Technology functions in the background of our lives without
thought of how it works, much like our thoughts on plumbing (unless you are a plumber of course). We do not think of
pipes until they become a big issue. This type of unconscious existence works
for a technologically literate society, the less literate parts of the society become, the more
the plumbing breaks down or ceases to exist. The evidence of social exclusion,
digital illiteracy, and a decrease in motivation to access new technologies is
increasing the digital divide in underserved populations (Aerschot &
Rodousakis, 2008; Hick, 2006; Pierce, 2009). The gap between the privileged and
the underserved is expanding with advantages mounting toward digitally
literate individuals (Steyaert & Gould, 2009). Consumer research is now
driven by online databases and purchasing (Wei & Hindman, 2011). This type
of economy does not allow for the opinions of populations in technology
deserts. Social services needs to become aware of how technology affects
vulnerable populations and solutions for technological consciousness.
There have been significant gaps in prior research addressing the need for training of social workers in technological intervention with client populations. Social work educators have been lax in developing integrated systems of pedagogy for technology as achieved for multicultural learning in the 80’s (Youn, 2007; Vera & Speight, 2003). Research focuses on technology primarily centering on interagency processes instead of client needs (Youn, 2007; Zhang & Gutierrez, 2007). There is emergent evidence based research integrating technology with client practice (Allen, Wallace, Renes, Bowen, & Burke, 2010; Stuhlmiller & Tolchard, 2009; VanDeMark, Burrell, Lamendola, Hoich, Berg, & Medina, 2010) Evidence based client centered technology should be one of the standards of practice addressed in curriculum development.
There have been significant gaps in prior research addressing the need for training of social workers in technological intervention with client populations. Social work educators have been lax in developing integrated systems of pedagogy for technology as achieved for multicultural learning in the 80’s (Youn, 2007; Vera & Speight, 2003). Research focuses on technology primarily centering on interagency processes instead of client needs (Youn, 2007; Zhang & Gutierrez, 2007). There is emergent evidence based research integrating technology with client practice (Allen, Wallace, Renes, Bowen, & Burke, 2010; Stuhlmiller & Tolchard, 2009; VanDeMark, Burrell, Lamendola, Hoich, Berg, & Medina, 2010) Evidence based client centered technology should be one of the standards of practice addressed in curriculum development.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
released technology ethical standards of practice in 2005. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2010) includes
a statement in their accreditation guidelines of educational policy 1.2,
stating “additional factors include new
knowledge, technology, and ideas that may have a bearing on contemporary and
future social work education and practice”
and educational policy 2.1.10,
“Practice knowledge includes identifying, analyzing, and implementing evidence-based
interventions designed to achieve client goals; using research and
technological advances” (pp. 2,
6-7). The
support of technological integration by an accrediting and licensing
body is
significant in the preparation of social work curriculum. There has been
little
or no current literature on implementation of technological evidenced
based
interventions in social work curriculum or how students should integrate
technology into practice helping vulnerable populations. How social
workers may
help bridge this digital divide in education and practice is the focus
of this blog. I hope to post helpful information one to two times a
week.
Aerschot, L., & Rodousakis, N. (2008). The link between
socio-economic background and Internet use: barriers faced by low
socio-economic status groups and possible solutions. Innovation: The
European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(4), 317-351.
doi:10.1080/1351161080257692
CSWE. (2008, October). Educational policy and accreditation standards.
Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=14115
Hick, S. (2006). Technology, Social Inclusion and Poverty: An Exploratory
Investigation of a Community Technology Center. Journal of Technology in
Human Services, 24(1), 53-67. doi:10.1300/J017v24n01̱04
Katz, J., & Aspden, J. (1997). Motivations for and barriers to
Internet usage: results of a national public opinion survey. Internet
Research, 7(3), 170. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
National Association of Social Workers. , & Association of Social
Work Boards (2005). Technology and social work practice. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/standards/naswtechnologystandards.pdf
Pierce,
J. (2009). Blind inclusion: New technology designed for the margins. Social
Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 15(4),
525-536. doi:10.1080/13504630903043881
Steyaert, J., & Gould, N.
(2009). Social Work and the Changing Face of the Digital Divide. British
Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 740-753. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Stuhlmiller, C., & Tolchard, B. (2009). Computer-assisted CBT for
depression and anxiety: Increasing accessibility to evidence-based mental
health treatment. Journal Of Psychosocial Nursing And Mental Health Services,
47(7), 32-39. doi:10.3928/02793695-20090527-01
VanDeMark, N., Burrell, N., Lamendola, W., Hoich, C., Berg, N., &
Medina, E. (2010). An exploratory study of engagement in a technology-supported
substance abuse intervention. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, And
Policy, 510.
Vera,
E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice,
and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling
Psychologist, 31(3), 253–272.
Vodde,
R., White, S., & Meacham, M. (2010). The Medium Is the Master:
Postmodernism and Hypertechnology in Social Work Education. Technology,
Pedagogy And Education, 19(1), 111-126.
Waldman,
J., & Rafferty, J. (2008). Technology-Supported Learning and Teaching in
Social Work in the UK—A Critical Overview of the Past, Present and Possible
Futures. Social Work Education,
27(6), 581-591. doi:10.1080/02615470802201531
Wei, L., & Hindman, D.
(2011). Does the Digital Divide Matter More? Comparing the Effects of New Media
and Old Media Use on the Education-Based Knowledge Gap. Mass Communication
& Society, 14(2), 216-235. doi:10.1080/15205431003642707
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
Zhang, W., & Gutierrez, O. (2007). Information Technology Acceptance
in the Social Services Sector Context: An Exploration. Social Work, 52(3),
221-231.
