, and they had the potential to positively impact sexual risk behavior, sexual health knowledge and HIV testing in diverse youths, including Black and Hispanic adolescents, homeless youth and transgender persons (Rice et al. 2012; Ignacio et al. 2019; Wilbourn et al. 2020). For adolescents and young adults living with HIV, Castel et al. (2018) modified 3 video games to include HIV resistance content to improve adherence to prescribed antiretroviral treatment. All participants identified as Black, and they expressed willingness to engage with novel technology to supplement HIV specialty services provided by physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists.

Physical Activity Regular physical activity is important for health, and digital interventions have been designed to motivate people to exercise. Three studies tested the use of activity trackers, apps, and/or phone messages. Ramirez and Wu (2017) found that urban, low-income Latino adults with type 2 diabetes who received text messages and voice messages continually increased their daily step counts over 12 weeks and considered self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback, and social support to be useful. The other 498

Digital Social Work

two studies revealed that wearable activity trackers and text messages resulted in positive lifestyle changes in vulnerable youth living in group homes (Rönkkö 2018) and increased quality of life for adults who had experienced homelessness (Rhoades et al. 2019).

Child and Family Safety and Wellbeing The remaining 9 of the 46 studies discuss digital interventions that enhance the safety and wellbeing of children and families. These interventions target domestic abuse, dating violence, homelessness, and parenting.

Domestic Abuse and Dating Violence Social work faculty and researchers were involved in two studies on the effects of internet-based safety decision aids for women experiencing intimate partner violence. Based on the empowerment model and psychosocial readiness model, these tools use individualized safety planning and messages to help women make informed decisions about their safety. Glass et al. (2017) found that women participating in the intervention rated safety behaviors as more helpful, experienced less decisional conflict, and were more likely to have ended their abusive relationship. In Hegarty et al.’s (2019) study, intervention participants found the tool supportive, and they felt motivated to take action. In another study, an online game-based intervention program was set up by school-based social work students in Sweden to combat adolescent dating violence in teens aged 13 to 19 years (Sorbring, Bolin, and Ryding 2015). The game helped build players’ awareness of dating violence dynamics and empowered adolescents to take action in their relationships. Participants found the content on healthy relationships, warning signs of abuse, risk factors, and help seeking to be informative and engaging. Intimate partner violence and abuse and neglect of children, elders, and people with disabilities is pervasive in the United States, and a team of nurses, social workers, and faculty members created a screening tool that could be loaded onto clinicians’ personal digital assistants (Hawkins et al. 2009). This technology was incorporated into care protocols at a home health agency, thus enabling faster mobilization of resources, facilitating same-day assessments and referrals, and improving communication between health care providers and local social service agencies.

Homelessness Two studies conducted by the same research group describe the use of technology to improve case management (Bender et al. 2015) and communication between social workers and ethnically diverse youths experiencing homelessness (Bender et al. 2014). These youths were provided cell phones for 3 months, and social work research assistants periodically checked in with them via phone calls, texts, emails, and Facebook. 499

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera

The majority of youths appreciated the convenience and accessibility of electronic case management and felt connected to and supported by their social worker. In another study, a mobile app was developed to support homeless and unstably housed Black and Hispanic youths in identifying, locating, and utilizing social services and health services (Greeson et al. 2020). The app positively impacted users’ knowledge, attitudes, and help seeking behavior related to homelessness or unstable housing.

Parenting A website and mobile app were developed to enhance mothers’ understanding of child safety (Chow et al. 2016). The program contained safety information and online games covering the types and consequences of domestic injuries, injury prevention measures, and developmental milestones. Content was tailored to mothers, teachers, social workers, and medical and allied health professionals in Hong Kong. Lee and Walsh (2015) noticed increased barriers to parental engagement among military fathers and low-income Black fathers. They worked with social workers, psychologists, and technology specialists to design a smartphone app that sent periodic push notifications to new fathers, encouraging them to access educational content on child development and engage in activities with their babies. Both first-time and experienced military fathers and Black fathers found the app useful, interesting and relevant, and they were enthusiastic about the suggested activities.

Discussion Our scoping review found that social workers are involved in research on varied technology-based interventions focused largely on behavioral and physical health but also related to violence prevention, case management and parenting. This review reinforces the value that social work perspectives bring to the field of digital health as key stakeholders in various social service settings that specifically target underserved and vulnerable populations. At the same time, this review indicates the need to increase the digital social work footprint. Only 7 of the 46 studies included social workers in the design process. Social workers provide most of the behavioral health services in the United States (SAMHSA 2020). Many digital interventions address mental health and substance use, and social workers should be involved in their design, since it is their clients to whom these interventions are targeted. Within medical settings, social workers are responsible for conducting psychosocial assessments, facilitating care coordination, and assisting with discharge planning. Through these responsibilities, they gain insight into patients’ personal and environmental circumstances, as well as barriers to care and treatment adherence, which other members of the medical team may not be aware of. Social workers tend to have the clearest sense of consumer/patient lives and could inform increased personalization in digital health development and planning. Thus, social work involvement in digital health is crucial. 500

Digital Social Work

Another key finding of this review is that the majority of technology-based interventions in social work tend to target underserved and vulnerable populations such as racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, low-income and/or homeless individuals, rural communities, at-risk youths, older adults, individuals with chronic mental or physical health conditions, and survivors of abuse. Social workers often work with these underserved populations, and their involvement in designing and implementing digital interventions can ensure that interventions are tailored to the needs of the vulnerable and distributed equitably. For example, digital interventions are often web or computer based, but many individuals do not have consistent and reliable access to the Internet and computers. Social workers can push for platforms that are more widely accessible (e.g., text messages). Technology access and development within social work is a social justice issue. The ongoing utilization of advanced computational technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning for health care innovation, which is often profit-driven, carries the risk of leaving social work client systems behind. Although social workers are sometimes circumspect about incorporating technology in their work, it is imperative for social workers to proactively adapt to and participate in the development of digital tools that pervade our society to enable more effective and equitable social work interventions.

References Abrams, T. E., A. A. Lloyd, L. E. Elzey, and W. L. Hickerson. 2019. “The Bridge: A Mobile Application for Burn Patients.” Burns 45(3): 699–704. 10.1016/j.burns.2018.09.028. Aguilera, A., E. Bruehlman-Senecal, O. Demasi, and P. Avila. 2017. “Automated Text Messaging as an Adjunct to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Clinical Trial.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 19(5): e148. 10.2196/jmir.6914. Anderson, K. M., and J. R. Cook. 2015. “Challenges and Opportunities of Using Digital Storytelling as a Trauma Narrative Intervention for Traumatized Children.” Advances in Social Work 16(1): 78–89. 10.18060/18132. Arksey, H., and L. O’Malley. 2005. “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32. 10.1080/136455703200011 9616. Beer, J. M., K. N. Smith, T. Kennedy, G. Mois, D. Acena, D. G. Gallerani, K. K. McDonnell, and O. L. Owens. 2020. “A Focus Group Evaluation of Breathe Easier: A Mindfulness-Based MHealth App for Survivors of Lung Cancer and Their Family Members.” American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP 34(7): 770–778. 10.1177/0890117120924176. Bender, K., S. Begun, A. DePrince, B. Haffejee, and S. Kaufmann. 2014. “Utilizing Technology for Longitudinal Communication with Homeless Youth.” Social Work in Health Care 53(9): 865–882. 10.1080/00981389.2014.925532. Bender, K., N. Schau, S. Begun, B. Haffejee, A. Barman-Adhikari, and J. Hathaway. 2015. “Electronic Case Management with Homeless Youth.” Evaluation and Program Planning 50(June): 36–42. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.02.002. Brown, E. L., N. Ruggiano, T. F. Page, L. Roberts, V. Hristidis, K. L. Whiteman, and J. Castro. 2016. “CareHeroes Web and AndroidTM Apps for Dementia Caregivers: A Feasibility Study.” Research in Gerontological Nursing 9(4): 193–203. 10.3928/19404921-20160229-02. Castel, A. D., S. Qasmieh, D. Greenberg, N. Ellenberger, T. H. Howell, C. Griffith, B. C. Wilbourn, et al. 2018. “Digital Gaming to Improve Adherence Among Adolescents and Young Adults Living With HIV: Mixed-Methods Study to Test Feasibility and Acceptability.” JMIR Serious Games 6(4): e10213. 10.2196/10213.

501

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera Chow, C. B., W. Hing-Sang Wong, W. C. Leung, M. Hoi-Yin Tang, K. L. Chan, C. Kl Or, T. Mh Li, F. Ka Wing Ho, D. Lo, and P. Ip. 2016. “Effectiveness of a Technology-Based Injury Prevention Program for Enhancing Mothers’ Knowledge of Child Safety: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.” JMIR Research Protocols 5(4): e205. 10.2196/resprot.6216. Cohen, J., J. Wright-Berryman, L. Rohlfs, D. Wright, M. Campbell, D. Gingrich, D. Santel, and J. Pestian. 2020. “A Feasibility Study Using a Machine Learning Suicide Risk Prediction Model Based on Open-Ended Interview Language in Adolescent Therapy Sessions.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(21). 10.3390/ ijerph17218187. Cordova, D., J. Munoz-Velazquez, F. M. Lua, K. Fessler, S. Warner, J. Delva, N. Adelman, Youth Leadership Council, A. Fernandez, and J. Bauermeister. 2020. “Pilot Study of a Multilevel Mobile Health App for Substance Use, Sexual Risk Behaviors, and Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV Among Youth: Randomized Controlled Trial.” JMIR MHealth and UHealth 8(3): e16251. 10.2196/16251. Crawford, E. A., A. Salloum, A. B. Lewin, R. Andel, T. K. Murphy, and E. A. Storch. 2013. “A Pilot Study of Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Childhood Anxiety in Community Mental Health Centers.” Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 27(3): 221–234. 10.1891/0889-8391.27.3.221. Crunkilton, D. D., and M. M. Robinson. 2008. “Cracking the ‘Black Box’: Journey Mapping’s Tracking System in a Drug Court Program Evaluation.” Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 8(4): 511–529. 10.1080/15332560802347302. Doarn, C. R., M. B. Vonder Meulen, H. Pallerla, S. P. Acquavita, S. Regan, N. Elder, and M. R. Tubb. 2019. “Challenges in the Development of E-Quit WorRx: An IPad App for Smoking Cessation Counseling and Shared Decision Making in Primary Care.” JMIR Formative Research 3(1): e11300. 10.2196/11300. Elgán, T. H., N. Kartengren, A. K. Strandberg, M. Ingemarson, H. Hansson, U. Zetterlind, and J. Gripenberg. 2016. “A Web-Based Group Course Intervention for 15-25-Year-Olds Whose Parents Have Substance Use Problems or Mental Illness: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.” BMC Public Health 16(1): 1011. 10.1186/s12889-016-3691-8. Figueroa, C. A., and A. Aguilera. 2020. “The Need for a Mental Health Technology Revolution in the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 11(June). 10.3389/fpsyt. 2020.00523. Freedman, S. A., R. Eitan, and C. F. Weiniger. 2020. “Interrupting Traumatic Memories in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 11(1): 1750170. 10.1080/20008198.2020.1750170. Glass, N. E., N. A. Perrin, G. C. Hanson, T. L. Bloom, J. T. Messing, A. S. Clough, J. C. Campbell, A. C. Gielen, J. Case, and K. B. Eden. 2017. “The Longitudinal Impact of an Internet Safety Decision Aid for Abused Women.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 52(5): 606–615. 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.12.014. Grant, M. J., and A. Booth. 2009. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information and Libraries Journal 26(2): 91–108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Greeson, J. K. P., D. Treglia, S. Morones, M. Hopkins, and D. Mikell. 2020. “Youth Matters: Philly (YMP): Development, Usability, Usefulness, & Accessibility of a Mobile WebBased App for Homeless and Unstably Housed Youth.” Children and Youth Services Review 108(January): 104586. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104586. Hawkins, J. W., C. W. Pearce, J. Skeith, B. Dimitruk, and R. Roche. 2009. “Using Technology to Expedite Screening and Intervention for Domestic Abuse and Neglect.” Public Health Nursing (Boston, Mass.) 26(1): 58–69. 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2008.00754.x. Hegarty, K., L. Tarzia, J. Valpied, E. Murray, C. Humphreys, A. Taft, K. Novy, L. Gold, and N. Glass. 2019. “An Online Healthy Relationship Tool and Safety Decision Aid for Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence (I-DECIDE): A Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet Public Health 4(6): e301–e310. 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30079-9.

502

Digital Social Work Heiney, S. P., S. B. Donevant, S. A. Adams, P. D. Parker, H. Chen, and S. Levkoff. 2020. “A Smartphone App for Self-Management of Heart Failure in Older African Americans: Feasibility and Usability Study.” JMIR Aging 3(1): e17142. 10.2196/17142. Hughes, J. C., T. Banerjee, G. Goodman, and L. Lawhorne. 2017. “A Preliminary Qualitative Analysis on the Feasibility of Using Gaming Technology in Caregiver Assessment.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 35(3): 183–198. 10.1080/15228835.2017.1347553. Ignacio, M., R. Garofalo, C. Pearson, L. M. Kuhns, J. Bruce, D. S. Batey, A. Radix, et al. 2019. “Pilot Feasibility Trial of the MyPEEPS Mobile App to Reduce Sexual Risk among Young Men in 4 Cities.” JAMIA Open 2(2): 272–279. 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz008. Jin, H., and S. Wu. 2020. “Text Messaging as a Screening Tool for Depression and Related Conditions in Underserved, Predominantly Minority Safety Net Primary Care Patients: Validity Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 22(3): e17282. 10.2196/17282. Kales, H. C., L. N. Gitlin, B. Stanislawski, H. M. Kim, K. Marx, M. Turnwald, C. Chiang, and C. G. Lyketsos. 2018. “Effect of the WeCareAdvisorTM on Family Caregiver Outcomes in Dementia: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.” BMC Geriatrics 18(1): 113. 10.1186/s12877-018-0801-8. Lee, S. J., and T. B. Walsh. 2015. “Using Technology in Social Work Practice: The MDad (Mobile Device Assisted Dad) Case Study.” Advances in Social Work 16(1): 107–124. 10.18060/18134. Liu, M., T. Jiang, K. Yu, S. Wu, M. Jordan-Marsh, and I. Chi. 2020. “Care Me Too, a Mobile App for Engaging Chinese Immigrant Caregivers in Self-Care: Qualitative Usability Study.” JMIR Formative Research 4(12): e20325. 10.2196/20325. Parrott, L., and I. Madoc-Jones. 2008. “Reclaiming Information and Communication Technologies for Empowering Social Work Practice.” Journal of Social Work 8(2): 181–197. 10.1177/1468017307084739. Patterson Silver Wolf, D. A., A. T. Ramsey, J. Epstein, S. Beeler-Stinn, and A. A. Black Deer. 2020. “Bridges to Sobriety: Testing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile App Designed to Supplement an Adolescent Substance Use Disorder Treatment Program.” Clinical Social Work Journal June. 10.1007/s10615-020-00765-w. Perry, E. E., K. Zheng, A. Grogan-Kaylor, M. W. Newman, and T. C. E. Veinot. 2010. “Assessing the Effect of a Technology-Based Peer-Mentoring Intervention on Renal Teams’ Perceived Knowledge and Comfort Level Working With Young Adults on Dialysis.” The Journal of Nephrology Social Work 33: 8–12. Portz, J. D., A. Vehovec, M. A. Dolansky, J. B. Levin, S. Bull, and R. Boxer. 2018. “The Development and Acceptability of a Mobile Application for Tracking Symptoms of Heart Failure Among Older Adults.” Telemedicine Journal and E-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association 24(2): 161–165. 10.1089/tmj.2017.0036. Ramirez, M., and S. Wu. 2017. “Phone Messaging to Prompt Physical Activity and Social Support Among Low-Income Latino Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Pilot Study.” JMIR Diabetes 2(1): e8. 10.2196/diabetes.7063. Ravalier, J. M., E. Wainwright, N. Smyth, O. Clabburn, P. Wegrzynek, and M. Loon. 2020. “Co-Creating and Evaluating an App-Based Well-Being Intervention: The HOW (Healthier Outcomes at Work) Social Work Project.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(23). 10.3390/ijerph17238730. Rhoades, H., S. Wenzel, H. Winetrobe, M. Ramirez, S. Wu, A. Carranza, D. Dent, and M. C. Jones. 2019. “A Text Messaging-Based Intervention to Increase Physical Activity among Persons Living in Permanent Supportive Housing: Feasibility and Acceptability Findings from a Pilot Study.” Digital Health 5(December): 2055207619832438. 10.1177/ 2055207619832438. Rice, E., E. Tulbert, J. Cederbaum, A. B. Adhikari, and N. G. Milburn. 2012. “Mobilizing Homeless Youth for HIV Prevention: A Social Network Analysis of the Acceptability of a Face-to-Face and Online Social Networking Intervention.” Health Education Research 27(2): 226–236. 10.1093/her/cyr113.

503

Tiffany C. Luo and Adrian Aguilera Rönkkö, K. 2018. “An Activity Tracker and Its Accompanying App as a Motivator for Increased Exercise and Better Sleeping Habits for Youths in Need of Social Care: Field Study.” JMIR MHealth and UHealth 6(12): e193. 10.2196/mhealth.9286. Rotondi, A. J., G. L. Haas, C. M. Anderson, C. E. Newhill, M. B. Spring, R. Ganguli, W. B. Gardner, and J. B. Rosenstock. 2005. “A Clinical Trial to Test the Feasibility of a Telehealth Psychoeducational Intervention for Persons With Schizophrenia and Their Families: Intervention and 3-Month Findings.” Rehabilitation Psychology 50(4): 325–336. 10.1037/0090-5550.50.4.325. Ruggiero, K. J., B. E. Bunnell, A. R. Andrews Iii, T. M. Davidson, R. F. Hanson, C. K. Danielson, B. E. Saunders, et al. 2015. “Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Tablet-Based Application to Improve Quality of Care in Child Mental Health Treatment.” JMIR Research Protocols 4(4): e143. 10.2196/resprot.4416. SAMHSA. 2020. “Behavioral Health Workforce Report.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/behavioral-healthworkforce-report.pdf. Schinke, S. P., T. M. Schwinn, and H. A. Hursh. 2015. “Preventing Drug Abuse Among Hispanic Adolescents: Developing a Responsive Intervention Approach.” Research on Social Work Practice 25(7): 794–800. 10.1177/1049731514538103. Smith, M. J., E. J. Ginger, K. Wright, M. A. Wright, J. L. Taylor, L. B. Humm, D. E. Olsen, M. D. Bell, and M. F. Fleming. 2014. “Virtual Reality Job Interview Training in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 44(10): 2450–2463. 10.1007/s10803-014-2113-y. Sorbring, E., A. Bolin, and J. Ryding. 2015. “A Game-Based Intervention – a Technical Tool for Social Workers to Combat Adolescent Dating-Violence.” Advances in Social Work 16(1): 125–139. 10.18060/18260. Vilardaga, R., P. S. Davies, K. E. Vowles, and M. D. Sullivan. 2020. “Theoretical Grounds of Pain Tracker Self Manager: An Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Digital Intervention for Patients with Chronic Pain.” Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 15(January): 172–180. 10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.01.001. Vogel, P. A., S. Solem, K. Hagen, E. M. Moen, G. Launes, Å.T. Håland, B. Hansen, and J. A. Himle. 2014. “A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Videoconference-Assisted Treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 63(December): 162–168. 10.1016/j.brat.2014.10.007. Watterson, J. L., H. P. Rodriguez, S. M. Shortell, and A. Aguilera. 2018. “Improved Diabetes Care Management Through a Text-Message Intervention for Low-Income Patients: Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.” JMIR Diabetes 3(4): e15. 10.2196/diabetes.8645. Wilbourn, B., T. H. Howell, A. D. Castel, L. D’Angelo, C. Trexler, R. Carr, and D. Greenberg. 2020. “Development, Refinement, and Acceptability of Digital Gaming to Improve HIV Testing Among Adolescents and Young Adults at Risk for HIV.” Games for Health Journal 9(1): 53–63. 10.1089/g4h.2018.0162. Xiang, X., Y. Sun, S. Smith, P. H. Lam Lai, and J. Himle. 2020. “Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Feasibility Study for Home Care Older Adults.” Research on Social Work Practice 30(7): 791–801. 10.1177/1049731520927783. Yu, K., S. Wu, P.-J. Lee, D.-A. Wu, H.-Y. Hsiao, Y.-C. Tseng, Y.-W. Wang, et al. 2020. “Longitudinal Effects of an Intergenerational MHealth Program for Older Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Rural Taiwan.” The Diabetes Educator 46(2): 206–216. 10.1177/014572172 0907301.

504

41 DIGITAL PEOPLE PRODUCTION IN SOCIAL WORK Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed

Introduction Today, digitalization is well incorporated in social work in welfare countries and digital tools are used on an everyday basis (López Peláez, Pérez García, and AguilarTablada Massó 2018). A body of literature has explored different aspects of digitalization, and its benign as well as adverse effects in everyday social work have been reviewed. In ethnographic research, its consequences in decision-making and social workers’ interaction with documents and ICT’s have been scrutinized (examples from England, White, Hall, and Peckover 2009; USA, Australia, Gillingham and Humphreys 2010; Matarese and Caswell 2018; Broerse 2019; Canada, Dean 2015; Flanders, Devlieghere 2017; Sweden, Björk 2016; Jacobsson and Martinell Barfoed 2019; Denmark, Høybye-Mortensen 2015; Lyneborg 2020). As a consequence of the digital embeddedness, new ways of producing and forming digital clients in social work are emerging (Martinell Barfoed 2019). For example, digitally informed social work reduces and changes face-to-face interaction between the social worker and client (cf. Broadhurst and Mason 2014; Phillips 2019). Diverse, and often contradicting, logics have been found in digitized social work. For example, in decision-making, the logic of the database challenges narrative decision-making and logics of care (cf. Aas 2004; Parton 2008; Björk 2016; Devlighere 2017; Lyneborg 2020). Dataism versus relationshipism is another way of conceptualizing the putative divide between a data-driven and a relation-based social work (Pedersen 2019; Devlighere, Gillingham, and Roose 2022). In social services, “digital paperwork,” which in this chapter concerns paperwork as well as digital computer work, is increasing at the expense of direct client work, leading to a bureaucracy spiral (Lyneborg and Damgaard 2018). On the one hand, what was formerly regarded as “real” social work – that is meeting clients – is challenged by new digital formats, conceptualizing social work in new ways (Peckover, White, and Hall 2010). On the other hand, working online is

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-49

505

Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed

increasingly becoming embedded in everyday social work, blurring the boundaries between online and offline social work (López Peláez, Pérez García, and AguilarTablada Massó 2018), sometimes resulting in technostress (Scaramuzzino and Martinell Barfoed 2021). In addition, data-driven social work gives rise to new social work carriers, such as quality controllers, collecting and distributing data (Carlstedt and Jacobsson 2017). These positions are often placed close to management, marking the importance of digital documentation. Classification and categorization are central parts of social work and digitalization reinforces this development. The work of Bowker and Star (1999, 2000) has provided insights into the categorization and classification work preceding standardization, which in turn, is a prerequisite for digitalization. The painstaking and timeconsuming classification work it takes to construct standards and classification systems is largely invisible. Therefore, the production process of – in this case – digitized tools and instruments is obscured and represented as objective and as a matter of fact. Rather than being constructed for a purpose, forms and templates are deauthored (McLean and Hoskin 1998). Bowker and Star (2000, 147) argue: “Classifications should be recognized as the significant site of political and ethical work that they are. They should, in a word, be reclassified as key sites of work, power, and technology.” Classification is central to how client production is set in motion in everyday social work; that is, how clients are presented, perceived and acted upon. By studying client production in everyday social work, this chapter explores some aspects of digitalization: How “the digital client,” the citizen being processed in human service organizations (Hasenfeld 1972), is produced. The chapter makes use of two theoretical concepts to understand the development. First, Jaber F. Holstein’s (1992) concept of people-production, where the client entering social work is actively produced in the welfare system, and second, Wendy Nelson Espeland’s and Mitchell L. Stevens’ (1998, 314) concept of commensuration, briefly defined as “the transformation of different qualities into a common metric.” The aim of the chapter is to explore how digitally informed social work is leading to digital people production and to shed light on how this is accomplished.

Commensuration, People Production and the Logic of Standards In data-driven social work in welfare countries, commensuration has a strong hold. Figures, numbers, graphs and statistics are at the center of how social work is perceived and evaluated (Hjärpe 2017, 2020; Åkerström and Jacobsson 2019; Lyneborg 2020). Value for money, input and output, performance measurement and the effects of decision-making must be accounted for at local, as well as organizational and national levels (Baines 2006; White et al. 2010; Abramowitz and Zelnick 2015; Carlstedt and Jacobsson 2017; Hjärpe 2017, 2020; Lyneborg 2020). This chapter broadly draws on Bowker and Star’s (1999, 2000) theorizing of the logic of standards, adding two theoretical concepts: Holstein’s (1992) concept of people production and Espeland’s and Stevens’ (1998; 2008) concept of commensuration. Holstein advances Hasenfeld’s (1972) concept of people-processing, analyzing how 506

Digital People Production in Social Work

citizens are processed in human service organizations. Holstein furthers this argument, stressing that this production work is an active and constructed accomplishment. The client is not only processed (same client in, same client out), but rather, by the actions taken and investigations made in a given organizational setting in a given time, the client is actively produced (Holstein 1992). Quantification precedes standardization and digitalization. Espeland and Stevens (1998; 2011) define quantification as the “doing” of numbers, as well as the kind of work numbers do in different contexts. Taking quantification as a point of departure, the concept of commensuration is coined to capture how work gets done using numbers, for example, how different objects are valued and measured using specific metrics. Espeland and Stevens (2008, 408) claim that commensuration creates a specific type of relationship between objects, and as a consequence what is regarded as knowledge changes: “Before objects can be made commensurate, they must be classified in ways that make them comparable.” This classification work often goes unnoticed when standards and indicators are crafted (Bowker and Star 1999; Alastalo and Pösö 2014).

Client Representation in Digital Social Work In this chapter, digitalization will shed light on how clients are represented in digital social work. Empirical examples will be given from a social service authority and a probation office in the southern part of Sweden, originating from two ethnographic projects on standardization and documentation, conducted in 2010–2016. The ethnographic data consist of field notes and audiotapes produced by following social workers and “sitting-in” (Jacobsson 2016) during digitally informed tasks, such as standardized interviews with social workers and clients. The material was regarded as naturally occurring talk and as an interactive accomplishment (Garfinkel and Sacks 1986). In addition, qualitative interviews and documentation were collected, but not accounted for in this chapter (see Martinell Barfoed 2018 for more detail). The names of clients are changed to protect their privacy. The empirical examples illustrate different aspects of commensuration, where social work is being made measurable by using a common metric, such as indicators or scores (cf. Espeland and Stevens 1998). The first example takes as its starting point the standardized interaction (Martinell Barfoed 2018), materializing in an Addiction Severity Index interview. The ASI is a standardized assessment instrument in social work, globally used in measuring alcohol and drug use (McLellan et al 2006). Originating from the USA and designed for veterans returning from Vietnam in need of treatment, this standardized “instrument” is used globally today (McLellan et al. 2006). In Scandinavia, for example in Sweden (Björk 2016; Martinell Barfoed 2018) and Denmark (Lyneborg 2020), the ASI is prescribed by national authorities and, therefore, has a strong foothold in social services. The ASI measures alcohol and drug use with two points of reference: First a personal interview (social workerclient) consisting of 180 questions and, second, a follow-up interview 6–8 months later, with slightly fewer questions (NBHW 2022).

507

Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed

Results Commensuration-in-interaction Data-driven social work, such as the results of standardized assessment instruments, is one example of how commensuration has taken hold on social work, forming how – in this case, the client – is represented and reified. As Espeland and Stevens (2008) claim, classification proceeds commensuration, and the classification work done, for example reporting results from a standardized assessment instrument, can therefore shed light on commensuration as a process. In the following, this is illustrated using the ASI as an example (Jacobsson and Martinell Barfoed 2019, 118). The scene is a probation office, where Patrick, in his mid-20s, charged with a minor drug offense, is participating in a standardized interview. The interview is conducted to map out alcohol and drug use and will be used as information in court, to guide the court in sentencing if found guilty. Patrick has no previous contact with social work or the legal system and seems notably affected by the situation. The investigated “life area” is Addiction, psychological problems and criminality in the extended family (ASI, Swedish version, transl. by author). The social worker has a paper copy of the questionnaire in front of him and a pen in his hand. Patrick, at first talking with a very low voice, is slowly becoming more confident as the interview proceeds: SOCIAL WORKER:

Let’s take your father’s side, but instead concentrating on your grandmother. PATRICK: No, it’s nil. SOCIAL WORKER: It’s nil, OK. PATRICK: My grandfather was dead before I even was born. SOCIAL WORKER: We don’t know anything about that [i.e. Alcohol and drug use]. (The pen rasps) PATRICK: No. Write nil. SOCIAL WORKER: Your dad? PATRICK: Nil. (ASI Basic, interview 2) In the quote, Patrick is adapting to the standardized interaction (Martinell Barfoed 2018) and has learned the scripted style. Instead of giving plain “yes’s” and “no’s” in his answers, he helps the social worker by giving numerical answers, which are easily tick-boxed into the questionnaire by the social worker. By digitizing the answers, the social worker and the client alike adapt to the questionnaire, which takes on an agent-like character, steering the interaction.

Calculated Life Areas During the first interview, the assessed client estimates the individual problems in seven preordained life areas, with most of the questions being tick-boxed as “yes’s,” “no’s” or “don’t knows.” After the interview, the social worker in turn assesses the

508

Digital People Production in Social Work

interview, using a score system. The social worker then enters the answers into the computer and a summary of the different scores is computed, resulting in a graphic overview of the interview and thus, an indication of the appropriate measures to take. In the second example, Martin, 35 years old, suffering from an anxiety disorder, is charged with illegally buying medication over the internet. The interview is conducted at a probation office with a social worker – the researcher is sitting in, recording the interview (ASI Basic, in use 2011, Swedish version, translated by author). After the interview, the social worker fills out the results on the computer and a summary is calculated by the computer. Two different scores are used by the client and social worker, respectively, in each problem area, with 0 as the lowest score. The client’s subjective concerns and need for help appear in figures in each area, in all seven so called life areas – physical health, work and income, alcohol use, drug use, legal problems, family and social relations, mental health. Without getting into the details of the intricate scoring system, in this ASI interview the scores were similar except for legal problems, where the client was given a higher score 3 (Obvious problem or need for help) and the social worker scored 2 (Moderate problem. Help is probably not required). Family and social relations also scored higher from the client’s point of view. This example can be regarded as a case of commensuration (Espeland and Stevens 1998, 2008), resulting in a de-personalized client being produced, where the complexities of life are reduced. In a study of a Finnish child performance and follow-up indicator, used on local and national levels and in research, where children placed in out-of-home care are reported, similar results are found (Alastalo and Pösö 2014). In becoming public, the indicator is missing out on particular knowledge linked to the individual child; it lacks accuracy, and complexities are downplayed, producing a commensurated child. The commensuration work simplifies and reduces information, and on an aggregated level brings objects together by stressing similarities, making hierarchical comparisons possible and not least, shapes how we understand the figure production and the relations they produce (Espeland and Stevens 1998, 2008). Commensuration thus has the capability to redirect and reformulate attention as it creates and obscure relations – it thus changes cognition (Alastalo and Pösö 2014, 723), In a Danish study of social services, Lyneborg and Damgaard (2018, 115) find that the social worker increasingly considers citizens “as units with specific and predefined measurable attributes which can then be compared and computed.” In the commensuration process, qualities are changed into quantities and, along the way, certain aspects of life become invisible (Alastalo and Pösö 2014; Hjärpe 2017). As digital facts are “worked-up” and aggregated, they are stabilized in ways that might be distorted and miss important evidence, which in the individual case may even be contradictory.

Digital Clients at-a-distance are Produced Two empirical examples will be given, illustrating how people are produced during the commensuration process. The first example shows how the assessment 509

Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed

questionnaire requires attention – in this case at the expense of the client – and the paperwork surrounding it. The quote comes from a case meeting in a Swedish social service office, where cases are routinely discussed, as part of decision-making: SOCIAL WORKER:

I have conducted my first ASI-interview! Oh, well done! SOCIAL WORKER: I have the paper interview, then I’ll feed it into ASI-net as soon as I find the time. And then the paper interview goes into the archive. But do I do something with Pro Capita [the local computer system]? MANAGER: No. The ASI is the tool. Well, that’s great! May I ask with whom? SOCIAL WORKER: Yes. [With] Charlotte A-. It was nice to see her again! COLLEAGUES COMMENT CHEERFULLY:

In the example, questions regarding the standardized interview become the center of attention and professional pride is linked to the digital paperwork, rather than meeting the client. The manager is acknowledging the social worker’s satisfaction of having completed the task, balancing her support by mildly trying to push the attention towards the client. By naming the client, Charlotte Andersson becomes a person, and the digital paper procedure is tuned down. The social worker swiftly picks up the ball and the real-life person she has met comes to life. However seemingly trivial, this example illustrates how standardization can lead to the form, in this case, a questionnaire, taking over content (cf. Gubrium, Buckholdt, and Lynnott 1989; McLean and Hoskin 1998; White, Hall, and Peckover 2009; Gillingham 2016; Martinell Barfoed 2019; Phillips 2019), influencing how a distant client is produced. The second example sheds light on the desktop-orientation in social work (Martinell Barfoed and Hjärpe 2022). Linn, a quality controller with a social work degree, working at a Swedish social service office, is reporting decisions not being executed within a set time frame. The local authorities are accountable to a national organization, in this case, the IVO (Swedish Health and Social Care Inspectorate), with the mandate to act upon non-compliant local authorities, with fines or (negative) public statistics (for the case Open Comparisons, see Carlstedt and Jacobsson 2017). Linn is new to the job and Karin, her manager, is being called for: Linn is working at the computer. Karin takes a chair and sits by her side. Linn says: “I tried to get into the system this morning but was logged out.” They discuss problems with electronic IDs. Finally, access to the computer system is given and Linn clicks on the icon “Not executed decisions.” Now they have to choose a correct entry date among a couple of alternatives, in order to add the correct client data. They are basing their actions on a paper form, where all the decisions that have not been executed in the past week have been written down by the social workers, collected and handed over to Linn. (Fieldnote, November 2013)

510

Digital People Production in Social Work

This quote illustrates an everyday example of digital paperwork production, where different professionals are involved in assembling and reporting client data. The reported clients are represented by digits. In the empirical example, the digital form in use can be regarded as a mediating instrument; the concept drawing attention to the linkages between actors, and “particularly the instruments that act as intermediaries by connecting actors, agencies and aspirations” (Kurunmäki and Miller 2011, 222). In this case, a complex web of actors – researchers, state authorities, computer developers – has been involved and thus, has an influence on how clients are computed and produced. Consequently, digital commensurated clients at-a-distance are produced. The good intention of complying with standards, in this case, to adhere to a certain time limit, has evident advantages. Arbitrary decision-making cannot and should not be justified. However, mediating instruments do have other consequences worth empirical and ethical attention: First, the voice and body of the individual are detached during the procedure (Phillips 2019), and second, the client is most likely unaware of the bureaucratic proceedings, or even superstructures, materializing in the wake of a digitized social work. Similar results are found in other countries, for example, the Danish child care system, where extensive digital and documentary work has given rise to a bureaucratic spiral, with a loop of digital documentation (Lyneborg and Damgaard 2018; Lyneborg 2020). Another consequence of a more technocratic welfare state is the risk that complex social problems are being reduced to scores and statistics and that structural explanations of a given problem are being obscured (Caswell, Marston, and Elm Larsen 2010).

The Computer as a Storyteller In the last example, the computer is given a human voice and becomes a storyteller (Martinell Barfoed 2019). As humans, we use narratives to shape the social world. Narratives are employed to investigate, interpret and understand social life (Riessman 2008), but the narrative is also a privileged communication form in social work (Hall 1997). As database logic is introduced, the story runs the risk of being overturned by 0’s and 1’s, scales and scores. When it was discovered that Swedish social workers found difficulties in using the results of the ASI-interview assessment model because of its non-narrative results, actions were taken: Two computer system developers, collaborating with implementation researchers and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, designed a software program, where the binary “tick-box” results of the ASI interview were transformed into a human-like-narrative, resembling a human storytelling format (Martinell Barfoed 2019). During a research interview with two computer system developers, who designed the ASI software, a fictitious example – Dennis in his 30’s – was presented. In the following quote, Dennis’s family situation is under scrutiny and the computer is given a human-like appearance: Dennis’s marital status for 5 years is cohabiting. He is both satisfied and dissatisfied with this situation. He has lived with his partner and children for 5 years and is both pleased and displeased with this. They have children of their own. They are expecting a child.

511

Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed

In the quote, the digital storyline appears inconsistent, and narrative editing would be needed by the social worker, to make it pass as human interaction in an investigation (see Martinell Barfoed 2019). With the client transforming into a virtual data double (Haggerty and Ericson 2000), the embodied client seems to get lost in translation, blurring the lines between technology and the individual (Lyneborg 2019). Consequently, contextual explanations and stories materializing in face-toface interaction are omitted and “embodied ways of knowing” are missed out (Broadhurst and Mason 2014, 591). Phillips (2019) finds that standardized tools and digitalization frame social work assessment today; for example, by stressing certain life areas (and not others) and by letting the computer steer the (inter)action. Criticism of a fragmented and compartmentalized client is surfacing in this strand of research (cf. Aas 2004; Parton 2008; Broadhurst and Mason 2014; Martinell Barfoed 2018). Drawing on Foucault, Phillips (2019, 443) argues that standardized tools regulate bodies in social work: The clients, but also the body of “the computer social worker.”

Conclusion In this chapter, commensuration and people-production were two theoretical concepts guiding the analysis, illustrating how clients are represented in digitally informed social work. In the first example, Patrick and the social worker alike adapt to the standardized interaction, resulting in a digitized language. In the second example, Martin’s life is defined and reduced to seven preordained life areas, with metrics defining the severity, missing out individual interpretations and contextual factors of importance. In the last example, the computer narrative needs “humanizing,” to pass as a human voice. Classification, categorization, discourses, ethics and power relations are at the core of social work, but as they are intensified by digitalization, benign as well as adverse effects in client representation require continued attention. Standardizing a complex life situation certainly has its challenges. Data-driven social work results in considerable amounts of “information” in circulation, and the consequences of clients as data in decision-making needs further interrogation. There are inherent dilemmas in client data collection: A defining trait of today’s digital tool is its multifunctionality (Mäkitalo and Säljö 2002). Different domains in social work – the practice domain, the organizational and national domains – are supposed to be enlightened by the same set of data, without having the same objectives. Recognizing and taking the competing logics that characterize different domains in social work seriously will hopefully lead to that, for example, dataism and relationshipism will be combined in productive ways, developing social work practice (cf. Pedersen 2019, 322). Technological developments have consequences beyond the immediate purposes of the technical devices and practices themselves (Kranzberg 1986; Timmermans and Epstein 2010). Thus, standardization and digitalization cannot be dichotomized as good or bad per se; it is first, how they are designed, second, how they are used that matters. For the individual client, the right assessment instrument at the right time and 512

Digital People Production in Social Work

place might be a means for change and accordingly enhance social work (cf. HøybyeMortensen 2015; Skillmark et al. 2019). However, this cannot be taken as a matter of fact; empirical attention and analysis are needed to understand digital social work’s different dimensions, moving beyond the good-or-bad-distinction (Lyneborg 2020). As a social worker, you are in the business of trust and recognition (Juul 2009). In this work, face-to-face interaction – where the social worker and the client are given time to interact and together explore ways of moving forward – is essential. This does not mean that offline and online social work are incommensurable: With e-tools it is possible to interact in new ways, depending on the issue at stake, and instead of producing clients-at-a-distance, digitalization can become a joint commitment (fx. Devlighiere, Gillingham, and Roose, 2022). Thus, used with care and creativity, online and offline interaction can strengthen trust and alliance. Not surprisingly, digitalization is embraced by politicians and state authorities. Invisibility is ideally transformed into visibility, bringing social work into the limelight, but the quest for transparency runs the risk of becoming buzz words, or at worst, being counterproductive and unhelpful in social work practice (Devlieghere, Bradt, and Roose 2018). To find out, we need to take ethnography seriously, turning to questions such as: How are clients produced in (inter)action, that is, what kinds of images is the production process resulting in? What choices are made? What is left out? And not least, how are the categorization and client production related in a digitally informed social work?

References Aas, K. F. 2004. “From narrative to database: Technological change and penal culture.” Punishment and Society 6: 379–393. Abramowitz, M., and J. Zelnick. 2015. “Privatization in the human services: Implications for direct practice.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43: 283–293. Åkerström, M., and K. Jacobsson. 2019. “‘Producing people’ in documents and meetings in human service organizations.” Social Inclusion 7: 180–184. Alastalo, M., and T. Pösö. 2014. “Number of children placed outside the home as an indicator – Social and moral implications of commensuration.” Social Policy & Administration 48: 721–738. Baines, D. 2006. “Quantitative Indicators ‘whose needs are being served’? Quantitative metrics and the re-shaping of social services.” Studies in Political Economy 77: 195–209. Björk, A. 2016. Evidence-based Social Work behind the Scenes. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Bowker, G. C., and S. L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bowker, G. C., and S. L. Star. 2000. “Invisible mediators of action: Classification and the ubiquity of standards.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 7: 147–163. Broadhurst, K., and C. Mason. 2014. “Social work beyond the VDU: Foregrounding copresence in situated practice matters.” British Journal of Social Work 44: 578–595. Broerse, J. 2019. ““How do we put him in the system?” Client construction at a sport-based migrant settlement service in Melbourne, Australia.” Social Inclusion 7: 238–247. Carlstedt, E., and K. Jacobsson. 2017. “Indications of quality or quality as a matter of fact?” Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift J1: 47–69. Caswell, D., G. Marston, and J. Elm Larsen. 2010. “Unemployed citizen or “at risk” client? Classification systems and employment services in Denmark and Australia.” Critical Social Policy 30: 384–404.

513

Elizabeth Martinell Barfoed Dean, J. 2015. Examining social work and technology: A cross-disciplinary analysis of technology issues in violence against women shelters in Ontario. Diss., Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Devlieghere, J. 2017. The Logic of the Database: In Search of Responsive Social Work. Ghent: Ghent University. Devlieghere, J., L. Bradt, and R. Roose. 2018. “Creating transparency through electronic information systems: Opportunities and pitfalls.” British Journal of Social Work 48: 734–750. Devlieghere, J., P. Gillingham, and R. Roose. 2022. “Dataism versus relationshipism: a social work perspective.” Nordic Social Work Research 12: 328–338. Espeland, W., and M. Stevens. 1998. “Commensuration as a social process.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 313–343. Espeland, W., and M. Stevens. 2008. “A sociology of quantification.” European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie 49: 401–436. Garfinkel, H., and H. Sacks. 1986. “On formal structures of practical action.” In Ethnomethodological Studies of Work, edited by H. Garfinkel, 157–198. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan. Gillingham, P. 2016. “Technology configuring the user: Implications for the redesign of electronic information systems in social work.” British Journal of Social Work 46: 323–338. Gillingham, P., and C. Humphreys. 2010. “Child protection practitioners and decisionmaking tools: Observations from the front line.” British Journal of Social Work 40: 2598–2616. Gubrium, J. F., D. R. Buckholdt, and R. J. Lynott, 1989. “The descriptive tyranny of forms.” Perspectives on Social Problems 1: 195–214. Haggerty, K. D., and R. V. Ericson. 2000. “The surveillant assemblage.” British Journal of Sociology 51: 605–622. Hall, C. 1997. Social Work as Narrative. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hasenfeld, Y. 1972. “People processing organizations: An exchange approach.” American Sociological Review 37: 256–262. Hjärpe, T. 2020. Mätning och motstånd – sifferstyrning i socialtjänsten. [Measurement and resistance – steering by numbers in the social services], diss. Lund: Lund university. Hjärpe, T. 2017. “Measuring social work: Quantity as quality in the social services.” Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift 119: 23–46. Holstein, J. A. 1992. “Producing people: Descriptive practice in human service work.” Current Research on Occupations and Professions 7: 23–39. Høybye-Mortensen, M. 2015. “Social work and artefacts: social workers’ use of objects in client relations.” European Journal of Social Work 18: 703–717. Jacobsson, K. 2016. “Analysing documents through fieldwork.” In Qualitative Research, 4th ed., edited by D. Silverman, 155–170. London: Sage. Jacobsson, K., and E. Martinell Barfoed. 2019. Socialt arbete och pappersgöra – mellan klient och digitala dokument [Social work and paperwork – between clients and digital documents]. Malmö: Gleerups. Juul, S. 2009. “Recognition and judgement in social work.” European Journal of Social Work 12: 403–417. Kranzberg, M. 1986. “Technology and history: Kranzberg’s laws’.” Technology and Culture 27: 544–560. Kurunmäki, L., and P. Miller. 2011. “Regulatory hybrids: Partnerships, budgeting and modernising government.” Management Accounting Research 22: 220–241. López Peláez, A., R. Peréz García, and M. V. Aguilar-Tablada Massó. 2018. “e-Social work: building a new field of specialization in social work.” European Journal of Social Work 21: 804–823. Lyneborg, A. O. 2019. “Social work in the Danish digitalized welfare state – and the use of digital technologies for professional knowledge in child services.” In Big Data: Promise, Application and Pitfalls, edited by J. S. Pedersen and A. Wilkinson. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

514

Digital People Production in Social Work Lyneborg, A. O. 2020. Compliance, knowledge and vocation in social work. Diss. Esbjerg: University of Southern Denmark. Lyneborg, A. O., and M. B. Damgaard. 2019. “Knowledge lost – or gained? The changing knowledge base of Danish social work.” Nordic Social Work Research 9(3): 206–219. Martinell Barfoed, E. 2018. “From stories to standardised interaction: Changing conversational formats in social work.” Nordic Social Work Research 8: 36–49. Martinell Barfoed, E. 2019. “Digital clients: An example of people production in social work.” Social Inclusion 7: 196–206. Martinell Barfoed, E., and T. Hjärpe. 2022. “The Desk as Barrier and Carrier in Social Work.” In Deskbound Cultures: Media and Materialities, edited by J. Jarlbrink and C. Järpvall, 143–164. Lund: Mediehistoriskt arkiv. Matarese, M. T., and D. Caswell. 2018. “‘I’m gonna ask you about yourself, so I can put it on paper’: Analysing street-level bureaucracy through form-related talk in social work.” British Journal of Social Work 48: 714–733. Mäkitalo, Å., and R. Säljö. 2002. “Invisible people: Institutional reasoning and reflexivity in the production of services and “social facts” in public employment agencies.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 9: 160–178. McLean, C. M., and K. Hoskin. 1998. “Organizing madness: Reflections on the forms of the form.” Organization 5: 519–541. McLellan, T., J. C. Cacciola, A. I. Alterman, S. H. Rikoon, and D. Carise, 2006. “The addiction severity index at 25: Origins, contributions and transitions.” American Journal on Addictions 14: 113–124. NBHW (National Board of Health and Welfare). 2022. ASI-manualen: anvisningar till ASI Grund och ASI Uppföljning. [The ASI-manual: Instructions to ASI Basic and ASI FollowUp]. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare. Parton, N. 2008. “Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’?” British Journal of Social Work 38: 253–269. Peckover, S., S. White, and C. Hall. 2010. “Making and managing electronic children: E-assessment in child welfare.” Information, Communication and Society 11: 375–394. Pedersen. J. S. 2019. “The Digital Welfare State: Dataism versus Relationshipism.” In Big Data, edited by. J. S. Pedersen and A. Wilkinson, 301–324. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Phillips, C. 2019. “The computer social worker: Regulatory practices, regulated bodies and science.” Qualitative Social Work 18: 443–457. Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Analysis in the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Scaramuzzino, G., and E. Martinell Barfoed. 2021. “Swedish social workers’ experiences of technostress.” Nordic Social Work Research 11: 1–14. Skillmark, M., L. Agevall Gross, C. Kjellgren, and V. Denvall. 2019. “The pursuit of standardization in domestic violence social work: A multiple case study of how the idea of using risk assessment tools is manifested and processed in the Swedish social services.” Qualitative Social Work 18: 458–474. Timmermans, S., and S. Epstein. 2010. “A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization.” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 69–89. White, S., C. Hall, and S. Peckover. 2009. “The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: Technologies of categorisation and professional practice in child welfare.” British Journal of Social Work 39: 1197–1217. White, S., D. Wastell, K. Broadhurst, and C. Hall. 2010. “When policy o’erleaps itself: The ‘tragic tale’ of the integrated children’s system.” Critical Social Policy 30: 405–429.

515

42 THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL SOCIAL WORK Trends, Challenges and Opportunities Antonio López Peláez and Gloria Kirwan

Digital social work, as we have seen throughout the chapters that make up this Handbook, is already a consolidated specialization in the field of social work research and in the field of professional practice. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the digitalization process in which we were already immersed. At the same time, technological innovations, such as the metaverse, generate new environments of social interaction, in which new opportunities and new risks emerge for social inclusion and the personal, group, and community trajectory of our fellow citizens. Like any technological innovation, innovation is not neutral: it is generated beforehand in a society with specific characteristics and is the product of the aspirations, needs, and demands in force at a given time. The digitalization of our societies is not neutral either: e-government generates opportunities, but also barriers to access, and the digital access and access gap become predictors of social exclusion. What is our model of digitalization? What is our model of digitalization in social services? The authors contributing to this Handbook have highlighted the ethical debates that are generated in the field of digitization of social services, the good practices that are being carried out in different contexts, and the characteristics of what we can broadly call digital social work: a new area of specialization that does not replace the face-to-face relationship with users but rather transforms user-professional interaction through new technologies. Digital social work is a new specialization that responds to the transformation of our increasingly digitalized institutions, and to the modification of our interaction spaces, in which online sociability, or virtual interaction, plays an increasingly relevant role. In light of the contributions presented in this Handbook, the main development trends in the field of digital social work in the coming years will be the following: (a) the development of digital methodologies of social intervention based on co-design and participation of all actors involved; (b) the reorganization

516

DOI: 10.4324/9781003048459-50

The Future of Digital Social Work

of social services in a digital context, with better information systems that allow better exploitation of data for the design, intervention and evaluation of social policies; (c) comparative analysis of good practices in professional intervention in the digital environment; (d) reworking of professional intervention standards according to the digital rights of citizens, with special attention to ethical issues; (e) the design of strategies to improve coordination with other administrative units in the environment of a digitized public administration. The world is positioned at the very beginning of a profound digital transformation that will continue to change and influence many areas of our world. Social work is positioned at this digital threshold and how this generation of social workers responds to the digital transformation of society will have implications for the profession and the next generations of social workers who will follow in future years. In light of these near-future changes, information- and skills-sharing are vital steps in preparing social workers to work in and to contribute to innovations in digital social work practices as creative thinkers, agile leaders, and competent, reflective practitioners. In a digitized society, digital social work is a necessary specialization, and with this Handbook we hope to have contributed to the consolidation of the professional intervention of social workers in the digital environment. At the same time, ethical debates and concerns about the model of digitization, and the model of digital welfare that we are implementing in an accelerated manner after the pandemic, allow us to reflect on our model of society and contribute to the design of a more inclusive society that is more focused on the care of citizens. In a society that is already opening up to the metaverse, we continue to see new and old forms of social exclusion, which are being redefined by digitalization. Given the acceleration of technological change, this Handbook is both a comprehensive text and a work in progress, which we hope to expand further in the coming years.

517

INDEX

Aarts, M. 201 Aas, K. F. 505, 512 Aase, L. 22 Ábalo, J. L. 443 abandonment 305, 306 Abell, M. D. 165 Ablet, P. 189, 191 Abramowitz, M. 506 Abrams, T. E. 497 Abrisketa, J. 443 Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence & Stalking 267 Acebes, R. 304, 305, 311 Acebes Valentín, R. 304–313 Ackerman, M. S. 82 Act on the Promotion of Research, Development and Dissemination of Welfare Equipment, Japan 184 active listening 3 activities of daily living (ADLs) 184 Adato, M. 466 Addams, Jane 2, 60, 82, 94 Adedoyin, A. C. A. 72 Adelman, R. 349 Administrative Data Research Network 359 Adobe Connect 451 Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) 186 Aebischer, P. 298 Agllias, K. 318 Agostino, D. 20 Aguilar, J. 222 Aguilar-Gallegos, N. 117

Aguilar-Idañez, M. J. 142 Aguilar-Tablada Massó, M. V. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 72, 137, 138, 296, 307, 335, 409, 505, 506 Aguilera, A. 491–504 Ahmedani, B. K. 297 Ajrouch, K. J. 145 Åkerström, M. 506 Akister, J. 82 Alastalo, M. 507, 509 Alaszewski, A. 152 Alba, M. d 226 Alberta College of Social Workers 352 Albertson, K. 246 Albrecht, U. V. 222 Alexander, B. 253 Alfageme González, M. B. 223, 225 Alford, K. 244, 246 Ali, M. A. 395 Alieva, D. 409 Allen, J. P. 201 Allen, U. 127 Allied Media Conference 60, 61 Allied Media Project (AMP) 59–60 Allison, M. 145 Almaguer Kalixto, P. 81–93 Alnes, R. E. 201 Alonso Aparicio, A. 295–303 Alonso González, D. 165–177, 465 Alonso Puelles, A. 165, 465 Altman, M. 357 Álvarez-Pérez, P. 137–150 Alvira Martin, F. 24

518

Index Alzheimer Europe 189, 191 Amadasun, S. 326 Amengual, A. 409 American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare (AASWSW) 316, 479, 480 American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) 347 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) 285 Anaut-Bravo, S. 142 Andersen, S. T. 189 Andersen, S. Y. 374 Anderson, C. 51, 52 Anderson, K. M. 495 Anderson, M. 375 Anderson, T. 330 Andersson, B. E. 152 Andersson, C. 186 ANECA 421, 422 anonymisation 364–365 Antczak, H. 201 Antczak, H. B. 201, 202 Anthony, B. 314, 485 Antonucci, T. C. 145 Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers 232, 351 Aotearoa New Zealand social media policy 232–233 Apple AirTag 268 Aptekar, S. 139 Aquín, N. 69 Aquino-Canchari, C. 408 Arconada, F. 307 Arias Astray, A. 165–177 Arksey, H. 492 Arnaboldi, M. 20 Arriazu, R. 22 Arriazu Muñoz, R. 142 Arruda, A. 226 Arslan, G. 318 Arteaga, N. X. 467 Arthurs, J. 123 artificial intelligence (AI) 23, 187–188, 318, 368; assistance robots 318, 375–376; building the present from social work 376–377; ethical issues in the fields of application of 373–376; and ethics 369–373; social networks 374 Ashcroft, R. 48, 127 Asimow, I. 376 assistance robots 375–376 assistive technology (AT) 184; benefits and challenges of 188–190; in care settings 185–187; conceptual models for 185;

defined 184; historical overview of policy relating to 184–185; robotics and 187–188 Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE) 185 Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) 233, 345, 350, 351–352 Atkins, S. 326 Atlas.Ti software 115 Attanasio, O. 467 Attewell, P. 315 audio diaries 152–153, 154 audio-dairy data collection: behaviour, impact on 160; data accuracy improvement 156–157; data quality enhancements 155–156; enhanced participant experience 158; limitations of diaries as a research method 158–161; participant support, need for 158–159; recording, burden of 160; sampleselection bias and generalisability 158; technological challenges 160–161; topic and participant suitability 157–158; uncertain compliance 159–160 augmented diaries: analysis of 162; CIT interview and 161 Augusterfer, E. 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389 Auriemma, V. 455, 461 Australian Human Rights Commission 191 authentic eLearning framework 325; examples of 330–332; use of 328–329 auto-population 349 Ayerbe, C. 222 Aysan, F. 210 Azevedo, J. 139 Aznar, F. 369 Babvey, P. 141 Backlund, P. 222 Bader, R. 255 Bailey, K. 83 Bailey, Z. D. 127 Bain, S. F. 334 Bain De Los Santos, S. 334 Baines, D. 506 Bajpai, A. 166 Baker, C. A. 209 Baker, S. 280 Bakia, M. 317 Baldry, A. 123 Ball, K. 398 Ballantyne, N. 57–67 Banach, M. 165

519

Index Bananuka, T. 37 Bangjun, C. 369 Banks, M. 45 Banks, S. 128, 269, 281, 342, 350, 351, 383, 385, 386, 387, 390, 421 Banzato, S. 455 Barak, A. 341 Barassi, V. 94 Barbosa, B. 305, 308, 310 Barfoed, E. 243 Barman-Adhikari, A. 165 Barnett, K. K. 333 Barnett, V. 61, 63 Barney, R. 444 Barrera-Algarín, E. 72, 400 Barrientos, A. 464, 466 Barrón, A. 166 Barsky, A. 276, 278, 281, 351 Barsky, A. E. 189, 382–392 Barter, C. 263 Barter, K. 65 Barth, Rick 480 Basmanova, O. 113 Bass, J. D. 185 Bastian, M. 96 BASW NI 51 Bates, T. 334 Baum, C. M. 185 Bauman, Z. 64, 305, 306 Bauwens, M. 58, 60 Bayer, J. 114 Baym, N. 123 Beath, M. 141 Beazley, R. 468 Beddoe, L. 230–239 Beer, J. M. 494, 498 Begley, E. 183 Begun, S. 259 Beh, A. 37 Behari, S. 326 Behari-Leak, K. 326 behavioral health 494 behavioural intervention technologies (BITS) 386 Békés, V. 279 Bell, S. E. 27 Beltran, R. 259 Belzunegui-Eraso, A. 277 Bender, K. 492, 494, 499 Benedetto, H. 369 Bennett, B. 187, 189, 190, 191 Bennett Cattaneo, L. 266, 268 Beran, T. 484

Berg, J. 342 Bergart, A. 394 Berg-Weger, M. 270 Bermejo, J. C. 306 Bermúdez, L. M. 369 Bernacki, M. 318 Berry, D. M. 84, 85 Bertalanffy, K.L. 82 Berzin, S. C. 48, 394 Bhagat, K. K. 328 Bhardwaj, A. 81 bibliometric study 15 big data 19, 21, 94, 96, 206, 357–358, 361, 365–366 Big Social Data 95–96 Biggs, J. 328 Billinghurst, M. 222 Bilotti, A. 460 Biraghi, C. 458, 459 Birk, R. H. 50 Birnbaum, R. 189 Birrer, F. 83 Björk, A. 505, 507 Blackledge, A. 139 Blakemore, T. 47, 318 Blas Padilla, D. 220 Bloom, M. 259 Blumer, M. 82 Boccagni, P. 139, 144 Boccutti, M. 374 Boddy, J. 2, 125, 129, 146 Bogo, M. 123, 318 Boletin Oficial Del Estado 422 Bolger, N. 153, 156 Bolin, A. 141, 492, 494, 499 Bollier, D. 65 Bonds-Raacke, J. 266 Boonen, E. M. 30 Booth, A. 493 Boswell, J. F. 200 Botfield, J. R. 254 Botuck, S. 266 Bowker, G. C. 506, 507 boyd, D. 96, 234, 398 Boydova, D. 215 Bradley, C. P. 152, 153 Bradt, L. 513 Brady, E. 48, 49, 243 Brady, S. R. 72 Branson, D. 382, 385, 386 Braun, V. 121 breakout groups, use of 330 Brecko, B. 145

520

Index Brendel, D. 345 Breyette, S. K. 50, 199, 231, 395 Brickell, G. 331 Brinkman, W.-P. 254 British Association of Social Workers (BASW) 233, 246; code of ethics 344 British Columbia College of Social Workers Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice 345 Broadhurst, K. 505, 512 Broadnax, J. 484 Broekman, I. 326 Broerse, J. 505 Bronfenbrenner, U. 32 Brough, M. 256, 259 Brown, C. 266, 267, 268 Brown, E. L. 493, 498 Brown, J. S. 328 Brown, M. E. 49 Bruni, C. 455 Bruyere, B. L. 37 Bryant, B. R. 184 Bryant, L. 277 Bryman, A. 445 Brynjolfsson, E. 83 Buckholdt, D. R. 510 Buckingham, D. 258, 259 Buckley, W. 82 Buday, S. 212 Buil, I. 227 Bullock, A. N. 458 Bunge, M. 409 Burgess, J. 122, 254 Burke, M. 98, 107 Burkholder, C. 41 Burn, A. 259 Burns, J. 165 Burns, K. 240–250 Burris, M. A. 36, 38, 39, 255 Burrone, M. 408 Butterfield, L. D. 152 Button, M. 439 Buzzi, P. 232 Bygstad, B. 317, 319 Byrne, J. 49, 50, 53, 72, 73, 142, 165, 189, 199, 232, 242, 270, 314–324, 393–403, 454 Cabinet Office 286 Cacioppo, J. T. 94 Cahill, L. 263–275 Caio, F. 455 Calzada Gutiérrez, I. 118

Campbell, J. C. 269 Campbell, M. 310 Canada, K. 319 Caparrós-Civera, N. 142 Čapek, K. 187 Carbonero Muñoz, D. 420–442 Cardoso, J. 29 “Care Is Creative” 289 CARE principles 64 care robots 186–187 Carlson, E. D. 39 Carlstedt, E. 506, 510 Carpenter, B. D. 212 Carr, E. S. 39, 40 Casquilho-Martins, I. 29 Cassell, C. M. 158, 159 Castel, A. D. 494, 498 Castel, R. 309 Castells, M. 95, 454 Castilla, F. J. 421 Castilleja-Vargas, L. 467 Castillo de Mesa, J. 4, 15, 20, 21, 49, 50, 72, 94–110, 113, 138, 142, 145, 276–284, 409, 410, 443 Castleden, H. 37 Castro-Martinez, A. 103 Caswell, D. 505, 511 Catalán, S. 227 Catalani, C. 37, 255 Caudill, R. 276, 278, 281 Cavia, G. A. 306 cell phones 300 Centeno, C. 22 Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University 185 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 183, 185 Cenzer, I. S. 305 CEPAL 408 Ceruzzi, P. E. 84 Chamba-Eras, L. 222 Chamberlain, R. M. 40 Chan, C. 15, 47, 49, 141, 142, 243, 253–262, 342, 394, 482 Chan, K. 318 Chandler, K. 330 Chang, B. L. 22 Chang-Muy, F. 382 Charisi, V. 186 Charity Organisation Movement 65 Chaves-Montero, A. 50, 111–120 Chavira, D. 386 Cheek, R. G. 459

521

Index Chehlarova, N. 420 Chen, E. 113 Chen, H. 344 Chen, J. 41 Chen, Y. R. 310 Chester, A. 341, 342 Chien, A. A. 57 child and family safety and wellbeing 499; domestic abuse and dating violence 499; homelessness 499–500; parenting 500 children, technology and 240; children and young people in an online world 240–242; e-social work 242–243; ethical and practice issues 246–247; online practice, accelerated pivots to 244–246; technology, social work and children 243–244 Children’s Services see statutory children’s services Chilean experience of Reconectando program 407; digital component of Chilean social work 408–410; ICTs and provision of services 413–414; management system 411–413; methodology 411; supervision of workers 414–415 #Chiledespertó movement 105 Cho, S. 266 Cho, Y. 484 Chow, C. B. 492, 494, 500 Christiansen, C. H. 185 Christopher Brooks, D. 480 chronic diseases, health conditions and 497–498 Chuang, T. 65 Chui, C. H.-K. 485 Chun Tie, Y. 123 Chun-Sing Cheung, J. 269, 270 Cillero Fuenzalida, S. 407–419 Cinnamon, J. 58 Clark. C. 341 Clarke, J. 319 Clary, K. 315, 317, 319, 321 Clausen, G. M. 216 Clayton, J. 269 Clayton, V. 203 client representation in digital social work 507 Clinical Social Work Association 233, 352 Clinical social work model 299, 408, 410 Clinton, B. 345 cloud computing 30, 141 CNOAS 456 coding 15

cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) 494 Cohen, J. 168, 494 Colas Bravo, P. 420 Cold War 84 Coleman, L. 254 Coleman, N. 409 collaborative communication 305, 311, 445, 449 collective social work and social movements 68; inclusive transformation, co-building 69–70; new context and digitalisation 72–73; social movements as activists of solidarity 70–72 Collin, P. 165 Collins, A. 328 Colombian conditional cash transfer programs 464, 466; Familias en Acción during Covid-19 pandemic 466–468; general skill and competency requirements 468–470; research study method and design 468; social and digital innovation in digital work 465; social innovation and the role of social work 471–472; social workers’ digital skills 470–471; social workers’ digital training for social intervention 472 Colon, M. 244 Colvin, A. D. 458 Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) 184 commensuration 506–507, 509 commensuration-in-interaction 508 common third 200 communication calculation 394 Community Organization Movement 59 Community-based Integrated Care System 289, 292 Computer-Based Training (CBT) 258, 421 conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs see Colombian conditional cash transfer programs confidentiality 344; confidentiality and identity security 388–389 Congress, E. 382 Constantino, C. 395 contemporary society, digital transition of 33 content creation and dissemination using digital tools 88 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 221 convivial communities, technology tools for 57; Allied Media Project (AMP) 59–60; commons and data justice as forms of

522

Index resistance 58–59; Design Justice Network 61–63; indigenous data sovereignty 63–64; many layered internet 57–58; Our Data Bodies (ODB) project 60–61 Cook, A. M. 185 Cook, J. R. 495 Cook, L. L. 269, 278 Cooke, R. 254 Cooner, T. S. 199, 230–239, 246, 394, 397 Copson, R. 50, 51, 53 Corbin, J. 446, 468 Cordova, D. 498 Cornwell, E. Y. 305 Corona, A. 69 Correa, T. 100, 107 Cortés, E. G. 219–229 Cortina, A. 111 CORU 246 Cosner Berzin, S. 482, 483 Costanza-Chock, S. 61 Cottam, H. 94 Cottingham, M. D. 155, 156, 157 Coulshed, V. 400 Coulson, N. S. 165 Coulthard, B. 356–367 Coulton, C. J. 48, 479, 482 Council of Europe 266 Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) 233, 352, 421, 422, 486 Council on Higher Education 328 counterveillance 395; defined 398; technologically mediated 396–398 COVID-19 pandemic 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 20–21, 23, 29, 42, 48, 49, 69, 71–72, 84, 86, 87, 95, 102, 111–120, 121–136, 208, 221, 232, 269, 277, 292, 298, 305, 326; digital education in social work before 319; digitalization processes before 455–456; Familias en Acción during 466–468; online practice, accelerated pivots to 244–246; social work responses to 111; transformations in social work practice during 456–458; Twitter and 111–118; use of ICT by older people during 211–213; use of ICT in families with vulnerable children during 209–211; viral artifacts of 129; YouTube and 121–129 Covinsky, K. 305 Cox, C. L. 126 Cox, L. 256, 259 Coyle, D. 454 Cratty, A. D. 266 Crawford, E. A. 494, 495

Crawford, K. 96 Cree, V. 416 Creese, A. 139 Creighton, G. 38 Crenshaw, K. 265 critical incident technique (CIT) 151, 152, 153–154; CIT interview and augmented diaries 161; diary transcript for CIT interview 161 Crompton, H. 318 Crompton, S. 278 Crozier, S. E. 158, 159 Crunkilton, D. D. 494, 496 Csiernik, R. 454 CSWE 421, 422, 423 Cueva, M. 259 Currie, P. 259 Curry, S. R. 484 Curtis, S. V. 142 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) 411 cyber dating violence 266 Cyber IPV 268 Cyber Partner Abuse (CPA) 266 Cybernetics 82 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 384 Cyberstalking 266 Cybervictimisation in online dating 266 Czaja, J. S. 216 Czech social work, digitization of: ICT in families with vulnerable children during COVID-19 pandemic 209–211; recommendations for Czech policy makers 215–216; reflections of HC staff on the use of ICT 213–215; reflections of social workers on the use of ICT 211; research study 208–209; use of ICT by older people during the pandemic COVID-19 211–213; and work with vulnerable children and older people 206–208 Czerniewicz, L. 326 CZSO (Czech Statistical Office) 207 Damgaard, M. B. 505, 509, 511 Daniel, D. B. 209 Danso, R. 387 D’Antonio, S. 376 dark side of digital social work 22–23 Darvell, M. J. 266 Das, S. 107 Data Analytics 141

523

Index data collection instrument 424 data justice 58 dating violence 499 Davidson, J. 165 Davies, R. 184 Davies, W. 3 Davis, A. 153, 156, 256 Dawson, C. 40 Dawson, M. 265, 272 De Clercq, E. 84 de Haan, J. 314 De Hoyos, G. 81 de Jager, A. 254 De la Fuente Robles, Y. Ma. 27, 31, 142, 145, 216, 219–229, 304, 311 de la Selva, A. R. 296 De la Torre-Díez, I. 484 de Lucas, F. 376 De Marco, S. 376 De Robertis, C. 69 de Schipper, N. C. 21 De Sousa Santos, B. 296 De Torrent‚, N. 443 De Vecchi, N. 254 Dean, J. 505 Decade of Healthy Ageing 2020–2030 310 Declaration of Helsinki 1964 357, 446 DeCoster, V. A. 254 Degryse, C. 19 DeHaan, S. 241 De-Juanas, Á. 443–453 del Fresno, M. 374 Del Fresno, M. A. 374 Del Fresno García, M. 29 Deleuze, G. 64 Delgado, M. L. 69 Delgado-Niebla, M. L. 70 Dell’Aquila, E. 221 Dellavalle, M. 459 Demiris, G. 18, 50, 165 Denby, R. W. 49 Dencik, L. 59 Denzin, N. 446 Departamento Administrativo para la Prosperidad Social (DPS) 466, 467 Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 311 depression and suicidality 494; anxiety disorders 495; autism spectrum disorder 496; mental wellbeing and coping 496–497; schizophrenia 496; substance use 495–496; trauma 495 Design Justice Network 59, 60, 61–63

design thinking method 226 Desyllas, M. C. 37, 40 Detres, M. 310 Detroit Digital Justice Coalition 59, 60 Devaney, J. 358 Devlieghere, J. 505, 513 Di Rosa, R. 465 Di Rosa, R. T. 4, 454–463 Diaconu, M. 321, 420–442 diaries: audio diaries 152–153, 154; augmented diaries 161–162; defined 112; semi-structured diaries 153; solicited diaries 153; structured diaries 153; unsolicited diaries 153 Diario Oficial de Extremadura 422 diary transcript for CIT interview 161 Díaz, H. L. 13, 14 Dickerson, J. 254 Dickinson, A. 212 Dicks, B. 123 Dierckx, D. 139 DigComp 2.0 project 22 digital big bang of cyberspace 90 digital coercive control 263 digital communication technologies 7, 142, 198–199 digital competence framework, dimensions of 424; digital communication and collaboration 428–432; digital content creation 432; digital creativity and innovation 436; digital information and data literacy 425–428; digital/online safety 432; digital problem solving 432–436 digital competence framework: methodology 423; Spanish perspective 422; US perspective 422–423 digital dating abuse 266 Digital Dating Abuse (DDA) 267 Digital Defense Playbook 61, 65 digital divide 18, 19, 73, 74, 279, 281, 315, 326, 376, 444, 455, 461; in Children’s Services 199; reduction of exclusion due to 89–90 digital education: high-quality 314, 320; skills 320–322; in social work before Covid-19 319; understanding 317–318 digital exclusion 18, 19, 89, 207–208, 215–216 digital human rights 28 digital literacy 210, 439 digital paperwork 505, 510, 511 digital pedagogy 321 digital people production in social work 505; calculated life areas 508–509; client

524

Index representation in digital social work 507; commensuration 506–507; commensuration-in-interaction 508; computer as storyteller 511–512; digital clients at-a-distance 509–511; logic of standards 506–507; people production 506–507 digital photography and platforms 40–41 digital poverty 242, 245 digital reflexivity 235 digital social group work 165; authors 169–170; groups, type of 172–173; journals 169; online social group work, renewed research agenda for 174; procedure 168; research, type of 170–174; research papers, annual production of 168–169; situations, problems or needs addressed 171–172; social work curriculum, implications for teaching and learning in 174; technology-based groups, technical issues and terminology for 173; units of analysis and search strategy 167 digital social work, defined 1–2, 13 digital social work education 318–319 digital social work laboratory 460 digital social workers 22 digital storytelling (DST) 253; actualizing social workers’ unique dual focus mission 258–259; as a mode of narrative practice (NP) 256–257; as a specific type of story production 253–254; technologysupported interventions, social workers in 257–258; as an umbrella term 254–256 digital switchover process 33 digital tools enhancing participation 200–201 digital tools in social intervention 32 digital transformation of social work 21–22, 399 digitalization, opportunity of 13; bibliometric study 15; coding 15; dark side of digital social work 22–23; digital transformation of social work 21–22; from digital social work to digital social workers 22; Google Scholar 16–19; papers by country in the period 2006–2020 16; papers by year 15–16; role of the pandemic 20–21 Dillon, A. 209 Dimond, J. 61, 256, 267, 268, 269 Dinan, M. 187 disability services, digital social work and 219; background and current situation 219–222; ethical considerations 224;

measurements 223; potential of technology as training revolution 222–223; procedure and participants 223 Disruption-Tolerant Networks (DTNs) 384 Doarn, C. R. 493, 496 Dolinsky, B. 266 Domènech, M. 375 domestic abuse and dating violence 499 domestic violence and abuse (DVA) 263; challenges for social work 270–272; defining and conceptualising 264–266; opportunities for social work practice 272; technology-assisted abuse 266–267; technology-assisted abuse, nature of 267–270 domestic violence perpetrated through ICTs 266 Dominelli, L. 2, 125, 129, 146, 454 Donabedian, A. 226 Donnelly, S. 183–195 Doorn, K. A. 276, 279 Douglas, H. 264, 266 Drack, M. 82 Dragiewicz, M. 263, 264, 271, 272 Drakopoulou, S. 123 Driessens, K. 50, 394 Driscoll, M. P. 328 Drive 451 Ducca Cisneros, L. V. 165–177 Duffin, E. 422 Dufva, M. 81 Dufva, T. 81 Duguin, A. 369 Dull, A. 40 Dulmus, C. N. 258 Dunbar, R. I. 95, 105 Dustman, P. A. 49 Dyer, J. 269 e-administration and e-government, social services processes within 87–88 Ebsco 167 Ebsen, F. 51, 197, 198, 199, 201 Echeverría Ezponda, J. 465 ECLAC 467 Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) 287 educational field technological innovations 2 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) 422 educators’ digital education skills, developing 320–321 Edwards, R. J. 389 EESC 370, 371, 372, 373, 376

525

Index e-exclusion 242, 245, 458 Eishita, F. Z. 222 Eitan, R. 495 Eito Mateo, A. 465, 473 EKORIS UK 441 eL4w Project 424 electronic education 421 Electronic Privacy Information Center 388 electronically stored information (ESI) 346, 348, 350 eLene4Work Self-Assessment Tool 424 Elgán, T. H. 494, 497 Elger, B. S. 84 Elias-Lambert, N. 141 Elliffe, R. 263–275 Ellingson, L. 123 Elliot, M. 358, 361, 362 Elliott, M. 146 Ellis, P. 347 Ellison, N. B. 95 Elm Larsen, J. 511 emergency pivot to remote teaching 319, 320, 322 Emergency Remote Online Teaching and Learning (EROTL) 325; aspects for consideration before teaching using 327; authentic elearning, use of 328–329; authentic elearning elements, examples of 330–332; benefits of 333; breakout groups, use of 330; constraints of technology 333–334; future trends 334; group work education 327–328; online discussion forums 330; South African context 326 encryption technology 344 Engebretson, J. 39 Enslin, P. 326 e-professionalism 189, 321 Epstein, S. 72, 512 Epston, D. 256 e-recording system in gerontological social work 290–291 Erickson, R. J. 155, 156, 157 Ericson, R. V. 512 Erro-Garcés, A. 4, 13–25, 72, 277, 297, 307 Ersoy, M. 113 Escuder, S. 296 e-social work 13–15, 19, 20, 22–23, 242–243, 246–247 Espeland, W. 506, 507, 508, 509 Esquirol, J. M. 306 ethics and technology in emergency situations 382; competence and

preparation 383–385; confidentiality and identity security 388–389; human rights and social justice 385–386; respect for inherent dignity of humanity 386–388 ethnography 290 Eubanks, V. 58, 61 European Accessibility Act 185 European Accessibility Act 185 European Assistive Technology Information Network (EASTIN) 184 European Commission 320, 321, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 421, 422, 423, 425 European Commission 320, 368–373, 375, 422 European Court of Human Rights 85 European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) 321 European Green Pact guidelines 30 Europol 241 EUTOPIA platform 221 Evans, R. 86 Evans-Agnew, R. 38 Evans-Agnew, R. A. 37 Ewijk, H. V. 139, 143 exposure and response prevention (ERP) treatment 495 Ezumah, B. A. 296 Facebook in social work practice with families 230, 278; Aotearoa New Zealand social media policy 232–233; children and families, use of Facebook in practice with 235; ethics and professional codes across world 232, 346, 348; literature 231; recent literature 232; safeguarding, monitoring as 235; social workers caught in the middle 236–238; surveillance 235–236; United Kingdom social media policy 233; USA social media policy 233–234 Facebook Messenger 451 Facebook partner monitoring 266 Facebook: communities between users based on interaction on 58, 97–99, 113; communities between users of social services based on connectivity on 99 Facetime 142, 245, 278 Faherty, V. E. 335 Fahnøe, K. 197 FAIR principles 63–64 Falkenburg, N. 450 Familias en Acción during Covid-19 pandemic 464, 466–468 Fan, J. 127

526

Index Fan, Q. 142 Farah, J. 409, 410 Farah Ojeda, J. 407–419 Faraj, S. 81 Fargion, S. 459 Faria, L. J. 29 Fariñas, J. R. 374 Favaretto, M. 84 FBI 356 Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany 186 Feenberg, A. 57, 58, 64 Ferenbok, J. 395 Ferguson, H. 1, 137, 230, 232, 235 Ferguson, I. 70 Ferguson, S. 454 Fernández, S. 374 Fernández-Pacheco Sáez, J. L. 22, 36–45, 142 Fernet, M. 266, 267, 269 Ferrara, E. 113 Ferreira, J. 26–35, 142, 143 field education 319 Figueroa, C. A. 491 Finn, J. 50, 51, 165, 169, 341 First International Conference on Digital Social Work 15, 23 Fitton, V. 241 Fitzgerald, K. 152, 153 Flanagan, J. C. 151, 152, 153, 163 Flanagan, N. 151–164 Flanagin, A. J. 13 Flatley, R. K. 167 Flick, U. 445 Floridi, L. 371 Flynn, A. 263, 266 Flynn, S. 321 Fong, R. 482 Fontana, M. P. 454 Force Atlas 2 distribution algorithm 96 Forte, J. A. 399 Fortuna, K. L. 72, 142 Foucault, M. 393, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 foundations of social work 69–70 Franklin, C. 15 Freddolino, P. 384, 385 Freed, D. 271 Freedman, S. A. 495 Freeland, N. 464 Freeman, E. M. 256 free-text anonymisation 360 Freire, P. 36, 37 Frey, W. R. 484

Fricker, S. 446 Friemel, T. N. 207, 208 Fuchs, C. 94 functionality of technology 52 Fung, H. W. 141 future of digital social work 517–518 Gabbard, G. 347 Galera, C. 114 Galinsky, M. J. 3, 165 Galpin, K. 316 Galucia, N. 308 gamification 221 Gamson, W. 73 Gandini, A. 123 Ganesh, S. 64 Gann, B. 146 García, F. 423 García, R. 83 García Aller, M. 117 García Suárez, J. 115 García-Castilla, F. J. 146, 443–453, 461, 465 Gardner, L. 422 Garfinkel, H. 507 Garrett, P. M. 50, 51, 230, 231, 397, 459 Garvin, C. D. 3 Garvin, T. 37 Gaskell, M. 484 Gasser, U. 210 Gatto, L. S. 212 Gavine, A. 271 Gebrekidon, S. 122, 128 Geertz, C. 96 Gehlbach, H. 318 Geldof, D. 50, 139, 394 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 146, 247, 358 generalisation 360 Genoe, R. 212 Gentilini, U. 467, 468 Gephi 0.9.2 application 96 Gerhart, N. 210 Germain, C. 81 gerontological social work 286, 287; erecording system in 289–291 gerontological social workers 188–190 Geyer, F. 82, 83 GIDA 63–64 Gilbert, D. J. 327 Gilbert, T. 393, 397, 398, 400 Gillieatt, S. J. 374 Gillingham, P. 145, 197, 203, 207, 484, 505, 510

527

Index Girvan, M. 95 Gittermain, C. 81 Glass, C. 341, 342 Glass, N. E. 492, 499 Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development 2020–2030 68, 73 Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) 59 Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles 372–373, 383 Gojová, A. 206–218 Goldingay, S. 72 Goldkind, L. 144, 145, 384, 385, 484 Goldstein, H. 83 Gollust, S. E. 113 Gómez García, S. 220, 225 Gómez-Ciriano, E. J. 4, 13, 21, 72, 297, 307 Gómez-Jacinto, L. 97, 98, 100, 145 González, L. 311 González, M. 409 González, S. V. 304–313 González García, C. 112 Good Enough Guide 450 Goodman, R 254 Goodman-Casanova, J. 307, 308, 310 Goodson, L. 139 Google Forms 445, 451 Google Hangouts 278 Google Scholar 16, 493 Google Sheets 298 Göransson, C. 310 Gould, N. 207 Government of Ireland 186 Gow, J. A. 216 GPS 397 Gqokonqana, O. 328 Graham, J. R. 65 Grajek, S. 480 Grand Challenge to Harness Technology for Social Good 487 Grand Challenges for Social Work 479, 480; characteristics of 480; first five years 484–486; future of 487–488; harnessing technology grand challenge today 483–487; Harness Technology for Social Good (HTCH) 482–483; implications 486–487; policy recommendations 483; Social Work Grand Challenges 316, 480–482; to the technology grand challenge leadership 486 Granovetter, M. 73 Grant, G. 341 Grant, M. J. 493 Grant, T. 266, 267

Grau, R. 43 Grear, A. 65 Green, J. 122 Greene, J. A. 318 Greenhow, C. 95 Greeson, J. K. P. 492, 494, 500 Gregor, P. 212 Greve, B. 143 Grice, J. C. 456 Grimani, A. 271, 272 Grimm, P. 346 Grise-Owens, E. 144 Grison, D. 459 Grobman, L. 341 Grzymala-Kazlowska, A. 139 Guattari, F. 64 Gubrium, A. 259 Gubrium, J. F. 510 Gupta, R. 368 Gustavsson, N. 241, 244, 246 Gutierrez, L. M. 3 Gutiérrez, R. 374 Haand, M. 210 Haggerty, K. 398 Haggerty, K. D. 512 Hall, B. L. 37 Hall, C. 505, 510, 511 Hallowell, L. 38 Hamada, Y. 290, 291 Hamari, J. 225, 227 Han, B. C. 107 Hanlon, J. 466 Hansen, H. 240, 243, 246, 247 Hao, K. 376 Harari, Y. N. 107 Hardin, R. 70 Harness Technology for Social Good (HTSG) 479, 482–483 Harper, B. 331 Harris, B. 189 Harris, B. A. 263, 265, 266 Harris, M. 197 Harris, P. B. 169 Harris, S. 237 Harris, V. 137, 139 Harris, V. W. 138, 139 Hartley, J. 253 Hasenfeld, Y. 506 hashtags: #15-M 104; #Chiledespertó 105; #LondonAttack 102; #Metoo 104–105; #openarms 105; #quedateencasa 103; #stayhome 93

528

Index Haskins, E. 121, 122 Havard, T. 263 Havnen, A. 407 Hawkins, J. W. 492, 494, 499 Hayes, D. 358 He, L. 21 health and social care professionals (HSCPs) 187–188 health conditions and chronic diseases 497–498 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996 358 HealthIt.Gov 388 Hearn, G. 83 Heath, D. 15, 21 Hecker, I. 424 Hegarty, K. 266, 267, 268, 492, 499 Hehir, E. 318 Heiney, S. P. 493, 497 Henry, N. 263, 266, 267, 268, 269 Hergenrather, K. C. 37 Heron, B. 397 Herrera-Gutiérrez, M. R. 68–77 Herrington, J. 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 Hersh, M. A. 227 Hess, M. 188 Hester, M. 264, 265 Heymann, S. 96 Higgins, M. 37 Hill, A. 189 Hill, K. 50, 199, 231, 395, 454 Hilty, D. M. 387 Hincapié, D. 467 Hine, C. 97 Hislop, J. 156, 157, 159 Hitachi Seisakujo 292 Hitchcock, L. I. 485 Hitlin, P. 114 Hjärpe, T. 509, 510 Ho, C. 65 Hoddinott, J. 466 Hodges, C. 314, 320, 325, 326, 327 Hoffmann, C. P. 95 Hofstra, B. 21 Holosko, M. 342 Holosko, M. J. 142, 257, 258 Holstein, J. A. 506, 507 Holt, S. 263–275 Holum, A. 328 homelessness 499–500 Hong, J. S. 484 Hopkins, J. E. 141 Hoskin, K. 506, 510

Hou, T. 344 Howard, A. 385 Høybye-Mortensen, M. 198, 505, 513 Hu, J. 344 Huaman, K. 408 Huang, R. 328 Huang, Z. 369 Hubackova, S. 421 Hubbard, A. 369 Hudson, J. 188, 198 Hufford, M. R. 153 Hughes, J. C. 494, 497 Hughes, M. 145 Hulme, D. 466 Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model 185 human rights and social justice 60, 372, 383, 385–386 Human Rights Watch 389 Humanitarian Coalition 443 Humphreys, C. 505 Hunady, J. 188 Hursh, H. A. 495 Hutson, S. P. 259 Huu-ay-aht First Nation 37 Iannaccone, C. 455, 461 Iannone, R. 461 IASSW 421 identity security, confidentiality and 388–389 Iglesias, J. B. 165–177 Ignacio, M. 498 Ikai, S. 292 Ikanos 404 Illanes, M. A. 409 Illich, I 59 inclusive transformation, co-building 69–70 Independent Communications Authority of South Africa 333 indigenous data sovereignty 59, 63–64 information and communication technologies (ICT) 3, 13, 46, 84–87, 288–289, 295, 341; boundary issues and conflicts of interest 347–348; collegial relationships 349–350; confidentiality and privacy 344–347; documentation and records 348–349; ethical standards 351; in families with vulnerable children during COVID-19 pandemic 209–211; informed consent 342–344; by older people during pandemic COVID-19 211–213; practice standards 351; practitioner competence 350–351; reflections of HC staff on the

529

Index use of 213–215; reflections of social workers on the use of 211; regulatory standards 351–352 Information Commissioner’s Office 356, 358, 366 Instagram 456 Integrated Children’s System 196 inter-dimensionality 137, 139 International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) 2, 68 International Association of Social Work with Groups 327 International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) 185 International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) 2, 68 International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) 2, 68, 172, 372, 373, 378, 383, 385, 386, 388, 390, 416, 465 International Labor Organization 277, 466 Internet of Things (IoT) 30, 141 Internet Watch Foundation 241 Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance (IES) 266–267 interprofessional work (IPW) 287 intimate partner stalking 266 Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) 245 Istanbul Convention 266 Italy, digitization process in 454; digital competencies and social work education 458–460; digitalization processes before the pandemic 455–456; future of e-social work in 460–461; transformations in social work practice during COVID-19 pandemic 456–458 Itō, J. 285 Jacobsson, K. 505, 506, 508, 510 Jacomy, M. 96 Jang, K. 484 Japan, social work with older people in 285; context and relationship between social work and Kaigo 286–287; e-recoding system within gerontological social work (case study) 289; e-recording system in gerontological social work 290–291; future opportunities and challenges 291–292; Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 288–289; social work in Japan and Shakai Fukushi 286; technological use, possibilities for 291; utilizing technology for 287–288

Japanese Association of Schools of Social Work (JASSW) 287 Jaramillo Henao, A. M. 222 Jardón, A. 375 Jasen, E. 421 Jenkins, J. 71 Jensen, C. 81 Jerin, R. 266 Jewell, J. R. 314, 315, 317, 485 Jeyashingham, D. 244 Jiménez-Sotomayor, M. R. 117 Jin, H. 494 Jin, S. 113 Johannesson, M. 222 John, V. M. 37 Johnson, M. W. 58 Johnston, G. 39 Johnston, J. 320 Johnston-Goodstar, K. 208, 255 Jones, J. 144, 145 Joseph, S. J. 407 Joyce, N. 342 Juste, M. 114 Juul, S. 513 kaigo services 290 Kaldewey, D. 479, 480 Kalenda, S. 206–218, 241, 242, 245 Kales, H. C. 498 Kaliisa, R. 334 Kanani, K. 341, 342 Kangasniemi, M. 186 k-anonymity 359–360 Kaplan, E. 122 Kassaw, G. 347 Kaufhold, M. A. 102 Kaye, J. 1, 137, 145, 232 Kemp, S. 165 Kennedy, H. 201 Khoong, E. C. 316 Kickmeier-Rust, M. D. 225, 227 Kihlström, A. 82 Killiiam, L. 70 Kim, J. 113 Kincl, T. 438 Kircaburun, K. 113 Kirkegaard Ørnbøll, J. 142 Kirkevold, M. 201 Kirwan, G. 1–10, 46–56, 72, 73, 142, 165, 189, 199, 242, 246, 270, 315, 316, 333, 393–403, 454, 517–518 Kjellman, A. 83 Klaebe, H. 254

530

Index Klein, W. C. 259 Kluge, A. 334 Knight, A. 359, 361 Kniola, L. 357 Ko, A. 485 Koch, G. G. 168 Kodate, N. 183–195 Koehoorn M. 127 Kohnke, L. 333 Koizumi, T. 287, 292 Kollak, I. 187, 188, 189 Koo, D. M. 95 Korhan, O. 113 Kostakis, V. 58, 60 Kowaliková, I. 206–218, 241, 242, 245 Koyama, T. 288 Kozinets, R. V. 97 Kramer, A. 107 Kranzberg, M. 512 Krause, N. 112 Kraut, R. 98, 107 Kress, G. 258 Kreuger, L. W. 297 Krippendorff, K. 162 Krips, H. 123 Krysik, J. 58 Kubů, P. 207 Kuckartz, U. 446 Kudoo, A. 166 Kuhl, E. A. 407 Kuntz, J. G. 415 Kunz, M. B. 459 Kupczynski, L. 334 Kurunmäki, L. 511 Kustec, K. 449 Kuzmak, N. 254 Kvakic, M. 395, 398 Kysela, J. 222 La Rose, T. 121–136, 394, 395, 398, 399 Laberge, D. 122 Ladhani, S. 465, 466 Laitinen, A. 188 Lamb, A. 374 Lambert, J. 253–254 LaMendola, W. 49, 57–67, 341, 342 Lampe, C. 95 Lamura, G. 186 Landau, R. 397 Landis, J. R. 168 Landor, M. 201 landscape of action (LOA) 257 landscape of identity (LOI) 257

Lang, N. C. 327 Lange, P. G. 123, 124 LaRocque, S. 331 Larrison, C. 315 Larsen, A. K. 420 Latapy, M. 96 Latham, G. P. 152 Lathrope, D. E. 81 Latonero, M. 101 Latz, A. O. 43 Lauri, M. 398 Lavalette, M. 70 Lave, J. 328 Lavitt, M. 165, 169 Law, E. L.-C. 227 Law for Supporting the Independence of Persons with Disabilities 2007 (Japan) 288 Law of Certified Social Workers and Care Workers (Japan) 286 Law on the Promotion of Personal Autonomy and Care for People in Situations of Dependency 2006 309 Lazer, D. 112 learning management system (LMS) 317, 329 Lee, B. H. 266, 268 Lee, K. T. 95 Lee, L.-H. 84, 90 Lee, S. J. 492, 493, 500 Lefevre, M. 264 Leigh, S. 375 Leighninger, R. D. Jr. 81 Leiner, B. M. 84 Lema, M. D. 20 Lenette, C. 256, 259 Leporini, B. 227 Lerman, K. 113 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) 70, 241, 332, 389 Levin, T. 254 Levitt, J. 114 Lev-On, A. 161 Lewin, K. 175 Lewis, C. 439 Lewis, J. 259 Lewis, S. 254 Lewis, T. 61, 62 Li, J. 188 Liang, Y. 407, 415 Liebenberg, L. 38 Lightfoot, A. F. 40 Ligon, J. 423 Lilla, R. 167 Lim, S. S. 230, 395

531

Index Lima, A. L. 70 Lincoln, Y. 446 LINE 451 Linehan, T. 94 LinkedIn 348; interaction between social workers on 97, 98 Lippy, C. 266 Lishman, J. 280 Liu, M. 493, 497 Livingstone, S. 242, 259 Lizárraga, C. 71 logic of standards 506–507 Lolosoli, S. 37 #LondonAttack 102 loneliness see undesired loneliness Long, M. 394 Long-term Care Insurance (LTCI) system 285, 289 López, B. 369 López, L. 305, 311 López, R. 375 López Peláez, A. 1–10, 13, 13–25, 28, 29, 48, 49, 72, 85, 86, 89, 98, 102, 137, 138, 139, 142, 145, 146, 166, 241, 243, 244, 247, 278, 281, 296, 297, 307, 335, 374, 376, 393, 394, 400, 409, 416, 443, 449, 454, 455, 460, 465, 473, 505, 506, 517–518 Loprest, P. 424 Lorente, A. 368, 369, 370 Lovink, G. 60 Lowenstein-Barkai, H. 161 Lucchi, N. 84 Lucio, R. 310 Lundahl, B. 14 Luo, T. C. 491–504 Lutters, W. G. 82 Lutz, C. 95 Luxton, D. 386, 389 Lyndon, A. 266, 267 Lyneborg, A. O. 505, 506, 507, 509, 511, 512, 513 Lynott, R. J. 510 Lyon, D. 398 MacDonald, J. 347 MacDonald, M. 47, 49, 51 Mace, R. 185 MacEachron, A. 241, 244, 246 MacEntee, K. 41 machine learning 123, 203, 487–488 Mackrill, T. 51, 142, 196–205 macro level, social worker at 142–144

Madara, E. J. 169 Madoc-Jones, I. 18, 53, 491 Madsen, W. C. 449 Maguire, P. 37 Maino, G. 459 Major, A. 346 Makgetla, N. 326 Mäkitalo, Å. 512 Mallia, P. 382, 384, 385, 386, 388, 390 Manalel, J. A. 145 Mancoske, R. 82 Mandryk, R. L. 222 Mann, S. 395 Manovich, L. 96 Manzanera-Ruiz, R. 71 Marchant-Araya, P. 473 Marcuello, C. 409 Marcuello-Servós, C. 2, 3, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 81–93, 138, 142, 145, 146, 166, 307, 374, 393, 400, 449, 455 Marganski, A. 267 Markham, A. 123 Markwick, K. 271 Marques, E. 36–45 Marra, A. 407 Marston, G. 511 Marte Meo method 201 Martin, F. 317 Martin, M. 216 Martín Cano, M. C. 27, 31, 142, 145, 216, 219–229, 311 Martin. F. 317 Martinell Barfoed, E. 505–516 Martínez, E. 227 Martínez, L. 310 Martínez, M. A. 15 Martinez, R. 341 Martínez-Selva, J.M. 220 Martín-Gutiérrez, J. 220 Mason, C. 505, 512 Masuyama, S. 186 Matarese, M. T. 505 Matarirano, O. 328 Mateo, A. E. 277 Mathiyazhagan, S. 3, 394 Matsuo, K. 285–294 Matthews, T. 271 Mattison, M. 72, 246 Maturana, H. R. 83 Matus, T. 409 Mauss, M. 111 Mc Guckin, C. 72, 199, 316, 333, 394, 399 McAdam, D. 71

532

Index McAfee, A. 83 McAuliffe, D. 189, 246 McCarthy, J. 71 McCarthy, J. D. 70, 73 McFadden, P. 49, 319, 394 McFarlane, J. 269 McIntosh, J. E. 264 McLaughlin, H. 449 McLean, C. M. 506, 510 McLellan, T. 507 McLeod, D. A. 72 McMahon, S. 484 McNutt, J. G. 41 McWilliam, K. 253, 254 Means, B. 317, 320 Meckel, M. 95 Medical Devices Directive 184 Meet (Google) 451 Megele, C. 232 Meissner, F. 139 Melander, L. 267 Melucci, A. 71 Méndez-Domínguez, P. 4, 98 Meneses-Fernández, M. D. 220 Menon, G. 341, 342 Merkel, S. 188 Mesbur, E. S. 327 Mesnard, A. 467 meso level, social work practices at 144–145 Mhlanga, D. 326 Michailakis, D. 81 micro level, social work intervention at 145 Microsoft Teams 245, 278, 451 Miller, J. J. 144 Miller, P. 511 Miller Scarnato, J. 72, 255 Miller-Cribbs, J. 341, 342 Milnes, S. 415 Miltchev, R. 420 Minahan, A. 83 Mind of My Own 244 MindOfMyOwn 200, 244 minimal uniformity 267 Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MEVT) 422 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) 285 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) 285 Minkler, M. 37, 255 Miño-Puigcercós, R. 296 MINSAL 407

Mishna, F. 4, 18, 48, 50, 198, 232, 242, 243, 246, 278, 279, 454 MIT 369 Mitchell, B. 141, 319 Mitchell, E. 280 Mitrovic, A. 222 Miyamoto, S. 285 mobile app 299–300, 497, 500 mobile health 310 mobile learning 333, 335 mobile phones 102, 141, 145, 160, 269; cellphone 41–42, 300; smartphones 141, 244 mobile technologies 49, 141 Mochari-Greenberger, H. 421 Mocker, M. 141 Model Regulatory Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice 345, 346, 350, 352 Moher, D. 15 Mois, G. 72, 142 Moizer, J. 221, 222 MoLSA (Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs) 207, 208 Monahan, T. 398 Monckton-Smith, J. 270 Moncur, W. 271 Monrouxe, L. V. 153 Montauk, T. R. 407 Montes del Castillo, A. 443 Montes Martínez, A. 443 Montgomery, K. 14 Moon, J. R. 127 Moorhouse, B. L. 333 Morales, J. 220, 225 Moran, N. 232, 235 Morch, A. I. 334 Mordini, E. 208 Morley, C. 189, 191, 319 Morley, J. E. 270 Morris, E. M. 208 Morro-Howell, N. 308 Mortenson, W. B. 396 Moser, I. 187 Moyle, W. 187 Muchinik, E. 306 Mulder, C. 40 Mulgan, G. 456 Mullane, F. 270 Muñoz, C. 411, 414, 416 Muñoz Arce, G. 296 Muñoz de Dios, M. D. 304–313 Munro, E. 198 Murdach, A. D. 71

533

Index Murphy, A. 314 Murphy, M. G. 200 Murphy, R. 317 Murphy, T. 200 Murray, A. 456 Murugadoss, K. 360 Murugadoss, K. 360, 365 My Teaching Partner approach 201 Myhill, A. 264, 265 MySpace.com 244

Nishiuchi, A. 291 Nissen, L. 73, 485 Noffke, S. E. 152 Noh, M. J. 95 Nordesjö, K. 47, 51, 53, 233, 398 Norton, W. J. 60 Norving, P. 368 Nowicka, M. 139 Núñez, H. 446 Nuñez, I. 374 Nussbaum, M. 59

Naicker, C. 326 Nakamura, Y. 286 narrative practice (NP) 256–257 NASW Code of Ethics 2, 351 National Association of Social Workers (NASW) 2, 95, 233, 350, 352, 383, 384, 388, 421, 423; -code of ethics 345, 351, 421 National Association of Social Workers Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, Clinical Social Work Association 233 National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) 507, 511 National Disability Authority 185, 186 National Geographic 375 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan 186 Necel, R. 382, 386 Negroponte, N. 84 Nelson-Gee, E. 254 networked relationships 46; dimensions of digitalisation and relationship-based practice 51–52; relationship-based practice in the digital age 47; social work practice and the digital 47–51 networking 32 Nevala, S. 265 New Public 58, 64, 65 newly qualified social workers, research with 394–395 Newman, D. 254 Newman, M. E. 95 Newport, C. 333 Ngai, K.-H. 256, 258 Ngai, S. S. 47 Ngai, S. S. Y. 243 Nickelsen, N. C. M. 186 Niemelä, M. 188 Nilsson, S. G. 152 Nipperess, S. 189, 246

Obayashi, K. 186, 187 O’Brien, K. 422 O’Brien, M. 183 obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) 495 O’Byrne, D. 221 occupational therapists (OTs) 185 O’Driscoll, A. 363 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 455 O’Farrell, C. 320 Office of the Children’s Ombudsman in Ireland Oh, Y. S. 484 Ó’hÉigeartaigh, S. 370 Ohler, J. B. 255 Ohm, P. 356 Okely, O. 458, 459 Okorie, N. 387 Oksanen, A. 188 Olcoń, K. 327 older people, social work with (in Japan) 285; context and relationship between social work and Kaigo 286–287; erecoding system within gerontological social work (case study) 289; e-recording system in gerontological social work 290–291; future opportunities and challenges 291–292; Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 288–289; social work in Japan and Shakai Fukushi 286; technological use, possibilities for 291; utilizing technology for 287–288 O’Leary, P. 382, 385 Oliveira, N. 143 Oliver, R. 328, 330, 332 Olmos-Alcaraz, A. 139 Olmstead, K. 114 Olson, M. 70 Olsson, T. 41 Olwill, C. 276

534

Index O’Malley, L. 492 online home visiting 276 online social group work, renewed research agenda for 174 online social networks (OSN) 96, 105, 106, 107, 374 online socialization 95–96 online video calls, use of 245 #openarms 105, 106 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 166, 455 O’Reilly, T. 94 Orlikowski, W. J. 52 Orme, J. 400 Ørnbøll, J. K. 201 Ortega y Gasset, J. 304 Orviska, M. 188 Osann, K. 114 O’Sullivan, L. F. 266, 268 Otis-Green, S. 190 Our Data Bodies (ODB) project 59–61 Owens, L. W. 144 Oxfam 450 Oyarzun, B. 317 Ozkazanc-Pan, B. 139 Özsungur, F. 439 Padilla, B. 139, 143 Padlet, use of 245 Pagallo, U. 371 Palen, L. 102 Palfrey, J. 210 Pande, R. L. 421 pandemic context as a catalyst for digital social work 84; content creation and dissemination using digital tools 88; digital divide, reduction of exclusion due to 89–90; e-administration and egovernment, social services processes within 87–88; social interactions in digital environments 88–89; social work education and professional training 89; see also COVID-19 pandemic Papademas, D. 43 papers by country in the period 2006–2020 16 papers by year 15–16 Paredes, G. 220, 221 parenting 500 Pariser, E. 105 Parker, D. 259 Parker, D. M. 357, 358 Parker, J. 328, 329

Parker-Oliver, D. 18, 50, 165 Parrott, L. 18, 53, 491 participation, digital tools enhancing 200–201 participatory evaluation in social organisations 443; data analysis 446; demand in participatory evaluation training 448; in emergency situations 449–451; methodology 445–446; participants 445; participatory evaluations, conducting 447–448; procedure 445–446; research method 445; staff involved in/responsible for evaluations 448; types of 447 Parton, N. 16, 18, 505, 512 Pascoe, K. M. 141, 232 Pascual, J. 369 Passos, L. 407, 415 Pastor Seller, E. 68–77 Patrick, W. 94 Patterson Silver Wolf, D. A. 496 Patton, D. U. 484 Paul, V. 407, 415 Pavolini, E. 186 Payne, M. 81, 398 Pazaitis, A. 58, 60 Peabody, C. G. 40 Peckover, S. 505, 510 Pedersen, J. S. 505, 512 Pelta, R. 443–453 Pence, E. 265 Pender, J. 187 Pendlebury, S. 326 Pentina, I. 113 people production 506–507 Pérez, G. 446 Pérez, R. 409 Pérez de Armiño, K. 443 Pérez García, R. 3, 13, 13–25, 72, 137, 138, 296, 335, 505, 506 Pérez-Dasilva, J. Á. 112 Perez-Garcia, G. 347 Pérez-García, R. 307 Perissinotto, C. M. 305 Perle, J. G. 316 Perron, B. 465 Perron, B. E. 207, 374 Perry, E. E. 494, 498 personal data 357–358 Person-Environment-OccupationPerformance (PEOP) model 185 pessimism 306, 308 Petersen, R. 70 Petty, T. 61

535

Index Phelan, J. E. 459, 460 Phillimore, J. 139 Phillips, C. 505, 510, 511, 512 Phillips, T. M. 459 photography 40–41 phototherapy 254 PhotoVoice methodology 36; applications to social work 39–40; benefits and challenges 41–42; challenges and opportunities 40; digital photography and platforms 40–41; ethical issues 37–39; final reflections and directions 42–43; theoretical, philosophical, and epistemological orientations 36–37 Phua, J. 113 physical health 497; health conditions and chronic diseases 497–498; physical activity 498–499; sexual health 498 PIAAC (Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) test 455, 461 Pierce, M. 407 Pillay, R. 325–338 Pincus, A. 83 Pink, S. 1, 137, 232, 280 Pirhonen, J. 188, 191 Pithouse, A. 398 Pitt, P. 38 podcasts, use of 245 Polgar, J. M. 185 political entrepreneurship 71 Polly, D. 317 Pols, J. 187 Pombo, C. 368 Ponce, I. 113 Pope, Z. C. 335 Popov, Y. 84 Porcel-Gálvez, A. 408 Portz, J. D. 497 Pösö, T. 507, 509 Post-relationship Contact & Tracking (PRCT) 266, 268 Pouvreau, D. 82 Powell, A. 263, 266, 269 Powell, J. L. 393, 397, 398, 400 power, mechanisms of 393; new digital era in social work 393–394; newly qualified social workers, research with 394–395; surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance 395–396; surveillance and 397–399; technologically mediated surveillance, counterveillance and sousveillance 396–397

Poyato, M. J. G. 277 Prada, A. 73 Prasad, A. 123 Prelinger, R. 121 Prensky, M. 210 Pride, M. 139 Prinsloo, P. 334 Privacy Act 1993 (new Zealand) 232 privacy 344, 356; anonymisation techniques 359–361; de-identification and anonymisation 359; personal information and identifiers 358–359 profession, defined 26 PROLOG Consult 450 Prout, T. A. 279 Proyecto Reconectando 301 pseudonymisation 360, 364 Pugh, R. 277 Pulido, C. M. 21 Pulido-Rodríguez, C. 112 Pulliam, R. M. 327 Punie, Y. 145 Purser, M. 121 Putnam, M. C. 242 Qian, J. 315 Qlik 438 Quality and Qualifications Ireland 320 Quinney, L. 256 Quispe-Arrieta, R. 408 Raab, J. 43 Raban, D. R. 221 Racovita, L. 420–442 Racovita-Szilagyi, L. 420 Rädiker, S. 446 Rafaeli, E. 153, 156 Rafaeli, S. 221 Rainey, J. 387 Rainey, S. 344 Ramirez, M. 498 Ramm, J. 254 Ramos, G. 386 Ramsey, A. T. 14 Ranci, C. 186 randomisation 360 randomized controlled trial (RCT) 495 Rantala, L. 439 Rantanen, T. 188 Rapeli, M. 382 rapid technosocial change 263 Rapoport, A. 82 Raskin, M. 318

536

Index Ravalier, J. M. 493, 496 Raya Diez, E. 13, 368–381, 413, 460 Raymond, B. 51, 52 Razuri, E. B. 485 Reamer, F. G. 3, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 40, 41, 42, 72, 142, 146, 165, 244, 246, 247, 279, 281, 315, 341–355, 395, 439, 459 Recmanová, A. 206–216, 465 Reconectando program, Chilean experience of 299, 407; digital component of Chilean social work 408–410; ICTs and provision of services 413–414; management system 411–413; methodology 411; results 411; supervision of workers 414–415 Recupero, P. 344, 347 Red Etica FNPI 374 Redden, J. 58, 59 Redecker, C. 321 Redwood‐Campbell, L. 443 Redwood-Jones, Y. A. 37, 38 Reed, L. A. 263 Reeves, T. C. 328, 330, 332 RefWorks software 15 Regehr, C. 341, 342 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 231 Reinsmith-Jones, K. 485 relationship-based practice: in the digital age 47; dimensions of digitalisation and 51–52 Renno, W. 81 Rentería, A. 375 Report of the Office for Disability Care 221 Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group 63, 64 Reuter, C. 102 Rewari, A. 369 Reynolds, K. 61 Reynolds, L. 485 Rhoades, H. 165, 499 Rhodes, S. D. 37 Rice, E. 165, 498 Richards-Schuster, K. 208, 255 Richmond, Mary 60, 64, 65, 309 Richter, G. 221 Rideout, V. N. 455 Riessman, C. K. 256, 511 risk-based approach, components of: anonymisation and processing 364–365; audience 362, 364; data 361–364; data storage, transfer, and access 362–363; perceived benefit 363; processing and

anonymisation 362; proportionate benefit 361 Ritzhaupt, A. 317 Rivas, R. F. 172 Rivera García, E. 115 Rivera-Vargas, P. 296 Robaeys, B. V. 139 Robbins, S. 316, 319, 321 Robelia, B. 95 Roberts, K. 269 Robey, D. 51, 52 Robinson, A. 264, 265 Robinson, M. M. 494, 496 Robles, J. M. 376 robotics: and assistive technology 187–188; benefits and challenges of 188–190 Rocha, H. 34 Rodrigues, M. L. 26, 27 Rodríguez, A. 309, 311 Rodríguez, M. D. D. 142 Rodriguez-Keyes, E. 422 Ronan, W. W. 152 Rönkkö, K. 494, 499 Roose, R. 505, 513 Roque Doval, Y. 311 Rosemberg, M. A. 38 Rosemberg, M-A. S. 37 Ross, C. A. 141 Ross, J. W. 141 Rossiter, N. 60 Roth, K. 407, 415 Rotondi, A. J. 494, 496 Rotondo, E. 451 Rouleau, K. 443 Rouyet, J. I. 375 Rowlands, I. 210 Royal Board on Disability 221 Ruch, G. 46, 47, 200 Ruggiero, K. J. 494, 495 Rugh, D. 277 Rummell, C. 341 Russel, S. 368 Russell, A. 305 Rutherford, G. 254 Ryan, D. 50, 230, 231, 397, 459 Ryding, J. 141, 492, 494, 499 Ryhtä, I. 316, 321 Saborowski, M. 187, 188, 189 Sacchet, T. 465 Sacks, H. 507 Sage, M. 199, 230, 231, 253, 255, 256, 396, 397, 479–490

537

Index Sage, T. 484 Sage, T. E. 199, 230, 231, 396, 397 Sala, E. 307 Salazar, I. 375 Salesforce 411, 412 Säljö, R. 512 SAMHSA 500 Samson, M. 464, 465 Samuel, M. 197 San Cornelio, G. 220, 225 Sánchez, P. M. 295–303 Sánchez Rodríguez, P. A. 223, 225 Sánchez-Álvarez, C. 464–475 Sanchez-Navarro, J.P. 220 Sancho-Gil, J. M. 296 Sanders, J. E. 47, 49 Sanfelici, M. 454–463 Sanon, M. A. 38 Santás, J. I. 374 Santolaya Estefanía, M. P. 413 Santorro, P. 111 Sapey, B. 52 Sarfati, D. 141, 319 Sartre, J.P. 306 Sarwar, A. 197 Sasaki, A. 285–294 Savci, M. 210 Scaramuzzino, G. 47, 51, 53, 233, 398 Schallmo, D. R. A. 81 Schankweiler, K. 40 Schechter, S. 265 Scheufele, D. 112 Schildt, H. 137 Schimmele, C. 165 Schinke, S. P. 141, 495 Schirmer, W. 81 Schnettler, B. 43 Schoech, D. 34 Scholten, P. 143 Schonlau, M. 446 Schopler, J. H. 165 Schreckling, E. 394 Schrooten, M. 139 Schulz, P. 310 Schwab, K. 189 Schwab-Cartas, J. 41 Schwab-Reese, L. M. 396 Schwandt, T. 123, 124 Schwartz, R. 484 Schwinn, T. M. 141, 495 Scott, B. 83 S-Cube 221 Seay, P. C. 184

Sebastian, K. 123 Segado, S. 166 Seidmann, S. 306 semi-structured diaries 153 Semyachkov, K. 84 Sen, A. 59 Sen, R. 422 serious games 220 Serrano, A. 43 Servicio de Salud Metropolitano Sur 301 Sethi, J. K. 208, 255 sexual health knowledge 498 Shah, S. 382 shakai fukushi system 286 Shapiro, C. 454 Share, P. 187 Sharma, Y. 376 Shaw, I. 189, 197 Sheppard, M. 265 Sheridan, L. 269 Sheridan, L. P. 266, 267 Shevellar, L. 49 Shi, P. 258 Shifflet-Chila, E. 240 Shiffman, S. 153 Shimura, K. 287, 292 Shirky, C. 107 Shklovski, I. 101 Shoham, M. D. 13 Shorkey, C. T. 2 Shoshet, L. 121 SHOWeD questions 39 Shulman, L. 327 Shuster, E. 357 Shuwang, Z. 210 Sidell, N. 348 Siegler, E. 349 signal (social media app), use of 245 Signs of Safety 200 Silberman, N. 121 Silk, K. 484 Silverman, B. 345 Silverman, D. 162 Simpson, J. E. 49, 142, 145, 243 Simpson, N. 415 Sinanan, A. 244 Singer, J. 394 Singer, J. 479–490 Singer, J. 482 Sinha, G. 315 Sitter, K. C. 465, 466 Sixsmith, A. 396 Skillmark, M. 513

538

Index Skovdahl, K. 201 Skype 87, 142, 245, 278, 451 SMACIT framework 140–141 Smelser, N. 71 Smith, M. J. 496 Smoyer, A. B. 422 SMS text messages 245, 353 Smyth, K. A. 169 Smyth, T. 61 social capital 94 social exclusion 3, 4, 19, 22, 73, 74, 90, 207, 219, 242, 307, 372, 406, 517, 518 social innovation and technology for social work 295; (re)building affective social networks 299–301; situating the use of technology 295–297; social work training as a site for technological innovation 297–299; working together 301–302 social interactions in digital environments 88–89 social media 21, 41, 112, 232, 456; Aotearoa New Zealand social media policy 232–233; in child protection assessments 199; ethical use of 234; haring sites 128, 129; and the pandemic 113–114; United Kingdom social media policy 233; USA social media policy 233–234; use of 245 social movements as activists of solidarity 70–72 Social Networking Services (SNS) 285 social networking sites 94; to enhance social capital 96–100; to generate and sustain social movements 104–105; and social emergencies 101–104 social networks 3, 88, 112, 113, 118, 144, 444, 458; and assistance robots 373–376; online social networks (OSN) 96, 105, 106, 107, 374; (re)building affective social networks 299–301 social organisations, participatory evaluation in 443; data analysis 446; demand in participatory evaluation training 448; in emergency situations 449–451; methodology 445–446; participants 445; participatory evaluations, conducting 447–448; procedure 445–446; research method 445; staff involved in/responsible for evaluations 448; types of 447 Social Services 22–23, 74, 87, 88, 111, 114–118, 409, 410, 455, 505 Social Services Abstracts (SSA) 167 Social Welfare Act 285, 286, 288, 289 social work 26; collaborative approaches and

social intervention plans 31–33; conceptual dimensions of 27–29; contemporary challenges to 33; teleworking, adaptability of professional practices to 29–30; telework social work practices 30–31 Social Work Abstracts (SWA) 167 social work curriculum, implications for teaching and learning in 174 social work education and digitalisation 314; digital education, understanding 317–318; digital education in social work before Covid-19 319; digital practice landscape 315; digital social work education 318–319; educators’ digital education skills, developing 320–321; high-quality digital education 320; knowledge and skills required to practice digitally 315–317; remote teaching, emergency pivot to 319 social work education and professional training 89 Social Work England 246 Social Work Grand Challenges see Grand Challenge social work involvement 493–494 social work practice and technology competencies 27–28; integrating 420; data collection instrument 424; demographic information 424; digital communication and collaboration 428–432; digital competence framework 422–423; digital content creation 432; digital creativity and innovation 436; digital information and data literacy 425–428; digital/online safety 432; digital problem solving 432–436; limitations 438; recommendations for 438–439; research design, target population, and sampling design 423 social work practice and the digital 47; benefits 49–50; limitations 50–51 social work representational organizations, responses from 126 social work research 151; audio-dairy data collection 155–161; audio diaries 152–153, 154; augmented diaries, analysis of 162; CIT interview and augmented diaries 161; critical incident technique (CIT) 152, 153–154; diary transcript for the CIT interview 161; evaluation of CIT/audio-diary approach 155; research methodology 154–155

539

Index Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) 232 social workers: congratulations/praise to 126–127; in technology-supported interventions 257–258; unique dual focus mission 258–259 Society for Social Work Research 486 sociocybernetics 81; content creation and dissemination using digital tools 88; digital divide, reduction of exclusion due to 89–90; digital environments, analysis of social interactions in 88–89; eadministration and e-government, social services processes within 87–88; pandemic context as a catalyst for digital social work 84–90; perspective 81–84; social work education and professional training 89 socio-materiality 52 Sohn, S. 347 Solanilla, A. M. 277 solicited diaries 153 Somekh, B. 152 Somerville, L. 48, 49, 243 Sonis, J. 408 Sorbring, E. 141, 492, 494, 499 sousveillance 395; technologically mediated 396–398 Sowers, K. M. 258 SPARC 186 Spatz, B. 296, 297 Specified Skilled Workers (SSW) 287 Spector, J. M. 333, 335 Spitz, J. 243 Spitzer, M. 210 SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 424 Stalla-Bourdillon, S. 359, 361 Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice 2 Stanfield, D. M. 394 Stankovic, M. 368 Stanley, K. G. 222 Star, S. L. 506, 507 Starbird, K. 102 Stark, E. 264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 284 Statistics South Africa 328 statutory children’s services 196; case management systems 196–198; digital communication technologies 198–199; participation, digital tools enhancing 200–201; statutory caseworker training, digital technology for 201–202 Stebnicki, M. A. 383, 384, 386

Steensbæk, S. 200 Steiger, C. 394 Steiner, O. 3 Steinfield, C. 95 Steinfort, D. 415 Stenhouse, K. 189, 191 Stevens, M. 506, 507, 508, 509 Stewart, J. M. 209 Stewart, M. 141, 319 Steyaert, J. 207 Stöckl, H. 265 Stohl, C. 64 Stonard, K. 270 Storková, P. 222 Štrach, P. 438 Strauss, A. 446, 468 stream of consciousness 156 Streiner, D. L. 424 Stretch, J. J. 297 structured diaries 153 Stute, M. 383, 384, 389, 390 suicidality, depression and 494; anxiety disorders 495; autism spectrum disorder 496; mental wellbeing and coping 496–497; schizophrenia 496; substance use 495–496; trauma 495 Súilleabháin, F. Ó. 240–250 Sukel, K. 349 Suleiman AlMakhamreh, S. 384 Suler, J. 279 Sullivan, N. E. 327 Sulmasy, L. 349 Sum, S. 212 Sun, X. 227 Sun, Z. 330 superdiversity 137; contextual dimension 139; contextualizing 138–140; and digital social work 140–142; family dimension 139; individual dimension 139; integrated model of 143; intrinsic dimensions of 139; macro level, social worker at 142–144; meso level, social work practices at 144–145; micro level, social work intervention at 145; migration dimension 139; socioeconomic dimension 139 surveillance 235, 395; surveillance: and power 397–399; technologically mediated 396–398 Susi, T. 222 Susskind, D. 191 Susskind, R. E. 191 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 33, 221, 370

540

Index Suwa, S. 187, 188, 189, 190 Sweeney, L. 359 Swinford, E. 308 SWRB Code of Conduct 232 systemic racism 127 systems theory 83 tablet devices, use of 245 Tak, H. S. 212 Tanaka, S. 289 Tang, C. 328 Tankiso, M. 326 Tanni, K. 315 Tapley, J. 439 Tarjimly 385 Tarrow, S. 70, 71 Tavangarian, D. 420 Taylor, B. 364 Taylor, D. 72 Taylor, L. 59 Taylor, S. 266, 267 Taylor-Beswick, A. 166 Teater, B. A. 330 Technical Training and Internship Program (TITP) 287 technology-assisted abuse 266–270 Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, USA 184 technology-supported interventions, social workers in 257–258 technophobia 216 Teixeira, S. 485 telecomputing 169 teleconferencing 189 Tele-Social Work 276; definition of 277–278; as a new frontier of social work practice 278–280; recommendations for development of 280–282 telework social work practices 30–31 teleworking, adaptability of professional practices to 29–30 Teti, M. 37, 38 Thaker, N. G. 369 The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement 128 The Digital Competence Framework 2.0 422–423 The Digital Economy Society Index 455 Thelwall, M. 114 Thibault, P. 123 Thick Data 96 Third, A. 242 Thompson, N. 71, 246

Thomsen, F. K. 395 Thornton-Rice, A. 232, 235 Three Houses method 200 Tierney, S. 165 Tilly, C. 71 Timimi, F. 22 Timmermans, S. 512 Timonen, V. 183 Todd, L. 201 Tokunaga, R. S. 267 Tolman, R. M. 263 Torras, C. 375, 376 Torres, S. 190 Toseland, R. W. 172 training revolution, potential of technology as 222–223 Trautwein, S. 20, 198 Tremblay, M. C. 70 Treré, E. 94 Trevithick, P. 46 Trigueros Cervantes, C. 115 Tripathi, S. 15, 166 Trott, A. V. 298 Trottier, D. 230, 231 Truell, R. 278 Trull-Oliva, C. 450 Truong, C. 315 Tsai, H. H. 310 Tsang, N. M. 154 Tsikinas, S. 227 Tsui, M. 382, 385 Turja, T. 188 Turnell, A. 200 Turner, D. 53, 72, 142 Turner, R. 70 Turney, D. 46, 47 Twitter 456; communities between Social Work Colleges based on connectivity on 100; communities between Social Work Colleges based on interaction on 101; interaction communities and communities detected around #LondonAttack on 102; Twitter Streaming Importer plugin 96 Twitter about social services and Covid-19 111; objectives of the study 114; research study, context of 111–113; social media and the pandemic 113–114; social work responses to Covid-19 pandemic 111 Úcar, X. 446 Uebel, M. 2 Uehara, E. 479 Ulmestig, R. 47, 51, 53, 233, 398

541

Index undesired loneliness 304; characteristics of 305–307; dependency and disability, benefits and services related to 309; digital social work and loneliness 307–310; future perspectives 311; good practices from comparative perspective 310; ICT as a support to improve the quality of life of lonely people 308–309; role of social workers in networks and their labour with people in processes of 308; strategies aimed at combating 309–310 UNESCO 139 United Kingdom social media policy 233 United Nations 146 United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities 190, 221 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 63 universal design 185 University of the Witwatersrand 327, 334 unsolicited diaries 153 Upadhyay, R. 407, 415 Urdang, E. 397 US Government 376 USA social media policy 233–234 Vadén, T. 81 Valenduc, G. 206 Vallejo, C. 111 Vallès-Peris, N. 375 van Breugel, I. 143 van de Luitgaarden, G. 52 van de Wal, M. 278 van der Tier, M. 52 van Deursen, A. 314 Van Dijk, J. 95, 297, 314 Van Dijk, J. A. 281 van Laar, E. 314, 421, 423 Vaportzis, E. 216 Varela, F. J. 83 Varian, H. R. 454 Varshney, M. 385 Vávrová, S. 207, 208, 465 Vázquez-Cano, E. 420 Vendramin, P. 206 Verde, C. 70 Vereenooghe, L. 485 Vertovec, S. 137, 138, 139, 144 Vidal, C. L. 297 Video Interactive Guidance 201 Viladás, X. 416 Vilar, D. 29 Vilardaga, R. 493, 497

Villadsen, K. 81 Virseda, E. 421, 423 virtual learning environments (VLE) 317 virtual proximity 47, 49 Virtual Reality visuospatial task 95 Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) 384 Vogel, P. A. 495 von Foerster, H. 83 Vondrova, V. 207, 208 Voshel, E. H. 231 VOSviewer algorithm 15, 18 Vuorikari, R. 22, 423 Vysloužilová, A. 206–218 Wærdahl, R. 395, 398 Waite, L. J. 305 Waldinger, R. 305, 310 Walker, S. 82 Waller, G. 422 Walsh, C. A. 254 Walsh, S. P. 266 Walsh, T. B. 492, 493, 500 Walter, M. 63 Walter-McCabe, H. A. 48, 278 Wang, C. 36, 38, 39 Wang, C. C. 37, 38, 255 Wang, T. 96 Wang, X. 117 Warburton, J. 484 Ward, A. 46, 47 Ward, J. 423 Ward, L. M. 263 Wastell, D. 197, 198 Watling, S. 207, 208, 316 Watson, K. 269 Watterson, J. L. 497 Wayne, J. 318 Wearing, M. 145 Web 2.0 94 Web 3.0 94 Webb, M. 165 WeChat 451 Weick, A. 258 Weinberg, N. 165 Weiniger, C. F. 495 Weiser, J. 254 Weiss, R. 306 Welch, M. 398 Wellman, B. 95 Wenger, E. 328 Wenzel, L. 114 Werner, S. 397 Wesala, A. 231

542

Index West, A. 259 West, D. 15, 21 Westerfield, G. 222 Wetherell, M. 332 WhatsApp 87, 245, 278, 301, 317, 413, 414, 451 White, H. 212 White, K. M. 266 White, M. 256, 257 White, S. 197, 198, 505, 506, 510 Widner, J. 167 Wiener, N. 82 Wilbourn, B. 497 Wilford, J. 114 Wilkerson, D. A. 369, 376, 485 Wilkinson, M. D. 64 Williams, A. 270 Williams, C. 241 Williams, C. A. 81 Williamson, B. 81 Williamson, I. 158, 159, 161 Wilson, D. K. 259 Wilson, J. R. 187 Winner, L. 61 Wire, J. 264 Withaeckx, S. 139 Wodarski, J. S. 142, 382, 387 Wolf, L. 144, 145, 384, 385, 484 Wong, C.-K. 256, 258 Wong, Y. C. 208 Wood, C. 257 Woodlock, D. 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272 Woody, W. D. 209 Woolrych, R. 396 Work Research Centre and Genio 188 Working Group of European Commission 373 World Health Organisation (WHO) 128, 185, 310, 370 World Health Organization 128, 184, 185, 310 Wright, J. H. 276, 278, 281 Wu, S. 494, 498 Wyatt, T. H. 259

Xia, Y. 266, 267 Xiang, X. 494 Xinogalos, S. 227 X-reality 318 Yaffe, J. 14 Yan, M.-c. 258 Yardley, E. 263, 271, 273 Yau, C. 253, 255 Ybarra, M. L. 241 Yeboah, A. 328 Yoshihama, M. 36–45 Youn, E. 421 Young, J. A. 72, 485 YouTube 399; social work responses to COVID-19 through 121; congratulations/praise to social workers 126–127; limitations 128; methodology 122–124; social issues/social problems 127–128; social work practice, changes to 125–126; social work representational organizations, responses from 126; social work[ers] in COVID-19 response 124; YouTube as archive 122 Yu, K. 497 Yunomae, T. 37, 38, 40 Yusta, R. 306, 309 Zald, M. 71 Zald, M. N. 70, 71, 73 Zamanillo, T. 311 Zamorano, E. 307 Zary, N. 318 Zelnick, J. 506 Zhang, L. 113 Zhu, H. 189, 374 Ziccardi, M. 346 Zoom 278, 415, 451 Zorn, T. E. 13 Zschomler, D. 269, 278 Zuberi, S. 48, 58, 90 Zur, O. 342, 347

543