Significant technological advances have taken place in recent years, especially in ICT, which are rapidly transforming the different professions, including social work. We want to verify the degree of technological acceptance of social workers at the international level and how the relationship between professional practice and the use of new technological possibilities is established. For this purpose we applied a specialized questionnaire and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) scale, to 1144 social workers from 13 countries. A high degree of technological acceptance is detected; a clear identification between professional practice, the use of technological advances, and their connection with NASW standards.
AbadM (2011) The Acceptance of ICTs in Education: Google vs Moodle. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
2.
BakerSWarburtonJHodgkinS, et al. (2018) The new informational paradigm: Developing practice-led approaches to the use of mobile ICT in social work. British Journal of Social Work48: 1791–1809.
BryantLGarnhamBTedmansonD, et al. (2015) Tele-social work and mental health in rural and remote communities in Australia. International Social Work61: 143–155.
6.
CastiblancoIACepedaLCViolanteMG, et al. (2021) Commonly used external TAM variables in e-learning, agriculture and virtual reality applications. Future Internet13(1): 7.
7.
ChanCHoloskoMJ (2016) A review of information and communication technology enhanced social work interventions. Research on Social Work Practice26(1): 88–100.
Cózar-GutiérrezRDe Moya-MartínezMVHernández-BravoJA, et al. (2016) Knowledge and the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) according to the learning styles of future teachers. Formación Universitaria9(6): 105–118.
10.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
11.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35: 982–1003.
12.
DavisFDBagozziRWarshawP (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology22(14): 1111–1132.
13.
DavisJWolffHForretML, et al. (2020) Networking via LinkedIn: An examination of usage and career benefits. Journal of Vocational Behavior118: 103396.
14.
De LucasFD’AntonioS (2020) ICT, young people and social work: Distances and opportunities. Social Work Education39: 813–824.
15.
Del FresnoMLópez-PeláezA (2013) Trabajo Social, nuevas tecnologías y redes sociales: nuevas herramientas para la práctica profesional en el siglo XXI. Servicios Sociales y Política Social104: 31–39.
16.
DellorELovato-HermannKPrice-WolfJ, et al. (2015) Introducing technology in child welfare referrals: A case study. Journal of Technology in Human Services33(4): 330–344.
17.
FathemaNShannonDRossM (2015) Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching11(2): 210–233.
18.
FernándezB (2017) The Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to the Use of Augmented Reality in University Studies. Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba. Available at: https://helvia.uco.es/xmlui/handle/10396/14886
19.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Chemung, NY: Addison-Wesley.
20.
FuenteYMartínMC (2019) E-social work and at-risk populations: Technology and robotics in social intervention with elders. The case of Spain. European Journal of Social Work22: 623–633.
21.
GillinghamP (2013) The development of electronic information systems for the future: Practitioners, ‘Embodied Structures’ and ‘Technologies-in-Practice’. The British Journal of Social Work43(3): 430–445.
22.
GillinghamP (2016) Technology configuring the user: Implications for the redesign of electronic information systems in social work. The British Journal of Social Work46(2): 323–338.
23.
HartmanRLBarberEG (2020) Women in the workforce: The effect of gender on occupational self-efficacy, work engagement and career aspirations. Gender in Management35(1): 92–118.
24.
HendricksonARMasseyPDCronanTP (1993) On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Quarterly17: 227–230.
25.
HidalgoALimaAI (2018) New social intervention technologies as a challenge in social work: IFSW Europe perspective. European Journal of Social Work21(6): 824–835.
26.
HillAShawI (2011) Social Work & ICT. London: SAGE.
27.
LópezA (2014) Social work, technology, and ethical practice review and evaluation of the national association of social workers’ technology standards. Journal of Social Work in Health Care53(9): 815–833.
28.
McCartyDClancyC (2002) Telehealth: Implications for social work practice. Social Work47(2): 153–161.
29.
MarangunićNGranićA (2014) Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society14(1): 81–95.
30.
MishnaFBogoMRootJ, et al. (2014) Here to stay: Cyber communication as a complement in social work practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services95(3): 179–186.
31.
MishnaFFantusSMcInroyLB (2017) Informal use of information and communication technology: Adjunct to traditional face-to-face social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal45(1): 49–55.
32.
MishnaFSandersJFantusS, et al. (2019) #socialwork: Informal use of information and communication technology in social work. Clinical Social Work Journal49: 85–99.
33.
MousaAHMousaSHAljshameeM, et al. (2021) Determinants of customer acceptance of e-banking in Iraq using technology acceptance model. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control)19(2): 421–431.
34.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and British Association of Social Work (BASW) (2005) NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice. Washington, DC: NASW and ASWB.
35.
Pereyra-RodríguezJJJiménezAISaigíF (2018) Determinants of the intention to use telemedicine in a healthcare organization. Journal of Healthcare Quality Research33(6): 319–328.
36.
QuicañoCLeónCMoquillazaA (2019) A model to measure behaviour in the technological acceptance of Internet service at Peruvian hotels, based on utaut2. ‘Andean House’ Case. 3 c TIC: cuadernos de desarrollo aplicados a las TIC8(1): 2–35.
37.
RayaE (2018) E-inclusion and e-social work: New technologies at the service of social intervention. European Journal of Social Work21(6): 916–929.
38.
ReamerF (2015a) Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and risk-management challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal43(2): 120–132.
SandiJ (2019) Serious games for the investigation of technological competences that can be integrated into teachers’ pedagogical practices. An application proposal at the University of Costa Rica, Turrialba Campus (UCR). Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnología en Educación y Educación en Tecnología23: e13.
41.
SchererMJ (2005) Living in the State of Stuck. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
42.
SiyalMSiyalSWuJ, et al. (2021) Consumer perceptions of factors affecting online shopping behavior: An empirical evidence from foreign students in China. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO)19(2): 1–16.
43.
TurnerD (2016) Only connect: Unifying the social in social work and social media. Journal of Social Work Practice30: 313–327.
44.
VenkateshVBalaH (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences39(2): 273–315.
45.
WarburtonJCowanSWintertonR, et al. (2014) Building social inclusion for rural older people using information and communication technologies: Perspectives of rural practitioners. Australian Social Work67(4): 479–494.
46.
WatlingSRogersJ (2012) Social Work in a Digital Society. London: SAGE.
