Social Work in an Online World

Introduction: Mapping Social Work Practice in an Online World
David A. Wilkerson and Liam O’Sullivan

Chapter 1: Harnessing Technology for Social Justice: Radical Approaches
to Digitally Revolutionize Social Work
Kristin Funk and Dale Fitch

Chapter 2: A Team-Based Approach to Moderating Online Support Groups
Liam O’Sullivan and David A. Wilkerson

Chapter 3: Best Practices in Technology-Based Supports in Working with Children, Adolescents, and Families
Susan Elswick, Christy Peterson, Gregory Washington, and Ebony Barnes

Chapter 4: Advancing Data Justice
Neil Ballantyne

Chapter 5: Online Opportunities for Community Action: Social Media as a Vehicle for Social Justice
Kerry Cuskelly and Imelda Ojeda

Chapter 6: The Power of Online Synchronous Cognitive–Behavioral Group Intervention: A Get S-M-A-R-T Illustration
Virgil L. Gregory, Jr., and Lisa Werth

Chapter 7: Bridging Education and Practice with e-OSCE Simulations
Samantha Wolfe-Taylor, Khadija Khaja, and Christian Deck

Chapter 8: Creating a Digital School Safety Service: A Pathway from Traditional Analog to Digital Practice
James R. Brown and John M. Keesler

Chapter 9: Digital Hybrid Psychoeducation: Model Development and Case Illustration
David A. Wilkerson

Index
About the Editors
About the Contributors

David A. Wilkerson, PhD, MSW, is an associate professor and director of the Office of e-Social Work Education and Practice at Indiana University School of Social Work in Indianapolis. His practice experience with youth and families in the field of mental health led to his research interest in digital social work education and practice. His work addresses a gap in intervention designs, enabling peer support to develop and contribute to the outcomes of online psychoeducation interventions. He has applied these interests in research with caregivers of behaviorally challenging adolescents and caregivers of persons with dementia. His contributions to the scholarship of teaching and learning have also focused on digital practice and include student decision making in the matter of adoption of telepractice and continuing education in telepractice basics for practitioners responding to COVID-19. In another application of digital practice, he is participating in the development of a state-funded, university–community collaboration to provide rural library patrons with accessible online well-being resources and support.

Liam O’Sullivan, MA, NQSW, is the executive director of Care Alliance Ireland, an award-winning alliance of more than 95 nonprofit organizations supporting family caregivers in the Republic of Ireland. He earned his social work qualification in 1998 from Trinity College Dublin and has worked in statutory social work and in several nonprofit organizations. His work with Care Alliance since 2004 has included bringing National Carers Week to Ireland, developing collaborative and impactful relationships with third-level institutions in family caregiver research, and establishing an online family caregiver support group that engages and supports thousands. He has been actively involved in the international family caregivers’ movement, initially with the establishment of Eurocarers and, more recently, as a trustee of the International Alliance of Carer Organizations. He has additional qualifications in youth and community studies; social research methods; and, most recently, implementation science. He has a particular interest in good governance and in bridging the gap between research policy and practice.

Neil Ballentyne, MPhil, is principal lecturer in social work at Te Pūkenga, the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, where he teaches in a blended learning social work program. He is also a doctoral candidate at the University of Otago, working on a thesis on the datafication of social welfare and the rise of the international movement for data justice.

Ebony Barnes, MS, is project director for the Center for the Advancement of Youth Development at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. Her work with youth is both varied and multifaceted, ranging from youth coordinator for a nonprofit system of care to elementary school teacher for Shelby County Schools, to project coordinator for the Center for the Advancement of Youth Development with the University of Memphis Department of Social Work. She has worked with specialized communities, such as youth with emotional and behavioral disorders, youth impacted by trauma, and youth at risk for detrimental social and educational outcomes.

James R. Brown, PhD, LCSW, is associate professor at the Indiana University School of Social Work in Bloomington. He has 13 years of social work practice experience serving rural children and youth through prevention and intervention services. His work as a practitioner influenced him to examine aspects of school safety, particularly school bullying from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including parents. He currently is implementing free-use, technology-based interventions to help parents and youth address bullying.

Kerry Cuskelly, RSW, MSW, MSc, is principal social worker in adult mental health. She completed her MSW at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland and master’s degrees in advanced healthcare practice as well as digital healthcare transformation at University of Limerick in Ireland. She is a lecturer at Ireland’s University College Dublin, University College Cork, and Maynooth University, where she addresses critical and radical social work, policy practice, critical mental health, activism in social work, and social work and technology. She is a published author and has a particular interest in qualitative systematic reviews and practitioner research.

Christian Deck, LCSW, CTMH, is lecturer with the Indiana University School of Social Work in Indianapolis, teaching primarily in the online MSW program. His research focuses include e-simulations, telebehavioral health practice, online social work education, social work futures, and the enhancement of e-social work distance education through program development and technology design. He is a clinical social worker licensed in Indiana and conducts online practice with college students.

Susan Elswick, EdD, LCSW, LSSW, RPT-S, IMH-E, is full professor at the University of Memphis School of Social Work in Tennessee and a clinical social worker licensed in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas with more than 16 years in practice. Her research focuses on the development of trauma-responsive, school-based mental health programs; expressive art therapies/experiential therapies; and the use of informatics and technology in the field of social work. Her research has been funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Tennessee state-level awards, and Health Resources and Services Administration, and through numerous community and regional partnership awards.

Dale Fitch, PhD, MSSW, is associate professor in the University of Missouri School of Social Work and core faculty in the University of Missouri Institute for Data Science & Informatics in Columbia. Following a 15-year practice career, his research focuses on the use of information technology in human services organizations.

Kristin Funk, LCSW, LCAC, is currently a PhD student and research assistant at the Indiana University School of Social Work in Indianapolis. She is a clinical social worker and clinical addictions counselor licensed in Indiana. Her research focuses on digital equity and rural social work.

Virgil Gregory, Jr., PhD, LCSW, LCAC, MSCR, is associate professor at the Indiana University School of Social Work in Indianapolis. He has practiced as a clinical social worker using cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) in the treatment of persons with mood, anxiety, psychotic, and substance use disorders. His research, which has a translational emphasis, includes the evaluation and implementation of CBT in the treatment of opioid use disorder and affective disorders and in persons of African descent. His research methods include psychometric validation, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials.

John M. Keesler, PhD, is associate professor with the Indiana University School of Social Work in Bloomington. His practice experience spans more than a decade and includes direct care, behavioral health, and administration among nonprofit organizations supporting both people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families. Rooted in his social work practice, his scholarship examines the impact of adversity and trauma; integration and evaluation of trauma-informed care; and efforts to promote quality of life, with an emphasis on the disability service industry and rural communities.

Khadija Khaja, PhD, MSW, is associate professor at Indiana University School of Social Work in Indianapolis. Her research, teaching, and service have focused on human rights and international social work policy and practice, including the impact of war and terrorism on Muslim communities, child welfare, and women’s health and the growth of White nationalist movements. Her professional presentations, peer-reviewed publications, and book chapters have been internationally recognized. She has received numerous awards, such as Outstanding Woman Faculty Leader Award, Translating Research into Practice Scholar, Dr. Joseph Taylor Excellence in Diversity Award, Trustee Teaching Award, and Chancellors Excellence in Multicultural Teaching Award.

Imelda Ojeda, MSW, MPA, is community social worker and academic associate at the Arizona State University School of Social Work in Phoenix. There, she is an instructor in diversity and oppression, program evaluation, and professional seminars. Originally from Guadalajara, Mexico, she migrated to Arizona, where she received a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a double master’s degree in social work and public administration from Arizona State University. She works in nonprofit administration and development with a focus on access to healthcare. She also cohosts Social Worker’s Break Room podcast and leads grassroots efforts as an activist and advocate for immigrant rights, reproductive justice, and health equity.

Christy Peterson, MPPA, is currently a PhD candidate in the applied behavioral analysis program at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. Her research interests include culturally centered empowerment methods and use of protective factors associated with youth development. A major goal of this work is to identify and promote the use of innovative culturally centered group interventions that reduce risk for disparities in behavioral health, socioeconomic, and incarceration outcomes among young people of color. She has served as a project coordinator for the University of Memphis SMART Center and has managed multiple federal, state, and local projects.

Gregory Washington, PhD, LCSW, is director of the Center for the Advancement and Youth Development and a full professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. He is clinical social worker and has been licensed in Illinois, Georgia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, where he has practiced individual, family, and group therapy. He also is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration–funded researcher and community clinical practitioner. A major goal of his scholarship is to identify and promote the use of innovative culturally centered interventions that reduce risk for disparities in behavioral health and incarceration outcomes among people of color.

Lisa Werth, LCSW, LCAC, is developer of substance use early intervention programs in Indiana. Having a strong clinical background combined with significant skill in program development, she is the creative mind behind the evidence-based curricula, Get S-M-A-R-T, at Calla Collaborative Health in Lafayette, Indiana.

Samantha Wolfe-Taylor, PhD, LCSW, CTH, is assistant professor and associate director of the Office of e-Social Education and Practice at Indiana University School of Social Work in Indianapolis. She is a practicing certified telehealth clinician in Indiana. Her teaching and research focus on distance education, online simulations, and telehealth. She manages the e-social work practice graduate certificate program and online simulation education for the Indiana University School of Social Work.

Earn 6.0 CEUs for reading this title! For more information, visit the Social Work Online CE Institute.

Wilkerson and O’Sullivan have pulled together an invaluable, international text that addresses the most pressing issue of our time—how to integrate technology into social work training and practice. Social Work in an Online World is written as clearly, usefully, and thoughtfully as anything I’ve read about that integration. The digital social work practice map offers a crucial reframing of leading-edge concepts such as data equity and data justice and traditional practice domains like psychotherapy and community action. As a member of the Council on Social Work Education’s Futures Task Force and colead of the Harness Technology for Social Good grand challenge, I recommend this text without hesitation to social work scholars, students, and practitioners.

Jonathan B. Singer, PhD, LCSW
Professor
Loyola University Chicago

—————————–

Social work practitioners and managers are increasingly embracing the opportunities afforded by digital and online practice. Social Work in an Online World brings us a wealth of ideas and frameworks to help navigate this transition. The authors examine a myriad of opportunities for interventions, advocacy, support, and engagement. However, the text also challenges us to consider how the values of the profession, inequalities, and ethical considerations will shape our practices in digital and online spaces. Readers will be especially interested in the authors’ ideas on how to use online and digital technologies to promote social justice, activism, and macro-level change.

Kenneth Burns, PhD, BSocSc, MSW, NQSW
Associate Professor in Social Work
University College Cork, Ireland

—————————–

Social work, like many fields, faced a disruptive challenge as the COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid move to technology-driven interventions and new systemic operations. Social Work in an Online World provides the much-needed practical guide to illustrate this shift. It is a must-read handbook that introduces readers to a range of opportunities to enhance social work practice with technology. Going beyond synchronous telehealth, the chapters provide a view of micro, mezzo, and macro digital practices with clear examples and materials to support implementation. Through each chapter there is a responsible balance of the promise and challenges of embedding technology, and an unwavering commitment to social justice. Wilkerson and O’Sullivan’s book urges the field to continue our meaningful integration of technology and builds on the grand challenge commitment to harness technology for social good.

Stephanie Cosner Berzin, PhD
Vice Provost, Professor
School of Social Work
Simmons University, Boston, MA

—————————–

Using the six practice areas in the digital social work map (support, identity, community action, psychotherapy, education, and psychoeducation), the authors provide an excellent foundation for thinking about digital approaches to the field, with a constant focus on ethical standards for digital equity and data justice. The authors’ detailed explanations of their processes and their engaging, informative, and approachable writing style make digital practice accessible for readers who may be new to technology or digital innovations. The lessons learned and challenges encountered provide valuable insights for practitioners who may be considering similar projects in their own school or practice.

Sarah Caliboso-Soto, EdD, LCSW
Assistant Director of Clinical Programs
Associate Professor of Social Work Practicum Education
Department of Children, Youth and Families
Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
University of Southern California, Los Angeles

To hear an interview with the book’s editors, David A. Wilkerson and Liam O’Sullivan, listen to the podcast or watch the interview below!

Introduction: Mapping Social Work Practice in an Online World

In 2018, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Futures Task Force considered the field of social work in the United States to be at a crossroads. At the time, the field’s adoption of digital practice had been limited. Practitioner and educator reluctance was driven by challenges and barriers associated with technology, training, client acceptance, payer reimbursement, client privacy, risk management, and the perceived limitations of online delivery for developing a treatment alliance and conveying values like trust, empathy, and caring (Berzin et al., 2015; Harst et al., 2019; LaMendola, 2010; Ramsey et al., 2016; Smith, n.d.). However, following the onset of COVID-19 in 2020, traditional, in-person service delivery was dramatically interrupted globally. What once appeared to be a crossroads became an emerging and seemingly unstoppable shift toward modern technology–mediated forms of delivery.

Social Work in an Online World addresses this shift and maps the changing landscape from analog to digital practice. Additionally, while the mental health field has been at the center of this emerging landscape, digital social work practice occurs with varied client systems, system needs, and system levels (micro, mezzo, and macro). Therefore, in addition to psychotherapy, a map of digital social work practice can be expanded to include support, identity, community action, education, and psychoeducation.

Technology also brings a new set of ethical issues for mapping practice. Reamer (2018) described the evolution of online social work practice, the fundamental ethical questions raised, and the standards developed for social workers’ use of technology. We expand on those standards, and in Figure 1, we illustrate a landscape of digital practice embedded within the core social work value of social justice. Social justice is applied in this map as digital equity as well as the more recently developed principle of data justice.

DIGITAL PRACTICE LANDSCAPE

We show six practice areas in our digital social work map: support, identity, community action, psychotherapy, education, and psychoeducation, as well as ethical standards for digital equity and data justice. Practice areas are illustrated in this guidebook by the work of social workers in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand. The chapters are joined by several through lines, but the impact of COVID-19 predominates.

Cyberfeminism

Apropos to our mapping goal, Funk and Fitch (chapter 1: Harnessing Technology for Social Justice: Radical Approaches to Digitally Revolutionize Social Work) introduce readers to a new digital social work practice identity of “cyberfeminist.” They explore cyberfeminist social justice implications for digital practice at micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Numerous practice examples illustrate their theoretical perspective on an evolving landscape in which service delivery is being revolutionized and moving the field toward the CSWE Futures Task Force’s scenario of “Social Work Leadership for a High-Tech World” (CSWE, 2018, p. 6). Their chapter also introduces the through line of COVID-19 in the digital practice landscape.

Support

Online support is an area that has seen significant growth since the advent of Web 2.0 and the proliferation of social media websites. Facebook was launched in 2004, YouTube in 2005, and Twitter in 2006 (White & Le Cornu, 2011). Online support groups operating in social media sites are a rapidly developing and expanding area within the digital practice landscape. Sometimes called “virtual communities,” they are thematically diverse yet share a common focus on management of stress and uncertainty primarily through peer-to-peer support. Stressful life challenges and coping strategies are two key concepts associated with online support group work. Whereas stress and coping are normal parts of life, chronic stress creates numerous risks to mind, body, and spirit. Successful coping with chronic stress can be enhanced with support, and social workers have long been pivotal to the successful delivery of support services through group work. The growth of online support is based on information and communication technologies’ ease of development and use. Operated through a variety of inexpensive and readily available synchronous and asynchronous technologies, online support systems provide the means for theme/topic specialization that would be largely unavailable in face-to-face settings.

In chapter 2, “A Team-Based Approach to Moderating Online Support Groups,” O’Sullivan and Wilkerson provide a practice example for the area of “support” that illustrates the impact of COVID-19 for a reworking of the use of teams to deliver services. Initially unfunded and led by social work volunteers in Ireland, their support group uses the latest in online group functionality on a leading social media portal. The authors tell the story of the group’s formation, including the advanced use of a volunteer, peer/professional moderator support group to remotely discuss practice/ moderation dilemmas. When considering the alignment of the project with social work’s principles and values, the authors suggest that digital equity and justice issues may limit participation for some clients and, in the case example described, family caregivers. However, the authors demonstrate that in some cases practitioners can actively support participants’ digital literacy.

Digital Equity and Data Justice

The term digital equity refers to the social justice principle of technology access as a human right. In addition to the element of accessibility, digital equity includes digital literacy and digital citizenship. Helsper (2021) discussed digital equity and technology “divides” at three levels: (1) device and infrastructure accessibility; (2) technology literacy and skills; and (3) economic, social, cultural, and health outcomes that require digital equity.

Elswick, Peterson, Washington, and Barnes (chapter 3: Best Practices in Technology -Based Supports in Working with Children, Adolescents, and Families) provide an illuminating view of the use of a university–community collaboration to create an infrastructure for overcoming first and second levels of the digital divide for marginalized and oppressed families in the southeastern United States. As their work continues, it will be interesting to see its impact at the third level of economic, social, cultural, and health outcomes. The authors’ work also illustrates the impact of COVID-19 on the development of digital social work practice in which digital inclusion is achieved through pioneering methods, including digital mentors and digital passports within a “social envelop” strategy.

The social justice principle of data justice was developed in response to the escalating datafication (digital information that is collected, organized, and translated into new uses that can be valued or monetized by parties other than the originators of the digital information) of society, subsequent human rights violations, and the ensuing need for data literacy and data citizenship skills to protect community members, especially members of vulnerable and oppressed groups. Taylor (2017) described data justice as “fairness in the way people are made visible, represented and treated as a result of their production of digital data” (p. 1). In chapter 4, “Advancing Data Justice,” Ballantyne provides readers with a critical understanding of the uses of algorithmic data and artificial intelligence for governmental decision making and services delivery. Case studies illustrate the ways human rights violations occur followed by the author’s recommended methods for data justice advocacy. Critical data literacy is described, and recommendations are provided for developing competency in its practice.

Community Action

Community action is defined as “collective action by community members drawing on the strength of numbers, participatory processes, and Indigenous leadership to decrease power disparities and achieve shared goals for social change” (Staples, 2012, p. 288). Many social work practitioners and academics, including some of this book’s authors, are of the view that social work has lost its radical roots, often best epitomized by true grassroots community action/organizing and activism. It has been argued that social workers are all too comfortable in embracing government-endorsed and legislatively informed social control activities (e.g., probation, child protection) to the detriment of more radical activities. Fisher sees activism as being about “democratic grassroots analysis and action,” which he believes is very much lacking in both traditional social work and in many radical social work perspectives (R. Fisher, professor and chair of community organizing, University of Connecticut, personal communication, August 29, 2022). Fisher et al. (2018) argued that community efforts are fundamentally political, and whether groups like it or not, implicitly or explicitly, they are part of the social struggles of their historical context.

Clearly, group work is central to community action. Group dynamics were first theorized by Kurt Lewin nearly a century ago (Burnes & Bargal, 2017). Lewin determined that it takes the individuals who are the closest to a problem or an issue that needs to be changed to be involved in it for it to be effective and that—ultimately—it would take more than one individual within that community to create such a change.

Cuskelly and Ojeda (chapter 5: Online Opportunities for Community Action: Social Media as a Vehicle for Social Justice) describe online community actions and initiatives, informed by social work values, that focus on the macro-level change. They detail specific actions to take to promote digital equity and data justice. They describe how online collaboration with like-minded activists (but not exclusively social work practitioners) has effected legislative change and mobilized communities. They also discuss the risks of online misinformation and some governmental interventions to mitigate the worst effects of such misinformation. Their chapter provides useful tips for online activism as well as a tool kit for protecting practitioners from harm when placing themselves publicly online as part of their professional work.

Identity-Based Social Action

Digital practice overlaps into community action in significant ways. The foundation for identity-based social action is self-concept, in which we consider the integration of our personal and social identities. Developing a sense of self can be a lengthy process and a significant struggle, especially for members of oppressed and vulnerable groups. Identity-based social action focuses on the use of community action to achieve social justice for individual or intersectional aspects of the self-concept that have been threatened, attacked, or otherwise negatively impacted by a dominant community. In one example of identity-based social action, Richez and colleagues (2020) studied a Canadian Indigenous–led political movement that used social media to mobilize political action to address legislative policy on a range of Indigenous economic, health, and safety issues. Their work is available on the internet and presents an important study of the development of a digital movement and its outcomes.

Identity-based social action is a contentious aspect within the recent development of digital movements because of the use of social media by hate groups. Trading on the use of social media for self-concept development, they build racist movements, such as those based in White superiority ideologies (Faulkner & Bliuc, 2016). This highlights the potential negative power of social media to undermine what might be described as progressive causes. For those interested in the wider area of online macro social work activism, readers are referred to #MacroSW on Twitter (Cummings & Folayan, 2019).

Psychotherapy

We have noted that psychotherapy has been well represented in the digital practice map by virtue of the urgent need to resume behavioral practice following the pandemic lockdowns in 2020. Gregory and Werth (chapter 6: The Power of Online Synchronous Cognitive–Behavioral Group Intervention: A Get S-M-A-R-T Illustration) continue the through line of COVID-19’s impact on digital practice with their work in the delivery of cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) for substance users through online, synchronous group delivery. Their chapter tracks the development of the program and describes the principles needed for developing a virtual therapeutic alliance with their treatment population. Practitioners will appreciate the knowledge these authors share on managing antitherapeutic client actions, handling the unexpected, and weighing the pros and cons of digital practice.

Education

Education is also located on the digital social work practice map because of its importance for student decision making regarding the adoption, readiness, and training for digital practice (Wilkerson et al., 2019). The Digital Professionalism Mapping Tool (Digital Professionalism Mapping Tool for Students, n.d.) is an example of a method used to explore student digital practice readiness based on their preferred patterns of engagement with the internet. A “visitor/resident” typology was developed with “visitors” preferring engagement for managing tasks and “residents” preferring engagement for interaction and identity management. The tool is used to map internet engagement in personal and professional virtual spaces and replaces older typologies like “digital native” and “immigrant” (White & Le Cornu, 2011). Taylor-Beswick (2022) applied the Digital Professionalism Mapping Tool for social work to understand students’ experiences with digital skill gaps in their education.

Wolfe-Taylor, Khaja, and Deck (chapter 7: Bridging Education and Practice with e-OSCE Simulations) address the need to strengthen digital practice in social work education with their work on the development and uses of the e-OSCE. Before COVID-19, many social work faculty and administrators were critical of online social work education, and a specific focus of this criticism is captured in the remark, “You can’t teach social work practice online!” The authors have refuted this criticism and identified ways to bridge the gap between education and practice using an online simulation–based educational opportunity for firstyear MSW students. In their pilot qualitative case study, they identify students’ evaluation of their self-efficacy, how they applied theory in practice, and what they identified as their strengths and challenges as they completed the e-OSCE experience. Additionally, students’ feedback on the e-OSCE experience is explored.

Psychoeducation

The final location on the digital practice map is psychoeducation. Psychoeducation has a long history of analog practice and is still being developed for digital practice. Brown and Keesler (chapter 8: Creating a Digital School Safety Service: A Pathway from Traditional Analog to Digital Practice) demonstrate a schoolbased, mezzo-level application of psychoeducation that can overlap into community action. Their work demonstrates the potential for applying an aspect of psychoeducation—self-assessments—to achieve community-building outcomes in the mezzo setting of middle school to improve school safety.

Wilkerson (chapter 9: Digital Hybrid Psychoeducation: Model Development and Case Illustration) focuses on the further development of psychoeducation as a digital practice through the application of research with a digital hybrid psychoeducation program. The term “hybrid” is used to distinguish the alternating elements of digital individual and digital group work within the model. This differs from more commonplace uses of the term “hybrid,” in which practice alternates between digital and on-the-ground spaces. The chapter addresses a gap in the development of intervention designs that enable peer support to contribute to the outcomes of online psychoeducation interventions. While many digital psychoeducation programs provide strong individual training components, the design for peer support is less well developed. Methods are described using case examples for engaging participants in peer support and also amplifying the individual training components within psychoeducation.

CONCLUSION

In this introduction, we have introduced readers to Social Work in an Online World with a digital practice map whose landscape reflects support, identity, community action, psychotherapy, education, and psychoeducation (see Figure 1). Each of the chapters represents a location in the landscape through which chapter authors provide a guided tour with their practice model. Authors contribute accessible theory and conceptualizations, practice examples, case studies, research, learnings, and reflections as well as the strengths and limitations of their approaches.

Social Work in an Online World seeks to expand the practice map beyond online mental health service delivery, which is largely individually focused and synchronously delivered. We outline a map for digital social work practice that includes group and macro work that occurs in many different environments (e.g., schools, healthcare facilities, nonprofit advocacy organizations, other community and population centers). In addition, we identify the core social work value of social justice as central to this map and as supporting the principles of digital equity and data justice.

A major through line in this work has been COVID-19. Like others who have discussed the pandemic and the resultant accelerated transition to digital practice (Earle & Freddolino, 2022), we can’t deny the significant and likely enduring impact it has had on the delivery of online social work. Practices that were, at best, peripheral and criticized by mainstream social work are now commonly accepted. The pandemic’s impact can also be observed by the support practitioners have received from many social work organizations and educators. A few of these include (a) the University College Cork’s (n.d.) OSWP Tools through which practitioners share comprehensive tools for online professional social work practice; (b) the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), which provides e-learning for social workers using technology (SCIE, n.d.); (c) the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), which provides resources for digital social work practices (BASW, n.d.); and (d) Indiana University School of Social Work, which provides an online continuing education program on telepractice basics for social workers and educators responding to COVID-19 (Indiana University, n.d.).

These examples and the digital practice models presented in Social Work in an Online World demonstrate that a shift from analog practice to the inclusion of hybrid and digital practice is occurring and is largely positive for social workers and for those they seek to serve. However, for this shift to become truly transformative, the application of social justice principles of digital equity and data justice must become a standard for development. We hope that readers wishing to adopt digital practices will be inspired to apply these standards in their own applications.

REFERENCES

Berzin, S. C., Singer, J., & Chan, C. (2015, October). Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: A Grand Challenge for Social Work (Working Paper No. 12). https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP12-with-cover.pdf

British Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Digital capabilities for social workers. https://www.basw.co.uk/resources/publications-policies-and-reports/digital -ca pabi lities-social-workers

Burnes, B., & Bargal, D. (2017). Kurt Lewin: 70 years on. Journal of Change Management, 17, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1299371

Council on Social Work Education. (2018, April). Envisioning the future of social work: Report of the CSWE Futures Task Force. https://www.cswe.org/ about-cswe/2020-strategic-plan/strategic-planning-process/cswe-futures -task -force- report-four-futures-for-social-work/

Cummings, S., & Folayan, S. W. (2019, Winter). #MacroSW: Social work in these trying times. The New Social Worker. https://www.socialworker.com/api/content/e0d3a234-0a20-11e9-aeaf-120e7ad5cf50/

Digital Professionalism Mapping Tool for Students. (n.d.). Video guide of using the Digital Professionalism Mapping Tool. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://rise.articulate.com/share/Icj6kEGBZmacijjISnpOVR40du8sXiby#/lessons/UWU6_Hk8QXHjXdaHkF4az2m_nUl0hC1M

Earle, M. J., & Freddolino, P. P. (2022). Meeting the practice challenges of COVID-19: MSW students’ perceptions of e-therapy and the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Social Work Journal, 50, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-021-00801-3

Faulkner, N., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2016). “It’s okay to be racist”: Moral disengagement in online discussions of racist incidents in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39, 2545–2563. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2016.1171370

Fisher, R., DeFilippis, J., & Shragge, E. (2018). Contested community: A selected and critical history of community organizing. In R. A. Cnaan & C. Milofsky (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations in the 21st century (pp. 281–297). Springer.

Harst, L., Lantzsch, H., & Scheibe, M. (2019). Theories predicting end-user acceptance of telemedicine use: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21, Article e13117. https://doi.org/10.2196/13117

Helsper, E. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. SAGE.

Indiana University. (n.d.). Telebehavioral practice basics for social work educators & clinicians responding to COVID-19. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://expand.iu.edu/browse/socialwork/courses/telehealth-basics-for-social-workeducators-behavioral-health-clinicians-responding-to-covid-19

LaMendola, W. (2010). Social work and social presence in an online world. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 28, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15228 831003759562

Ramsey, A. T., Wetherell, J. L., Depp, C., Dixon, D., & Lenze, E. (2016). Feasibility and acceptability of smartphone assessment in older adults with cognitive and emotional difficulties. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34, 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2016.1170649

Reamer, F. G. (2018). Ethical standards for social workers’ use of technology: Emerging consensus. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 15, 71–80. https://jswve.org/download/15-2/articles15-2/71-Use-of-technology-JSWVE-15-2-2018-Fall.pdf

Richez, E., Raynauld, V., Agi, A., & Kartolo, A. B. (2020). Unpacking the political effects of social movements with a strong digital component: The case of #IdleNoMore in Canada. Social Media + Society, 6, Article 2056305120915588. https://doi .org/10.1177/2056305120915588

Smith, M. L. (n.d.). What my LED ball reveals about the future of technology and social work: A farewell aloha. The New Social Worker. http://www.socialworker.com/api/content/77ec673e-f007-344d-a6eb-d9321c457efe/

Social Care Institute for Excellence. (n.d.). Building rapport and establishing meaningful relationships using technology in social work. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://www.scie.org.uk/care-providers/coronavirus-covid-19/social-workers/building-rapport-with-technology

Staples, L. (2012). Community organizing for social justice: Grassroots groups for power. Social Work with Groups, 35, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2012.656233

Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335

Taylor-Beswick, A. M. L. (2022). Digitalizing social work education: Preparing students to engage with twenty-first century practice need. Social Work Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2022.2049225

University College Cork, Ireland. (n.d.). OSWP tools. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://www.ucc.ie/en/appsoc/aboutus/activities/oswp/oswptools/White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i9.3171

Wilkerson, D. A., Wolfe-Taylor, S. N., & Kinney, M. K. (2019). Adopting e-social work practice: Pedagogical strategies for student decision making to address technology uncertainty. Journal of Social Work Education, 57, 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1661920