Over the past ten years, there has been a substantial surge in digital technologies, marked by the increased dependence on the Internet and electronic devices and social media for communication, information, entertainment and everyday chores (Pascoe, 2023; Ortiz-Ospina, 2019). Naturally, this technological trend has infiltrated the field of social work (SW), often without measured, appropriate and careful decision-making or ‘critical reflection’ and transformed the interaction between stakeholders (Mishna et al., 2012, 2014; Pascoe, 2023). This shift in the digital world profoundly impacts SW, including its practitioners, institutions, and the people who are using services. These changes extend beyond digitisation to include digitalisation, restructuring processes, and social realms through digital communication and platforms (Brennen & Kreiss, 2016). While digitalisation offers numerous opportunities across various SW fields and practices, it also introduces novel challenges and complexities.

Digitalisation appears increasingly elusive. While initially promising for education, dialogue, and empowerment, its potential is overshadowed by growing concerns over disinformation, control, and dependence. Yet, within digital technologies lie both opportunities and risks. For instance, search engines offer educational benefits but also propagate disinformation and threaten privacy. This dual nature of digitalisation is evident in SW discourse. Despite fears that digital processes may undermine core SW values like the significance of relationships (Parton, 2008; Oak, 2016), practitioners and managers actively seeking digital technologies to enhance SW delivery and practice (Perron et al., 2010).

In some cases, technology can improve service users’ safety by providing comfort, privacy and security, such as allowing them to receive services remotely to avoid potential risks in public settings or unsafe environments (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014). Cook & Zschomler (2020) found that ‘virtual home visits’ lack the sensory and atmospheric qualities of in-person visits, raising concerns about confidentiality, safety, building relationships with new service users, and issues of digital exclusion. However, it also notes some benefits, such as social workers being more accessible to families through shorter but more frequent video calls, reducing the need for travel. Additionally, some younger individuals prefer this less intrusive form of communication (Pink et al., 2022). Social media platforms and online forums are valuable resources for healthcare recipients as they offer both practical and emotional support (Elwell et al., 2011) and improving mental well-being (Best, Manktelow, & Taylor, 2014). However, there are also risks associated with technology use, such as the potential for hacking or technical difficulties that may delay intervention during critical situations, for instance, if the service user is suicidal and breaks communication. Therefore, social workers and services must carefully assess the specific risks relevant to their practice context, considering factors like the service users’ physical and mental state, the circumstances, and the methods of therapy or intervention employed (Barsky, 2017).

In our digital age, the integration of technology is essential into SW practice, offering numerous benefits such as extending service delivery options and reaching populations that are challenging to access and connect. Tools like digital networks and online websites and applications, video and telephone calls facilitate engagement with people who are more challenging to attain or less mobile individuals and underserviced regions (Brownlee et al., 2010; Bryant et al., 2018; Harris and Birnbaum, 2015; Richardson et al., 2009; Rummell and Joyce, 2010; Simpson et al., 2005). Online services, video conferences, or phone calls offer service users a sense of safety and control over their environment, potentially fostering openness and a composed mind-set due to the anonymity and perceived protection they provide. (Callahan and Inckle, 2012; Rummell and Joyce, 2010; Simpson et al., 2005). Studies on videoconference telemental health services have shown consistent highly positive user satisfaction, with comparable effectiveness to in-person support (Richardson et al., 2009). Asynchronous communication methods, such as email, together with in-person sessions, can foster self-expression and reflection among service users, providing a platform for better session preparation and boost therapeutic relationships by enhancing and developing positive attitudes towards the service (Pascoe, 2023; Mattison, 2012). However, when communicating with service users online, social workers face various challenges.  

For instance, confidentiality and cyber security in which they can take practical steps to address these issues, such as using encryption software and secure Internet sites, employing password protection for devices and accounts, and using cyber-security application (Harris and Birnbaum, 2015; Mattison, 2012; Reamer, 2013, 2017; Rummell and Joyce, 2010). Social workers bear the ethical responsibility to alleviate such risks and discuss limitations with service users, including protecting their privacy and confidentiality online (Mattison, 2012; Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2013). Decisions regarding electronic communication or technology assisted interactions should be collaboratively discussed and agreed upon with individuals who use services. Social workers and agencies may contemplate implementing policies regarding the safety of service users, such as determining the nature of discussions to be initiated during the early phases of engagement. These discussions are aimed at assessing safety needs and ensuring the safe and appropriate utilization of technology within the working relationship (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014). It is essential to establish protocols for backup systems to be employed in cases of emergencies or when the standard technology is unavailable for contacting people who using services. This involves identifying alternative communication methods or contingency plans for ensuring accessibility of service users (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014). Social workers should develop guidance strategies for service users to address safety concerns and promote the secure and safe use of technology. This may involve educating clients on privacy settings, emphasizing password security, and providing resources for enhancing online safety awareness (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014).

Although technology plays an increasingly fundamental role in society, there is an inequality in the level of skill and knowledge among people, resulting in unequal use of technology among service users (Bryant et al., 2018; Garrett, 2005; Harris and Birnbaum, 2015). Digital skills are often considered vital; however, access to technology and the development of these skills are influenced by various factors such as culture, socioeconomic status, language, gender, age, and educational background (Bryant et al., 2018). The concept of ‘digital natives’ suggesting that, all young people inherently possess digital competencies due to growing up in a technologically advanced era (Wilson and Grant, 2017). However, this perspective does not depict the reality accurately. Merely having access to digital tools and technology does not ensure sufficient knowledge for safe and effective use, and many young individuals still require additional assistance to enhance their technical and digital skills (Pascoe, 2023; Wilson and Grant, 2017). Consequently, the incorporation of any technological developments in service delivery should be a collaborative effort between social workers and the people using these services, ensuring that reasonable options are offered (Harris and Birnbaum, 2015). Assuming competencies, access to essential devices, and appropriate knowledge could result in the exclusion and marginalization of individuals seeking support, rather than empowering them. Therefore, it is essential to approach technology integration with sensitivity to the diverse needs and circumstances of service users. From the standpoint of human rights-based SW, the integration of digital technologies into public services requires participatory processes involving authorities, professionals, and people who using services (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010; Baker et al., 2018; Pela´ez et al., 2018). Shaping such procedures and developments is complex, as it must accommodate varying technological capabilities and participation levels among stakeholders, as well as their diverse expectations and needs. For instance, ethical software must balance demands for evidence, accountability, data sharing, case management, transparency, service user access, collaboration of creating data with users, and data security (West and Heath, 2011; Gillingham, 2014; Lagsten and Andersson, 2018; Mackrill and Ebsen, 2018; Steiner, 2020).

The proliferation of social media (SM) and the Internet has blurred the lines between private and public life, making personal information readily accessible to service users who have received services in the past, are currently using them, or will use them in the future (Boddy and Dominelli, 2017; Groshong and Phillips, 2015; Mishna et al., 2012; Reamer, 2017). Social workers need to critically evaluate how their virtual identity and online behaviour could impact their interactions with people who use services and take measures to safeguard their privacy. However, barring social workers from engaging in online social networking may be unrealistic, impractical and potentially unlawful (Barsky, 2017; Maia & Rezende, 2016). Social workers and their agencies need to establish clear guidelines to navigate ethical considerations. The SSSC Code of Practice for Social Service Workers mandates that individuals must avoid any actions, both on and off the job that could undermine their fitness to work in social services (SSSC, 2024). The British Association of Social Work (2012) promotes the ‘positive use of SM’, urging social workers to incorporate the values and principles outlined in the Code of Ethics, while according to their Australian counterpart (AASW, 2013) social workers need to be aware of the ethical issues and relevant guidelines. Before interacting on social networking sites, social workers should carefully assess the potential impact of their content on their professional relationships with service users, considering issues such as ‘dual relationships’ and conflicts of interest (Online Therapy Institute, 2014). They should ensure that their posts align with SW values and ethics, including principles of dignity, integrity, and social justice (NASW, 2016). Social workers should refrain from accepting friend or contact requests from current or former service users across any social networking platform (Kolmes, 2010). Additionally, it is inappropriate for social workers to carry out online searches for information about people who using services without their explicit written consent, except in cases of urgent necessity where obtaining permission is not feasible (NASW, 2016). This example highlights the moral and ethical dilemmas social workers face when interacting with service users.

SM, in particular, facilitates text- and image-based communication with service users and basic, low-risk online counselling, mitigating concerns about technology’s impact on social relationships (Dodsworth et al., 2013; Steiner, 2020). However, the use of SM by social workers raises concerns about data usage and algorithms by international media corporations, posing novel challenges regarding professional boundaries and service users’ privacy (Chan and Ngai, 2019). A common barrier to adopting SM in social services is the concern among both professionals and organisations about the potential challenges, ethical issues, and risks associated with its use. Boddy and Dominelli (2017) examine the challenges posed by what they describe as the “new ethical space” emerging with the increased use of SM. They emphasise the importance of social workers maintaining their professional judgment in situations involving boundary crossings and advocate for more organisational support and guidance to help social workers navigate SM responsibly.

Strategies like altering names or omitting identifying details when discussing cases online, even in private groups, or anonymising scenarios are recommended by researchers as ways for social workers to exercise their professional judgment to mitigate risks related to safeguarding (Greer, 2016). A key takeaway from the research and existing guidance is to always consult colleagues if there is any uncertainty at any point (Jackson, 2016). Informed consent is imperative before engaging in SW services, regardless of whether they are delivered online, in-person, or with the assistance of technology. However, obtaining informed consent poses unique challenges in online services. Confirming the identity and competencies of the individual who use the service can be challenging, and obtaining parental consent for minors is a consideration (Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2013, 2017). Additionally, service users may seek services while under the influence of substances, rendering them temporarily unable to give informed consent (Reamer, 2017). A comprehensive informed consent process for online services should encompass discussions on the benefits and limitations of technology-mediated services, confidentiality, potential technology-related issues, emergency protocols, expected response times, and guidelines for communication through e-mail and text messages outside of arranged meetings (Mishna et al., 2012; Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2013, 2017; Rummell and Joyce, 2010). Reamer (2013) raises questions about how service providers can address safety concerns when individuals “disappear” online and cease or avoid engagement. Additionally, Harris and Birnbaum (2015) criticise anonymity, citing it as an obstacle to producing appropriate referrals and ensuring that individuals receive high-quality care possible. Furthermore, when communication is facilitated through technology, the decrease in verbal and non-verbal cues can affect the accuracy of assessments and interventions (Harris and Birnbaum, 2015). These risks to service user safety require deliberate consideration when incorporating technology into practice, prompting reflection on whether the professional duty of care shifts when services are not provided in-person (Pascoe, 2023). Regarding SW standards, they remain out dated as they can’t keep up with the swift expansion of SM, creating a gap that needs to be addressed (Voshel & Wesala, 2015).

Within the realm of the Internet, text, or phone-based social services, it is paramount to consider the professional duty of care. For instance, when establishing personal online connections with service users, professionals must contemplate their duty of care when noticing changes in online behaviour beyond the formal supporting relationship (Boddy and Dominelli, 2017). An ethical responsibility exists to report individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others, such as those disclosing child abuse, suicidal ideation, or homicidal intent (Pascoe, 2023). However, managing this obligation becomes challenging when anonymity is maintained or when personal information are not consented for service access (Callahan and Inckle, 2012; Rummell and Joyce, 2010).

ICT presents novel challenges to maintaining professional boundariesin SW practice. Platforms such as email, SM sites, and text messaging can create an informal and personal perception, potentially blurring the lines between professional and personal relationships (Boddy and Dominelli, 2017; Mattison, 2012; Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2017). Dealing with boundaries and setting expectations should be addressed during the informed consent process. Conversely, if maintaining appropriate boundaries becomes difficult with the use of technology, social workers must consider whether it is more responsible to avoid using certain technological platforms altogether to preserve the integrity of the professional relationship (Groshong and Phillips, 2015). This decision should prioritize the ethical principles of maintaining professionalism, and confidentiality and ensuring the best interests of the individual who using the services. Although practitioners have recognized ethical concerns associated with online platforms, they often lack clear guidance on how to handle these issues (Mishna et al., 2012). Additionally, a significant number of SW students are not fully aware of the ethical dilemmas and the necessity of upholding professional conduct and boundaries in digital environments (Mukherjee & Clark, 2012). As the adaptation of ICT continues to grow amongst all age groups, online interactions are becoming an unavoidable aspect of SW practice. Practitioners have a duty to improve their expertise by expanding their knowledge, developing skills in text-based communication and computer literacy, and staying updated on research, literature, and ethical values and standards (Betteridge, 2012; Bradley & Hendricks, 2009; Mattison, 2012; Mishna et al., 2012; Reamer, 2013).

Research by Byrnes et al. (2019) highlights how service users may use the Internet and SM to gather personal information about their social workers, or in some cases ‘verbally abuse and troll’ them (BBC, 2021) highlighting the importance of maintaining professional boundaries online. Conversely, social workers performing online searches  (Community Care, 2018) or surveillance of service users through SM raise ethical concerns regarding service users’ right to privacy, accuracy and the quality of information obtained (Coner et al., 2020). There is a debate even among legal experts regarding the acceptable use of social media (Reed, 2019). Furthermore, connecting personal SM accounts with professional ones can further blur boundaries, and refusing invitation to a social network may be perceived as a direct disregard by service users (Reamer, 2017). Despite potential demands from the people who use services, management, or stakeholders to engage online, it is essential to address these concerns to reduce risks to both service users and practitioners.

The integration of digital technologies into SW practice brings a variety of opportunities and challenges, underscoring the importance of ethical considerations and exercising professional judgment. Throughout this discussion, various moral and ethical dilemmas have surfaced, emphasizing the intricate nature of navigating the digital sphere while staying true to the core principles of SW. A central dilemma revolves around ensuring the safety and welfare of service users within the digital domain. While technology can broaden accessibility and enhance service delivery (Turner, 2016), it also introduces unique risks such as privacy breaches, cyber threats, and complexities in obtaining informed consent. Social workers are tasked with grappling with these dilemmas, striking a balance between the advantages of technology and the imperative to shield service users from harm. Professional judgment and decision-making hold significant influence in addressing these dilemmas. Social workers should evaluate the risks and benefits associated with integrating technology into their practice, taking into account factors like the vulnerabilities of service users, their cultural contexts, and their familiarity with technology. Open communication, transparency, collaboration with service users, and adherence to ethical standards are fundamental in navigating these complex situations.

The implications for SW practice require clear-cut policies and procedures to govern the ethical utilization of technology. This includes protocols for informed consent, data management strategies, and methods for upholding professional boundaries and values. However, current procedures, policies and guidelines are difficult to implement due to their circumspect nature, which requires revision and adjustment (Harris, 2021; Trancă, 2021). Furthermore, continuous training and support are vital to prepare social workers with the essential experience, knowledge and expertise to navigate the digital landscape responsibly. Potential solutions to these dilemmas involve adopting a comprehensive approach that prioritizes the well-being and agency of service users. Social workers need reliable, ‘flexible and creative digital tools’ and opportunities to improve their skills for online engagement (Owen, 2020; Dodsworth et al., 2013; Mishna et al., 2021), which should be included in their training (Bryne et al., 2019). This may involve investing in technology literacy programs, advocating for equitable access to digital resources, and advocating ethical guidelines for technology use in SW education and practice. By embracing these solutions and engaging in reflective practice, social workers can effectively harness the potential of digital technologies while upholding the ethical standards of their profession.