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.
Beyond Barriers 