In today’s digital world, social media use among adolescents is almost universal, but its darker implications are still unfolding. A recent study titled “Problematic Social Media Use and Conflict, Social Stress, and Cyber-Victimization Among Early Adolescents” by Shongha Kim, Rachel Garthe, Wan-Jung Hsieh, and Jun Sung Hong explores the complex relationship between problematic social media behavior and the rising tide of cyber-victimization among youth. Drawing on the Social Information Processing (SIP) model, the research focuses on how social stress mediates the link between problematic use and cyberbullying, providing timely insight into a pervasive and increasingly harmful issue.
The study targets early adolescents, particularly sixth graders, during a formative period in their development when they are gaining autonomy, navigating changing peer dynamics, and interacting more through digital platforms. While previous studies have shown that the amount of time spent on social media correlates with increased risk of cyber-victimization, Kim and her colleagues shift the lens from frequency of use to the quality and nature of social media engagement. Specifically, they examine Problematic Social Media Use and Conflict (PSMUC)—a term that encompasses negative behaviors and outcomes stemming from excessive preoccupation with social media, such as arguments with family and friends, school troubles, and lost relationships.
This shift in focus is critical. Time alone does not tell the full story of adolescents’ online behavior. The conflicts and emotional turbulence generated by problematic usage offer a more nuanced explanation for why some adolescents are more vulnerable to cyber-victimization than others. The research demonstrates that adolescents caught in cycles of social media-related conflict may experience elevated levels of social stress—feelings of exclusion, loneliness, and isolation—which in turn makes them more likely to be targeted online.
The researchers collected data from 316 sixth-grade students at a large public middle school in the Midwestern United States. The students were diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and economic background. Using structural equation modeling, the study tested three main hypotheses: whether certain demographic groups reported higher rates of cyber-victimization and PSMUC; whether higher levels of PSMUC were linked to increased social stress and cyber-victimization; and whether social stress mediated the relationship between PSMUC and cyber-victimization.
The findings were illuminating. Roughly 29% of the students reported experiencing some form of cyber-victimization from someone at school. PSMUC was significantly associated with both increased social stress and cyber-victimization. Furthermore, the researchers confirmed a mediating effect: adolescents with higher PSMUC were more likely to report feelings of social stress, which in turn increased their risk of being cyberbullied. This indirect pathway underlines the central premise of the SIP model—that emotional and cognitive responses to social conflicts can alter how youth perceive and react to future social interactions, potentially setting them up for victimization.
The study also uncovered notable demographic trends. White students reported higher levels of social stress, while non-White students showed higher PSMUC levels. Those receiving free or reduced-price lunch (a marker of economic disadvantage) were more likely to report both cyber-victimization and problematic social media behavior. Interestingly, gender and ethnicity did not yield significant differences in mean-level analyses, though in the structural model, male students were less likely to report cyber-victimization.
These findings carry substantial implications for schools, mental health professionals, and families. First, they challenge the notion that simply limiting screen time is enough to prevent online harm. Instead, they suggest that the quality of online interactions and the conflicts that stem from social media use deserve greater scrutiny. The findings also urge school social workers, counselors, and psychologists to pay closer attention to social stress as a red flag for deeper problems. By identifying students struggling with PSMUC and intervening early, professionals can potentially disrupt the chain of events leading to cyber-victimization.
Moreover, the study critiques the idea of restricting social media as a blanket solution. Rather than policing digital behavior, schools and families should focus on empowering adolescents. Teaching them about privacy settings, conflict resolution, and healthy communication online could be more effective strategies. Interventions should not only address behavior but also the emotional landscape that underlies it. For instance, programs that build emotional resilience, peer support, and inclusive school climates may reduce the feelings of isolation that make young people targets.
Family involvement is another critical point raised by the authors. Since many conflicts originate at home—arguments over device use, strained parent-child communication—supporting parents in setting healthy boundaries and engaging in open conversations with their children about social media may be a key part of prevention. Encouraging shared understanding rather than punishment could defuse tensions and foster healthier relationships.
Of course, the study is not without limitations. It is based on self-reported data from a single middle school in a semi-urban area, which may limit the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design does not allow for conclusions about causality or changes over time. Future research would benefit from longitudinal designs that follow students over several years, allowing researchers to see how problematic behavior, social stress, and victimization evolve together.
Despite these limitations, the study offers a compelling argument that understanding adolescent cyber-victimization requires a shift in perspective. It’s not just about time spent online, but the interpersonal conflicts and psychological distress that often accompany problematic usage. By addressing the emotional fallout of PSMUC—particularly the social stress that can leave adolescents isolated and vulnerable—educators, clinicians, and parents can work together to create a safer, more supportive digital environment for youth.
The research by Kim and her colleagues provides a vital roadmap for future prevention efforts. It reinforces the importance of viewing adolescent digital behavior through a relational and emotional lens. Addressing the deeper issues of social stress and problematic usage patterns may be the key to stemming the tide of cyber-victimization, ultimately promoting healthier, more connected youth both online and offline.
Exploring Digital and Social Media Practices in Norwegian Child Welfare Services
The digitalization of Norwegian public services, including Child Welfare Services (CWS), has introduced new communication methods between professionals and clients. This article examines how the use of digital and social media affects trust and power dynamics in professional-client relationships. The study is based on interviews with CWS caseworkers, parents, and youth clients, offering insights into how digital media practices shape visibility and invisibility within this context. By employing Michel Foucault’s concept of Bentham’s Panopticon, the analysis highlights how digital surveillance influences professional authority and client trust.
The rapid adoption of digital tools such as smartphones, emails, SMS, and social media platforms has transformed communication within social work. While digital media can enhance efficiency and accessibility, it also raises ethical concerns about privacy, surveillance, and power imbalances. Previous research suggests that digital media can empower clients by providing them with more control over communication and facilitating social participation. However, this study uncovers how digitalization can also reinforce existing asymmetries, particularly when caseworkers monitor clients through social media without their knowledge.
The methodological approach of this study includes group interviews with 26 CWS caseworkers and individual interviews with five parents and four youth clients. The interviews, conducted between October 2019 and March 2020, explored participants’ experiences with digital communication. Caseworkers reflected on their professional practices, while clients shared their perspectives on how digital interactions influenced their relationships with CWS. The analysis focused on when and how digital tools were used, revealing key patterns of visibility and invisibility in professional-client interactions.
One key finding is that caseworkers view digital tools as a means to remain accessible and build relationships with clients. SMS, for instance, allows them to check in on clients efficiently, maintaining a presence without direct intervention. Some caseworkers expressed a desire to use social media platforms such as Snapchat to reach young clients but refrained due to ethical concerns. Clients, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of face-to-face interactions in establishing trust. While digital tools were seen as useful for scheduling meetings, they were not considered substitutes for in-person communication.
The study also reveals that caseworkers use social media to observe clients, often without their knowledge. Some CWS offices created fake Facebook accounts to monitor clients’ online activities. This practice sparked debates among caseworkers about its legality and ethical implications. While some defended it as a means of obtaining crucial information, others viewed it as a breach of trust. Most clients were unaware of this surveillance, assuming that their social media presence was private. However, those who suspected that they were being watched expressed strong feelings of betrayal, underscoring the potential damage to professional-client relationships.
Another key aspect of digital communication is the ability of professionals to make themselves invisible. Many caseworkers manage two phones, one for work and one for personal use, allowing them to control their availability. They may also refuse to share their email addresses with clients or limit digital interactions to SMS. This selective accessibility contrasts sharply with clients’ experiences, as they have fewer options for making themselves invisible. Some clients avoid digital communication altogether to minimize exposure to CWS surveillance, reflecting concerns about constant monitoring.
The discussion situates these findings within broader debates on digitalization, power, and trust in welfare services. While digital tools can enhance service efficiency, they also introduce new challenges in maintaining ethical boundaries. The study demonstrates that visibility and invisibility in digital interactions are not neutral but are shaped by power relations. Caseworkers have the ability to control their exposure and monitor clients discreetly, reinforcing the asymmetry of professional-client relationships.
Drawing on Foucault’s concept of the Panopticon, the analysis illustrates how digital media enables caseworkers to observe clients without being seen. This surveillance dynamic undermines trust, as clients are unaware of when or how they are being monitored. Previous research has highlighted the potential of digital media to empower clients by providing them with more agency in communication. However, this study suggests that digital tools can also be used to reinforce hierarchical structures, limiting clients’ ability to negotiate their visibility.
The findings call for a critical reassessment of digital media use in child welfare services. While digital tools offer opportunities for improved communication, their use must be guided by ethical considerations and clear regulations. Caseworkers require guidelines on appropriate digital practices to balance professional responsibilities with respect for client privacy. Clients, in turn, should be informed about how their digital presence may be used in professional assessments. Transparency and consent should be central principles in digital communication policies to ensure that trust is not eroded.
In conclusion, the digitalization of Norwegian Child Welfare Services has reshaped professional-client interactions, introducing new complexities in trust and power dynamics. While digital tools can facilitate accessibility and efficiency, they also present risks related to surveillance and ethical boundaries. The study highlights the importance of regulating digital communication practices to prevent power imbalances from being exacerbated. Ensuring that clients have a voice in how digital tools are used can help maintain trust and foster more equitable professional relationships in child welfare services.
In recent years, the concept of the metaverse has emerged as a transformative digital paradigm, offering a blend of virtual and real-world experiences that challenge traditional notions of social interaction, governance, and community-building. Coined by Neal Stephenson in his seminal work Snow Crash, the term “metaverse” originally described a three-dimensional digital space where avatars engaged in activities paralleling those of the physical world. Over time, advancements in technology have redefined the metaverse, turning it into a multi-faceted ecosystem where millions of users connect, socialize, and create. For the field of social work, the rapid expansion of this socio-virtual domain presents a unique opportunity to redefine its practices while also addressing an array of new social challenges.
The metaverse, driven by advancements in virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mobile technologies, is no longer confined to gaming platforms. Early iterations like Second Life demonstrated the potential for user-driven virtual communities, commerce, and social experimentation. Modern platforms such as Roblox, Horizon Worlds, and Decentraland have further elevated the metaverse’s capabilities, allowing users to engage in immersive, life-like experiences. This evolution is marked by three distinct technological milestones: the shift from solid digital technology, confined to stationary devices, to liquid technology, characterized by portable, mobile experiences, and finally, the gaseous era, defined by seamless integration of miniaturized, connected devices into everyday life. These advancements have created a mixed-reality environment where users continuously navigate between physical and virtual spaces.
For social workers, the metaverse introduces a profound shift in how social issues manifest and are addressed. Traditional social work frameworks, rooted in direct, face-to-face interactions, are being challenged by the deterritorialized nature of virtual environments. The metaverse is not merely an extension of digital social work, where technology acts as a mediator; it is an entirely new field—virtual social work or v-social work—where both the subject and object of intervention reside within the virtual space. V-social work requires the development of innovative methodologies and competences to address unique challenges, such as navigating relationships with avatars, addressing digital inequalities, and ensuring ethical practices in an environment governed predominantly by private corporations rather than public institutions.
One of the most significant challenges is the redefinition of community and individual identities within the metaverse. Unlike physical communities that are geographically bound, virtual communities are dynamic, fluid, and often transnational. This raises questions about cultural and linguistic diversity, governance mechanisms, and the potential for new forms of social exclusion. For instance, while virtual spaces may reduce visible markers of identity such as skin color or physical disabilities, they may also introduce new hierarchies based on digital literacy, economic access to immersive devices, or social media influence. Social workers must remain vigilant in identifying and addressing these emerging vulnerabilities, advocating for inclusive policies that mitigate digital divides and ensure equitable participation.
Privacy and data protection represent another critical area of concern. In the metaverse, users generate vast amounts of data, from behavioral patterns to personal interactions, often under the ownership and control of private companies. This creates ethical dilemmas around data usage, consent, and confidentiality. Social workers operating in this space must develop competences in digital ethics, ensuring that interventions align with principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for user privacy. Moreover, they must navigate the complexities of legal jurisdictions, as virtual interactions may involve participants from multiple countries with varying regulatory frameworks.
The immersive nature of the metaverse also poses risks related to mental health and well-being. While virtual environments can foster social connection and creativity, they can also exacerbate issues such as addiction, social isolation, and body image disorders. The ability to embody customizable avatars may lead to unrealistic self-perceptions, with individuals struggling to reconcile their virtual identities with their real-world selves. Social workers must address these challenges by designing interventions that promote mental resilience, digital literacy, and balanced engagement with virtual spaces. Additionally, the metaverse offers opportunities for innovative mental health solutions, such as virtual counseling centers, support groups, and therapeutic simulations that transcend geographical and temporal boundaries.
Educational and professional training for social workers must adapt to the demands of v-social work. Traditional competences, such as building trust, assessing needs, and planning interventions, require reinterpretation in a virtual context. For example, establishing a trusting relationship with a client in the metaverse involves understanding avatar dynamics and the authenticity of virtual interactions. Similarly, developing intervention plans must account for the unique characteristics of virtual environments, such as their transient nature and reliance on digital tools. Training programs should incorporate modules on VR and AR technologies, digital ethics, and cross-cultural competence to prepare social workers for the complexities of v-social work.
The governance of the metaverse is another area requiring the attention of social work professionals. As private corporations drive the development and regulation of virtual platforms, issues of accountability and equity arise. Social workers must advocate for policies that prioritize the public good, such as access to affordable immersive technologies, safeguards against exploitation, and mechanisms to address online harassment and crime. Collaboration with technology developers, policymakers, and community organizations is essential to ensure that the metaverse evolves as a space that fosters social inclusion and well-being.
Despite these challenges, the metaverse also offers unprecedented opportunities for social innovation. It enables the creation of virtual social services that cater to diverse needs, from addressing bullying in virtual schools to providing employment guidance and skills training in immersive environments. The flexibility of virtual spaces allows for tailored interventions, such as virtual support networks for marginalized groups or interactive workshops that simulate real-world scenarios. By leveraging the potential of the metaverse, social workers can expand their reach, engage with clients in innovative ways, and address systemic issues from a new vantage point.
In conclusion, the metaverse represents both a frontier and a crucible for the evolution of social work. As millions of users embrace virtual environments as integral to their lives, social workers must rise to the occasion, reimagining their practices and redefining their professional competences. The transition to v-social work is not merely a technological adaptation; it is a profound epistemological and ethical shift that demands collaborative efforts, critical reflection, and a commitment to social justice in the digital age. By embracing the challenges and opportunities of the metaverse, social work can continue its mission of empowering individuals, strengthening communities, and fostering a more equitable society, both in the physical and virtual realms.
Social media has become an integral part of daily life and professional practice for many, including social workers. With nearly 5 billion global users, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (X), and YouTube facilitate communication, knowledge-sharing, and social engagement. However, alongside these benefits, social media has also become a channel for various forms of abuse and harassment. This issue is particularly significant in social work, where practitioners often engage with vulnerable populations and may face public criticism and abuse related to their work. In Ireland, a national study sought to investigate the prevalence and impact of online abuse experienced by social workers, probation officers, and social work students, providing insights into an often-overlooked issue in the profession.
The Scope of the Problem
Social media harassment can take many forms, including offensive comments, threats, cyberstalking, and doxxing (publicly revealing private information). Approximately 21.9% of social workers in the study reported experiencing some form of digital or online abuse. Facebook, Twitter, and email were identified as the primary platforms where abuse occurred, with 15.3% of cases directly related to the professional duties of social workers.
This abuse often originates from individuals who have interacted with social workers through their professional roles, including current or former service users and their families. Incidents of harassment range from negative comments about work practices to threats of violence and even cases of impersonation through fake social media profiles.
Legal Framework
Ireland and the European Union have introduced several laws to address digital harassment. Key Irish legislation includes the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, and the Harassment, Harmful Communications, and Related Offences Act, 2020 (Coco’s Law), which criminalizes online harassment, including the sharing of intimate images without consent. The European Union’s Digital Services Act, 2022, also seeks to enforce accountability on digital platforms, requiring them to address harmful content and monitor for disinformation. Despite these frameworks, enforcement and protection measures remain challenging, and social workers often feel inadequately protected against digital abuse.
Impact on Social Workers
The effects of online harassment on social workers extend beyond the virtual world, significantly impacting their mental health and job satisfaction. Participants in the study reported experiencing a range of adverse effects, including stress, anxiety, and reputational damage. Female social workers, who comprise a large proportion of the workforce, may face additional risks as research indicates gender-based abuse is more prevalent in digital spaces.
The study also noted that digital abuse has far-reaching implications, affecting not only the individual targeted but also their families and colleagues. In some cases, social workers reported receiving threats to their safety, their family members, or their property, leading to long-term effects on their well-being and professional engagement.
Who is Affected?
Children and family social workers, along with those working in high-stakes areas such as child protection and probation, reported the highest rates of online abuse. Social work students also experienced harassment, though primarily in their personal lives rather than in direct relation to their fieldwork. Social media abuse may be less frequent for probation officers, possibly due to their connection to the court system, which may offer a level of insulation against public backlash.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Addressing digital harassment requires a multifaceted approach. Employers in social work must take a proactive stance, implementing comprehensive social media policies, providing training on managing online abuse, and supporting staff in handling harassment. Further research is also essential to understand the full scope of this issue and develop effective interventions. With the right safeguards and support, social workers can navigate the digital landscape without compromising their safety or professional integrity.
As social media platforms continue to evolve, so too must the protections for professionals who use them. For social workers, establishing clear boundaries and support systems can help mitigate the risks of digital abuse, allowing them to focus on their primary mission—supporting vulnerable populations and advocating for social justice in both physical and digital spaces.
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.
The nature of the different types of sexual offending against children
Online sexual offending against children is an ambiguous and controversial phenomenon, as it is include various behaviours, such a grooming, sharing indecent images of children (IIOC) or contacting other offenders with similar interest. Also, the role of the technology is argued amongst professionals, if it is a tool or an influencing and creative force that produced a new type of criminal. As the majority of young people use the Internet, it provide a wide range of opportunity for the offenders to contact their potential victims (Ybarra et al., 2004). According to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (2010), it has been an increase in sexual solicitations towards children in recent years online. Furthermore, the public and experts also became more aware of the issue, however there are many areas, such as the characteristics of the perpetrators, their communications, practices and risk factors that needs to be studied and researched further (Beech et al., 2008).
In term of risks, in regards of sexual offending against children there are several such as age, gender, sexual preference, ACEs (Felitti et al., 1998), relationships and digital behaviours. Adolescents (age between 13 and 17) spend more time online unsupervised than children (12 and below), use more social networking and messaging sites and more likely to be involved in risky sexual activities, therefore they are much higher at risk for online sexual offending (Baumgartner et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2007; Vaala and Bleakley, 2015). According to Wurtele (2012), it is easier to get sexual compliance from adolescents due to their attention seeking, inexperience, naivety and curiosity about sex and relationships. In regard of gender, girls are the majority of the victims of online sexual offences, which mirrors offline victimisation. Boys, on the other hand – as they are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour – are victimised online on a higher rate. LGBTQ+ minorities also at risk, as they often visit sex/gender related sites and online communities (Baumgartner et al., 2010; Jonsson et al., 2014; Wolak et al., 2009, 2010). Furthermore, teenagers with ACEs, history of abuse, mental health issues, loneliness, and with bad relationship with their parents are more likely to seek company online. Spending more time on the Internet without supervision may lead and increase the risk of victimisation (Mitchell et al., 2007; Wolak et al., 2010). In regard of risky behaviours online by children, such as visiting adult sites and chatrooms, engaging profanity, using sexually provocative language and nicknames and sexting are considerable factors of online sexual solicitation (Baumgartner et al., 2010; Wolak et al., 2010; Malesky, 2007).
There are two main types of online sexual offending, such as online grooming and proliferation of indecent images of children (IIOC). These cyber enabled crimes, compare to their traditional equivalent are operating a much wider scale through various forms of information communications technology (ICT).
Proliferation of indecent images of children (IIOC)
Defining ‘indecent’ could be quite challenging due the ambiguous nature of the notion: Protection of Children Act 1978 and Criminal Justice Act 1988 describes IIOC as still and moving images of an abused and/or exploited children. Before the Internet the possession, distribution and production of these images were quite a rare occurrence. According to Middleton (2009) images of child abuse multiplied due the development of technology, which also reduced the cost and detection such activities and increased their availability. In 2005, one third of all sexual offences were internet related in England and Wales, which is nearly five times increase since 1999 (Home Office, 2006). According to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP, 2012), possessing and managing IIOC are considered risky behaviour, which may also lead additional (physical) abuse. Pseudo images (digitally constructed photos) are also problematic, as they are artificially manipulated for instance a child’s face inserted on a woman’s body or the IIOC entirely built by an application therefore involve ‘no real victims’ (Quayle and Taylor, 2003; Davidson et al., 2010).
Online grooming:
This form of offence against children is defined as a process in which by the offender prepares the victim and the environment for the purposes of the abuse, for instance getting the child’s trust and compliance, also obfuscating the crime itself (Craven et al., 2006). O’Connell (2003) models online grooming as process made of the offender’s efforts regarding accessibility, opportunity and vulnerability. This research identified seven stages in this process, such as: friendship and relationship forming; risk assessment; exclusivity; sexual; fantasy re-enactment, and damage limitation. Furthermore, according to Bryce (2010) offenders and their activities are frequently overlap, for instance producers, consumers and distributors of IIOC are involved in several forms of exploitation and abuse simultaneously.
Types of offenders:
According to Bryce (2010) online offenders are not share many characteristics, except being male. On the contrary, Babchishin’s (2011) meta-analysis of online sex offenders indicates they are high likely to be young, single, jobless, Caucasian and high intelligence, also with no criminal record (Webster et al., 2012). The study categorised these criminals as intimacy seeking, adaptable and hyper sexualised offenders. In contrast, in a 2007 paper Howitt and Sheldon revealed that offenders often in a relationship and have children themselves. In regards to cover their online activities, offenders use various level of protection to hide their identity, communications and IIOC. Carr (2004) have found only a quarter of the offenders she interviewed used some kind of security measure, however nowadays more and more technology available for criminals (Tor for example) to hide their activities.
Strengths and weaknesses of policing/prevention strategies in regard sexual offending against children
In recent years, information and communication technologies (ICT), especially mobile phones, internet has become essential to adolescents’. ICTs provide a platform for education, entertainment, networking, also it could be a valuable resource for the disadvantaged and marginalised youth (Guan and Subrahmanyam, 2009). However, as ICT become more common, the risk it presents also become more extensive, such as invasion of privacy, cyberbullying, online grooming, sexting, dating abuse, and proliferation of IIOC (Zweig et al., 2013).
Prevention
To answer these cyber-enabled crimes, several prevention strategies, programs, guidelines and methods have been implemented. Several websites (such as https://www.nspcc.org.uk) has been created in order to inform parents and children in regards the risk and dangers online, and provide advice how to avoid them. They advise and warn about risky websites and behaviours, how to protect ones privacy and identity, offline communication and potential steps a parent can do to prevent victimisation.
In regards to sexting via mobile phones, there are numerous educational campaigns exist to raise the issues and consequences of such activity. However, as they focusing mainly sexting amongst children, they disregard such communication between adult and children, which is quite problematic. Overall, the existence of these online-safety related sites is a positive thing, however their usefulness, efficiency and impact is not known entirely (Wurtele et al., 20016).
Role of the Parents
According to Wildsmith et al. (2013) good relationship between parents and their children significantly reduce the risk of online victimisation. Furthermore, parental supervision also a protective element in relation to online safety (Whittle et al., 2013). As we discussed in the previous section, there are several online-safety website available for parents if they wish to access relevant material. However, these resources often amplify the risks online, such as kidnappings or sexting (Vaala and Bleakey, 2015), also they recommend to supervise and limit their children’s activity online and use protective applications. While these practices work with young children, adolescents are not limited to use one ‘safe’ device. In regard of sharing personal information, which is not directly related to online sexual offending (Finkelhol, 2014), it is highly recommended not to share on social media. Furthermore, there are few issues in regards prevention methods through parents, such as lack of knowledge or device at home, barriers to articulate and discuss a sensitive subject or existing domestic struggle. These factors exaggerate the risks of online sexual offending, therefore these children should be able access external help and support, through schools and other institutions.
Schools’ role in online safety
Another line of defence and prevention lies within the classroom, where information regarding ICT risks can be thought. They can provide a qualified personnel and the technology to deliver internet safety education to the children and allow class debate and discussion about online threats, prevention and virtual etiquette. Moreover, there are online education programmes, like iKeepSafe but they mainly focus on ‘panic driven’ advice and ‘untested assumptions’ in regard internet safety and victimisation (Finkelhor, 2014). Although, these initiatives have the tendency of victim blaming and sexist communication (Dobson and Ringrose, 2016). As these efforts focus on prevention, legal advice also should be given just as how to recognise online and offline sexual offences and how to respond to them appropriately (Wolak et al., 2009; Wolak and Finkelhor, 2013, Wurtele, 2012). However, adolescents instead of reporting online related sexual offending to authorities, they more likely to share it with their peers according to Katz (2013) and Whittle (2014). In reflection above, we can assert that education plays a critical role in prevention of online solicitation, however adolescents should be involved in a much greater degree, in cooperation with ICT actors and law-enforcement agencies.
Policing, Technology and Policy
Technology enabled crimes against children, such as online grooming or IIOC, however it also provide methods to prevent such crimes. Government and Law Enforcement bodies, like the Hi-Tech Crime Unit (HTCU), the Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU) and Home Office’s Centre for Applied Science (CAST) are working together to develop technological solutions to answer challenges of the Police, such as preventing online child abuse or investigate it (Lilley, 2016). Furthermore, Police use ‘forensic investigation tools’ (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2007) and search engines have embedded algorithms to reduce accessibility to IIOC through their platforms (Steel, 2015). The acknowledgement of unique strategies regarding online sex offenders become prevalent during UK’s first significant investigation of IIOC (Operation Ore) in 1999. In 2004, the National Probation Service for England and Wales considered banning sex offenders using ICT. In 2007, the Home Office recognised that issues regarding protection of children needs to be addressed according to ICT developments. They suggested policies with mandatory email registration, polygraph test and tagging for registered sex offenders. By 2010, these plans were discussed in the mainstream media (Beckford and Stokes, 2010) and tracking email addresses’ of sex offenders has been stopped due Human Right concerns. The notion of limiting offenders’ access online content has been tried in 2011, and the Court of Appeal stated:
‘A blanket prohibition on computer use or internet access is impermissible. It is disproportionate because it restricts the defendant in the use of what is nowadays an essential part of everyday living for a large proportion of the public, as well as a requirement of much employment’ (Regina v Smith (2011) EWCA Crim 1772)
Therefore, law enforcement agencies were required to utilise and develop alternative crime prevention methods in order to accommodate the legal, technological and professional requirements.
Situation specific crime prevention
Situational crime prevention theories in practice using ICTs to limit the offender’s ability to access IIOC (Taylor and Quayle, 2016). However this approach has its own limitations, such as the ‘hidden’ nature of the crime, the offender’s technological capability and the Internet itself, where the crime takes place. For instance, a monitoring software allows authorities to notice any wrongdoing, collect evidence and act immediately if necessary. However, offenders could avoid this detection with an unknown device for the authorities. Furthermore, resources of the Police are finite, therefore it needs to be optimised and existing technical and legal challenges to be resolved in order to apply successfully this prevention strategy (Lilley, 2016).
Non-situational crime prevention
This form of approach does not require a computer or other device with Internet connection as it is a more direct approach. Using tag (electronic monitoring) to monitor and track sex offenders, might deter, but not prevent someone to commit a crime. On the other hand, tagging could be an effective way to supervise low risk offenders and reduce reoffending, which may be a cost effective alternative to imprisonment (Padgett et al., 2006; National Audit Office, 2006). Apart from Gies et al. (2012) study, which shows that even high risk sex offenders comply more and offend less likely when monitored, there are limited research on this topic, especially in regard to reoffending, deterrence, effectiveness and how this technology alters the offenders’ behaviour (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012). Polygraph also can be used to observe sex offenders compliance and it can increase the quality of criminal history convicted offenders’ provide (Grubin et al., 2004). Conversely, the use of this technique has been critiqued by academics that it is ‘coercive’ and consent is ‘illusory’ (Bull et al., 2004), also it disrupts offenders’ rehabilitation (Wilcox, 2013).
Conclusion
In this limited version of Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) cyber-enabled crimes, such as sexual offending against children and relevant policing/prevention strategies were evaluated. Within these topics, this paper focused on indecent images of children (IIOC), online grooming, the types of offenders, several prevention methods and techniques, legal and technological challenges. In terms of procedure and narrowing the available material, this REA used articles published in the US, UK and EU between 2010 and 2020, including all research methods. These literature were identified mainly in Web of Science and in Edinburgh Napier University LibrarySearch engine.
Technological developments influenced criminality and victimisation in the last two decades, creating new type of crimes, risks and challenges for authorities. Online sexual offending against children is one of these cyber-crimes, which gained attention from the public and academics considerably. Two main theme emerged in regard this offence: grooming and proliferation of indecent images. Both of these, target children where and when they are most vulnerable, unsupervised, having difficulties and/or unaware of the risks they taking. In regards the offenders, this scooping of articles have found several inconsistencies in their characteristics, such as their background and relationships. Furthermore, prevention methods of these offences are multi-agency, technology, legislation and resource dependent, with different level of success rate. Also, these approaches are often not well researched, therefore we don’t know much about their impact and efficiency on criminal behaviour and reoffending. Overall, this simplified REA have found that online sexual offences are prevalent and serious threats to children, but law enforcement agencies and legislative bodies aware of this issue and taking preventive measures. However, the sensitive and hidden nature of this type of crimes, also because the several legal and technological issues present, it is challenging to paint an accurate picture on this criminal activity, therefore it is more difficult to prevent it.
Beyond Barriers 