Social work in an information-intensive era: Digitalization in social work practices,expertise,training,and research

Abstract

This article discusses the demands placed on social work by the digitalization of society. Examining social work as a modern professional system in the framework of the structural–functional theory of professions, the challenge of digitalization is mirrored against the background of international professional standards of social work. As a conclusion, it is suggested that the purposeful development of social work as a professional system in the information-intensive era requires the integration of the field into national innovation systems as well as significant contribution from the international research community of social work to the study of the effects and challenges of digitalization.

Keywords

digitalization information-intensive transformation professionalism social work structural–functional approach

Introduction

This study aims to identify new forms of social vulnerability and client groups of social work stemming from digitalization, as well as the new qualification requirements set for the social work profession by the digital transformation. In addition, attention is paid to the effects of information intensity in education and research in the field. According to the structural–functional approach the social work profession is understood as a unified system of practical work, education, and research, which has its own field of expertise in society.

The nature of social change and related social work challenges are outlined with the help of the literature, paying attention to general mechanisms and interpretations that go beyond country-specific features. However, the Finnish national social work research program has been used as a country-specific example, where the challenge of information-intensive transformation has been discussed in terms of social work research.

The information offered in the article is based on the reflection of the relevant literature related to the topic. This literature was selected with a diverse familiarity with the subject area but in an unsystematic way with an open definition of the scope and time limits. Thus, the method is not a real literature review but rather a literature-based reflective analysis as an exploratory mapping of existing knowledge as a thematic investigation.

The goal is to outline and structure the essential features of the topic and identify its central themes as a kind of literature-based scoping review. In other words, by reflecting on the literature of the field, the scope, coverage, and content of the topic is outlined: what kind of scholarly information is available on the topic; from which perspectives the topic has been approached; and what kind of shortcomings can perhaps be identified, that is, to what should be paid more attention.

According to the structural–functional theory of professions, social work is understood as a form of professional expertise that has arisen and exists to satisfy a specific need in society. Social work has its own special mission, which it exists to fulfill. The main thread of this article is the question of how the function and expertise of the social work profession will take shape with the digitization of society. So, the article discusses the effects of digitalization on social work and the professional expertise it requires.

The ongoing upheaval of societies worldwide has been examined in the social sciences from various perspectives. Modern society has been referred to by many different attributes, talking, for example, about risk, information, education, media, late- or postmodern, post-industrial, and high-tech society. Digitalization is the central driver of the current social transformation, the effects of which extend widely to both the lives of citizens and the infrastructure of society.

Social change is a multithreaded entity: it consists of many intertwined processes that shape the economic, social, cultural, and political structures of society. Digitalization is about a global change process shaping societies, working life, and professions worldwide in a very fundamental way (World Bank Group, 2023). It affects the living conditions of citizens and circumstances of everyday life and sets new demands on professions, including professional demands on social work.

There is a lot of research on the effects of digitalization on people’s quality of life (Barlybaev et al., 2021), and its negative effects on people, organizations, and society have also been examined in various ways (Trittin-Ulbrich et al., 2021; Turel et al., 2021). By contrast, discussion and research on the impacts of digitalization on social work professional practices and clients’ living conditions have been relatively limited and unsystematic.

Social work as a functional professional system amid digital transformation

As a functional professional system, social work appears as an entity where it is defined as a field of practical work, education, and research. Research creates the knowledge base needed for practical work and training in the field, and training creates the expertise and know-how needed for practical work.

According to the definition:

Structural functional theory is an orientation that focuses on structure – the patterning of roles, the form of institutions, and the overall articulation of institutions in a society – and seeks to explain these structures in terms of their functions – contributions to the stability and persistence of societies. (Garner, 2019: abstract)

The structural–functional approach guides us to examine society’s institutions and professions from the point of view of what task they exist for and what they serve in the entirety of social life.

Society is understood as an integrative entity consisting of mutually resonant systems and their subsystems. Professions are defined as subsystems of expertise based on education and science, a task area that individual representatives of the profession and the entire profession collectively carry out (Fry, 2019). Each profession has its own function and expertise to fulfill, which exists as part of an integrated whole. In the structural–functional definition, professions are considered both as independent systems and in relation to each other, as well as in relation to society and its individual members.

In the structural–functional framework, society is defined ‘as a complex system with various interdependent parts that work together to increase stability’ (Lucas, 2007: 1). Accordingly, ‘the professions are distinguished by a collectivity orientation in which the interests of the client and the professional coincide’ (Garner, 2019: 2). Professions are characterized by a limited field of expertise and a specific social task. They are problem-solving activities in society based on scientific research and training, expert work based on science, which is used to respond to various needs of citizens and society.

Professions as organized efforts to meet the needs of citizens require expertise produced through scientific education. In welfare professions, digitalization is reflected as new types of needs of citizens, the response to which means new requirements for professional skills and expertise. Social work is often characterized as an interaction between professionals and clients where clients are helped to find solutions to their social and psychosocial problems in various ways. In addition, social work is influencing society’s structures and through structures.

The structural–functional interpretation of social change (Garner, 2019) emphasizes that change processes are continuous and require adaptation so that society can maintain its balance and functionality. In the structural–functional theory, change is seen as a positive and evolutionary process in which society and its institutions adapt to new challenges. The transformation of society creates new needs to which professions respond with training, research, and new practices.

Professions and their representatives are considered to have the right and ability for professional self-determination and decision-making based on the expertise produced by education (Otterlei, 2018). Like other professions, social work is defined as a form of expertise that defines itself, its expertise, and the training and research needed in the field.

As a scientific discipline and as a profession with its own specialized methods, the knowledge base of professional expertise in social work is based on the contributions of the science of social work, and the contributions of the social scientific theories and other sciences related to the field of social work (Brekke and Anastas, 2019). It is common for social work expertise to be described as a set of professional knowledge, skills, and ethical foundations. Accordingly, it is justified to examine the effects of digital transformation on social work in terms of knowledge, skills, and ethical aspects. However, it is also about professional identity and self-determination.

Professional expertise develops as a reaction to the change in society, the development of technology, and the changing needs of citizens who need professional services. Citizens’ trust in the expertise of those working in professions is a principle that permeates all professionalism (Evetts, 2014). Today’s information-intensive transformation sets new knowledge and skillful and ethical competence requirements for the professions, which is reflected in the contents of education and the production of research information.

Scholarly literature and political documents have discussed the connection of digitalization with the paradigmatic change trends of welfare states and social policy (Henman, 2022; Hjelholt, 2022; Rodriguez, 2022). ‘Digital social work’ has been developed in different countries (Castillo de Mesa, 2023; López Peláez and Kirwan, 2023; Pink et al., 2022) and the digitalization that has taken place in the field of social work has been discussed both theoretically and ethically and in terms of professional work practices in the field (Steiner, 2021). The term ‘e-social work’ has also been used (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós, 2018) and the concept of ‘blended social work’ has been applied to professional social work practices that combine face-to-face encounters with online interventions (Granholm, 2016). In addition, the term ‘virtual social work’ or ‘v-social work’ has been proposed (Relinque-Medina and Álvarez-Pérez, 2024) to refer to an area of social work separate from e-social work, where the social intervention takes place directly in the context of the metaverse, virtual world.

A comprehensive systematic analysis of the effects of digitalization on social work as an integrative operating system consisting of research, education, and work practices and as an area of professional expertise has not been done, although different aspects of the profession have been dealt with in the literature relatively thoroughly. The importance of digital environments for social work practices and client relationships was strongly emphasized in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (Nordesjö and Scaramuzzino, 2023; Pink et al., 2022; Romakkaniemi et al., 2023).

Digital transformation as a professional challenge for social work

Digital social work professional expertise, which utilizes technological tools and digital platforms in the provision of social services, has quickly turned into a central part of social work practices. This development reflects broader societal changes such as digitalization and technological development. The effects of technological innovations are visible not only in everyday life but also in professional practices and society’s service systems.

Society is a whole in which different parts – social institutions, norms, and practices – form functional structures whose balance and functionality depend on cooperation and adaptation. Digital social work is a part of this social system, and its changes reflect wider societal adaptation and reactions to the changes brought about by technology (López-Peláez et al., 2023). It has been stated that social work as a professional system is at the intersection of accelerating digitalization and social program transformation, which comprehensively affects research, education, and practices in the field (López Peláez et al., 2025).

The effects of digitalization on social work as a profession built on research, education, and practical work and as a field of expertise have not been greatly examined. The focus of the research has been the impacts of digitalization on work practices. A more comprehensive approach is represented by analysis that pays attention to the necessity of theorizing about digitalization in social work and emphasizes the perspective of appropriate research and education in the development of digital social work (Castillo de Mesa, 2021; López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós, 2018; Steiner, 2021). Appropriate education is not reduced to achieving sufficient digital skills.

As global transformation, digitalization shapes the professional requirements in a similar way in all professional fields and in different social conditions, enabling meaningful sharing of good practices both within and across professions. However, each profession also has its own specific area of responsibility, which sets professional-specific expectations and challenges for the use of digitalization.

So far, there is little empirical research on artificial intelligence (AI) implementations and strategies in the social sector (Garkisch and Goldkind, 2024). The social sector has not progressed as quickly in utilizing AI as, for example, healthcare, because the knowledge base and professional expectations are different. Child welfare workers, as a case in point, expect AI to provide contextual information about interactions with clients, rather than speculative predictions about future impacts (Lehtiniemi, 2024). In general, algorithms relevant to social work are primarily oriented to social justice and human rights (Goldkind, 2021).

With the digital transformation, new forms of vulnerability and client groups are encountered in social work. The industry should be able to identify the new marginal conditions of work and customer groups, take them into account in research, and reform training accordingly. Employees are required to restructure knowledge and learn new skills needed in the profession, which in turn requires further training as needed, but often also self-study and self-directed learning (Havnes and Smeby, 2014). In many countries, work guidance plays a fundamental role in the development of professional competence needed in social work (Warwick et al., 2023).

We can talk about the social work traditions of different countries which are connected to country-specific economic, social, cultural, and political factors. Diversity concerns social work practices, educational structures, methods, and resourcing, curriculum standards, profession-defining legislation and ethical codes, and the degree of professionalization, and reflect country-specific external conditions (IASSW/IFSW, 2020). In the traditions, there are considerable differences in the views of social work and of the task, professional expertise, the training required by the qualification, and the research carried out in the field.

Examining the impacts of digital transformation on social work as an integrative functional system requires paying attention to both new forms of vulnerability and social exclusion in social work’s clientele, as well as the demands of changing professional expertise and their reflections in the field’s work practices, research, and training. Like other specialist professions, in social work ‘lifelong learning and ongoing professional development is part of being a professional’ (Havnes and Smeby, 2014: 915), and the effects of digital transformation in social work are justified in being considered as a question of professional development.

Social change with digitalization creates functional contradictions between the practices and goals of social work. The effects of digital processes on the work practices of social work have been examined in terms of client groups, service structures, and general organizational conditions that support digitalization, such as rules and guidelines for the use of digitalization (Klinger et al., 2022). It has been stated that ‘technology-mediated methods and approaches often operate dangerously close to compounding existing power relations and oppressions’ (Taylor-Beswick, 2023: 58). The digitalization of social work, especially online client work, sets new boundary conditions for the client relationship and raises new ethical and legal aspects, the consideration of which is an important part of changing expertise and professionalism.

New forms of vulnerability and the changing professional requirements of social work

In aging societies, extensive attention has been paid to the risks of digital exclusion of senior citizens such as limited access to social relationships, necessary information, and online services including welfare services (Friemel, 2016; Mubarak and Suomi, 2022; Neves and Vetere, 2019; Seifert et al., 2018; Wanka et al., 2023). In social work research, much attention has been paid to the digital challenges of belonging and participation of senior citizens (Kuoppamäki et al., 2022).

In social work, information intensity can be seen both as a change in clients’ living conditions and as new professional requirements for social workers. It has been found that platforms that enable digital contact between the client and the social worker both support and challenge the traditional goals and values of social work in many ways, and it has been concluded that ‘social work, both as practice field and as research field, needs to be aware of how the socio-technical assemblages in these platforms have political impacts and influence practices in unintended ways’ (Aasback, 2022: 360–361).

The emergence of digital social work reflects this adaptation process where traditional social work practices have changed to meet the demands of a digital society which can be seen, for example, in how social workers use digital tools such as electronic client information systems, video conferencing, and digital communication in their client contacts (Nordesjö et al., 2021). Digital social work can be seen as a functional change that enables the flexibility and efficiency of social work to grow in a digitizing society.

Digital work offers new ways to reach clients, improve the availability of services, and offer innovative solutions to social problems. At the same time, however, it challenges traditional forms of social work and requires professionals to have new skills and technological literacy. For example, the use of digital tools may weaken the importance of face-to-face encounters and reduce the human side of the relationship between the client and the social worker (Nordesjö and Scaramuzzino, 2023; Romakkaniemi et al., 2023). It is important to consider how well digital social work can fulfill traditional social work functions such as meeting clients, building trust, and deepening interaction.

Digital inclusion/exclusion as social inclusion/exclusion

Preventing and alleviating social exclusion is traditionally the core task of social work. A new form of vulnerability is represented by those citizens who are in danger of being marginalized and whose conditions for integrating into society have weakened because of social transformation. Digital exclusion is a complex, multidimensional, and in many ways a case-by-case phenomenon, the mitigation of which ‘requires regional institutions and local communities to collaborate in an integrated governance framework’ (Wilson-Menzfeld et al., 2024: 1).

The prevention and alleviation of exclusion can be positively worded as the promotion of inclusion – educational and working life inclusion, interpersonal inclusion, and inclusion as a citizen. In today’s world, digital inclusion is defined as the main component of social inclusion (Reisdorf and Rhinesmith, 2020) and, accordingly, alleviating digital exclusion to promote digital inclusion (Nguyen, 2022; Zelenev, 2023). In addition, the aim of the inclusion policy is also to strengthen interpersonal, institutional, and civic participation in a wider area.

Digital exclusion exposes individuals to social exclusion (Helsper, 2012, 2017; Park, 2022; Park and Humphry, 2019; Reisdorf and Rhinesmith, 2020; Schou and Pors, 2019). In addition to the elderly, other risk groups of digital exclusion and at the same time potential client groups of social work include children in a vulnerable position (Kalenda and Kowaliková, 2020; Kalenda et al., 2023), immigrants (Buchert et al., 2023; Gingrich and Lichman, 2015), and those with poor cognitive performance for various reasons (Tsatsou, 2021).

The connection of digitalization to social exclusion has been examined in scholarly literature from both a macrosocial structural (Kwilinski et al., 2020) and a microsocial individual (Buchert et al., 2023) point of view in different population groups. Attention has been paid especially to the challenges of senior citizens in using new information and communication technology (ICT) (Olsson et al., 2017; Wanka et al., 2023). Social work research has also looked at digitalization-related challenges for the elderly (Kalenda et al., 2023). Research has discussed digital exclusion or the digital divide, which refers to the challenges of citizens’ digital participation and skills in the information society (Scheerder et al., 2017).

In connection with digital exclusion, the term ‘digital divide’ referring to inequality is also used in terms of ‘disparities in ICT access, usage, and outcomes’ (Lythreatis et al., 2022). We also talk about the three levels of the digital divide, of which Level 1 concerns digital skills, Level 2 skills and use, and Level 3 skills, use, and outcomes (Scheerder et al., 2017). With regard to the role of social work, this classification helps to consider which level of the digital divide social work’s expertise focuses on in preventing and alleviating digital exclusion. It is evidently clear that social work interventions in mitigating the digital divide do not primarily focus on citizens’ digital skills and the use of digital devices, but on the social consequences of digital inequality regarding outcomes.

The structural–functional perspective emphasizes the functional contradictions and challenges of digital social work, especially in relation to changes in traditional social work practices, client relationship management, and issues of digital inequality. For digital social work to fulfill the goals set for it and act as part of a functioning social entity, it must develop new methods of operation that combine the opportunities brought by technology (e.g. AI) with the basic values and ethical principles of social work (Reamer, 2023). Preventing and alleviating digital marginalization as a form of marginalization predisposing to social marginalization appears as a new professional task of social work.

The challenges for social work education and research

The digital skills of social workers have generally been found to be weak when considering the appropriate development of digital social work (Taylor-Beswick, 2023). To avoid random and arbitrary use of digital media, it has been emphasized that it should be based ‘on professionals’ digital training, so that they know how to discern under what circumstances, and in what way, it is appropriate to adopt which digital media’ (Castillo de Mesa, 2021: 127). Adequate development of education, on the contrary, requires valid research.

How does digitalization shape the industry’s internal structure and affect its external position in society as a whole? As a professional institution, social work appears as a response to citizens’ needs for social assistance. What kind of research, training, professional expertise, and organization of work practices does this require in the digital age?

The structural–functional research paradigm offers professions and institutions a framework for comprehensive self-reflection of their social mission by combining ‘structural analysis and functional explanation’ (Garner, 2019). It is justified to examine the effects of digital transformation on social work and the welfare sector from the perspective of social work’s social mission.

Competence is produced through high-level education based on research. The up-to-date system and the ability to respond to the constantly renewing challenges of a rapidly changing society require versatile research data and a functioning data production mechanism.

Developments in inequality, changes in the service system, and modifications in the conditions of citizens’ everyday life require social work knowledge production to be able to produce information that serves the development of new social work practices. Although, for example, there is a lot of research on the risks of digital exclusion of the elderly, ‘we still know little about what digital inclusion and exclusion means for older adults’ (Wanka et al., 2023: 178). In addition to mere empirical research data, theory formation that clarifies phenomena and concepts is also therefore needed.

Digital competence is an important skill in all specialist occupations in the information-intensive age, including social work. In social work research, the effects of digitalization on work practices have been emphasized, but the need to consider digitalization in relation to the ‘profession of social work’ as a field of special professional expertise has also been identified (López Peláez and Marcuello-Servós, 2018: 803). An extensive network analysis emphasizes the importance of organizational factors in identifying the social work effects of digitalization (Saukkonen et al., 2024).

Social work is fundamentally an ethical profession in which the ethical perspective structures – or at least should structure – social work research on the effects of digitalization, even though ‘the discussion of ethical foundations is astonishingly marginal in social work discourse when looking at the introduction of digital systems and the problems they can entail’ (Steiner, 2021: 3364). Special attention should be paid to the status and rights of clients whose opportunities to use digital services are limited (Heponiemi et al., 2020).

All modern work development relies heavily on research data. Modern innovation systems emphasize close dialog between researchers, developers, and employees and the conscious mixing of roles. The goal is to promote the production of innovations needed in working life and to improve the targeting of research information to the needs of practical working life by strengthening cooperation between research institutes, developer organizations, and labor organizations (Lundvall, 2007). This is also a challenge for the modern welfare sector and social work as a part of it.

Preventing and mitigating the multiple negative effects of information-intensive transformation in social work requires special social policy and research promoting innovations that develop social work strategies and methods. There has been talk of ‘the hidden costs of digital welfare’ and calls for ‘strategies that prioritize sustainability, equity, and inclusivity in digital welfare systems’ as well as considering ‘the most vulnerable groups’ in particular (Hjelholt, 2022). The traditional work forms of social work still have their place, but alongside them they need a radically new vision of social work’s task field, expertise, and training in the field.

The theoretical self-understanding of the welfare industry includes awareness of the nature and importance of the field, the knowledge base, and the boundary conditions for development. It manifests itself as the ability to defend the legitimacy of the field and develop it with scientifically sound arguments. In an information-intensive society, the updating of the industry’s knowledge base and the willingness of employees to use and produce information in their own work are emphasized. It is not only about the mechanical application of knowledge, but above all about the reflection provided by the knowledge and the possibility for reflective development of the work.

Historically, social work has been a ‘research-based’ profession from the beginning, a characteristic that is emphasized even more in the information-intensive age. The mechanisms and effects of the new type of marginalization created by digital transformation on the everyday life of clients, as well as innovation research that serves to prevent and alleviate marginalization, significantly influence the knowledge production needed in the professional development of social work. Practical employees are required to have the ability to participate in the creation of strategies and the development of work practices in the production of information needed.

ICT development is a significant part of economic and cultural globalization and the internationalization of lifestyles. Digitalization has accelerated the internationalization of both business life and professions (Lee et al., 2019). The social sector has also become strongly internationalized. International exchange of information and other cooperation in the areas of research and education have significantly increased, and with internationalization the interest and need for comparative social policy and social work have grown.

Social work global standards and research in the field in an information-intensive era

Information intensity means new knowledge and skill requirements in all areas of working life. From the perspective of the social sector and well-being expertise, an information-intensive operating environment means two things in particular: appropriate training and focusing research on topics relevant to the development of the field and the necessary occupational skills. It is about creating a functioning innovation system to secure the know-how needed in the development of the professional industry.

Social work education has so many country-specific features that it is not possible to speak of a globally uniform profession. The international standards that define the goals, structures, content, and implementation of education have been aimed at creating unity with the professional requirements of social work (IASSW/IFSW, 2020). By defining the normative basis of education, the standards build a uniform vision of the nature, function, and expertise of the profession. Thus, the standards can be considered as an educational and professional political program of social work.

The standards are balanced in the tension between universally applicable requirements for education and country-specific contextual characteristics. According to the standards the education ‘should be congruent with the Global Definition of Social Work’, which generally characterizes the profession of social work and its knowledge base (IASSW/IFSW, 2014) but also states that the curriculum ‘reflects the core knowledge, processes, values, and skills of the social work profession, as applied in context-specific realities’. Accordingly, the training is required to comply with the professional ethical guidelines for social work (IASSW/IFSW, 2018) in terms of ‘their applicability to context-specific realities’.

Some international scientific journals of social work have presented the history of the birth of the international standards of education (Ioakimidis and Sookraj, 2021) as well as the older historical background (Sewpaul and Jones, 2004). Likewise, the international definition of social work (Ornellas et al., 2018) and the professional ethics documents (Sonnenberg, 2021) have been systematically analyzed and reflected upon. The focus of the global definition of social work has been characterized as ‘holistic’ in the sense of a ‘complex interplay between local and global contexts’ (Borrmann, 2020).

The international standards of social work education do not deal with the general digital transformation common to all countries. The standards also do not highlight the perspective of the development of the social work profession and competence requirements as a special challenge for education and research. However, in accordance with the structural–functional overview, the standards treat social work education as an element of an integrative functional system consisting of research, education, and work practices.

In the Finnish social work research program (Forssén et al., 2011) the following are mentioned as special social work research themes related to digitalization:

Organization of welfare work, work practices, and competence requirements in an information-intensive operating environment;

Identifying and considering clients’ everyday knowledge and experiences in services;

Professional education needed in the social sector;

Social care information management and information systems in social work organizations;

Work documentation and reporting;

Innovations applying information technology and information creation in the social sector offered by information technology;

Processing of information-intensive professional practices, utilization of information technology, and pedagogical applications in professional education;

The effects of information society, displacing mechanisms, and polarization effects on clients’ everyday life;

Meta-analyses of research carried out in the field of well-being, the knowledge base of the field, and the mechanisms for generating information.

It should be noted that even though it is a national research program the points raised seem to be universally applicable.

The research program does not explicitly mention research on ethics and citizens’ rights related to digital inclusion/exclusion. Even internationally it is a widely neglected aspect in the discussion and research about digital social work (Steiner, 2021). The basic task of social work is to alleviate marginalization and strengthen inclusion. From the point of view of social work, digital marginalization appears in a fundamental way as a limitation of inclusion and participation. The aspect of digitalization of society and social work should also be considered in the Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles (IASSW/IFSW, 2018).

Conclusion

The structural–functional theory of professions provides a suitable framework for examining the impact of digitalization on social work as a holistic professional system consisting of research, research-based education, and the professional expertise based on appropriate education to fulfill the social mission that social work exists for. The information-intensive era places new demands on all professional systems, including social work.

Despite country-specific features, the challenges posed by the information-intensive era for the development of social work as a profession and as a field of professional expertise are largely common. Responding to them requires planned international cooperation in addition to national efforts. It would be desirable to integrate social work research into national innovation systems and programs. Appropriately meeting the challenge of digitalization also requires the contribution of the international research community in social work.

National research programs and international research cooperation contribute to appropriate professional development in the field. To support both national and international efforts, an international principal program defining social work as a research field in the information-intensive era, like the global definition of social work, the professional ethical code, and education standards shared by IASSW and IFSW, is needed.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Juha Hämäläinen

Ethical approval

Research ethical standards were adhered to throughout the study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the project REFRESH – Research Excellence For REgion Sustainability and High-tech Industries, hosted by the University of Ostrava and the Technical Unversity of Ostrava and co-funded by the European Uninion and the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, reg.no. CZ.10.03.01/00/22_003/0000048.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Statement on AI

Google Translator was used for some parts of the manuscript to check for grammatical and conceptual accuracy.

Author biographies

Juha Hämäläinen’s research areas are social welfare and social work from various angles, including, for example, child welfare policy, social pedagogy, and professional expertise.

Jari Lindh’s research areas are related to social rehabilitation, the labor market citizenship of people with disabilities, and the expertise of social work with recent focus on discretion in disability social work.

References

Aasback

(2022) Platform social work – A case study of a digital activity plan in the Norwegian welfare and labor administration. Nordic Social Work Research 12(3): 350–363.

Barlybaev

Ishnazarova

Sitnova

(2021) Quality of life of the population: The impact of digitalization. E3S Web of Conferences 295: 01034.

Borrmann

(2020) The holistic focus of social work: The interdependence of global, national, and local perspectives in the global definition of social work. Social Development Issues 42(1): 44–54.

Brekke

Anastas

(eds) (2019) Shaping a Science of Social Work: Professional Knowledge and Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Buchert

Kemppainen

Olakivi

, et al. (2023) Is digitalisation of public health and social welfare services reinforcing social exclusion? The case of Russian-speaking older migrants in Finland. Critical Social Policy 43(3): 375–400.

Castillo de Mesa

(2021) Digital social work: Towards digital disruption in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 48(3): 117–133.

Castillo de Mesa

(2023) Digital social work: Strategies to incorporate digital media into practice and research. In: López Peláez

Suh

S-M

Zelenev

(eds) Digital Transformation and Social Well-being: Promoting an Inclusive Society. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 68–80.

Evetts

(2014) The concept of professionalism: Professional work, professional practice and learning. In: Billett

Harteis

Gruber

(eds) International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-based Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 29–56.

Forssén

Hämäläinen

Juhila

, et al. (2011) Sosiaalityön valtakunnallinen tutkimusohjelma. Rovaniemi: Valtakunnallinen sosiaalityön tutkimusverkosto Sosnet. [National Research Programme for Social Work].

10.

Friemel

(2016) The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media and Society 18(2): 313–331.

11.

Fry

(2019) Theories of professions and the status of teaching. In: Zepeda

Ponticell

(eds) The Wiley Handbook of Educational Supervision. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 75–100.

12.

Garkisch

Goldkind

(2024) Considering a unified model of artificial intelligence enhanced social work: A systematic review. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 10: 23–42.

13.

Garner

(2019) Structural functional theory. In: Ritzer

Rojek

(eds) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1–4 (online).

14.

Gingrich

Lichman

(2015) The empirical measurement of a theoretical concept: Tracing social exclusion among racial minority and migrant groups in Canada. Social Inclusion 3(4): 98–111.

15.

Goldkind

(2021) Social work and artificial intelligence: Into the matrix. Social Work 66(4): 372–374.

16.

Granholm

(2016) Social work in digital transfer – Blending services for the next generation. Mathilda Wrede Institute Research Reports 1/2016. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

17.

Havnes

Smeby

J-C

(2014) Professional development and the profession. In: Billett

Harteis

Gruber

(eds) International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-based Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 915–954.

18.

Helsper

(2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory 22(4): 403–426.

19.

Helsper

(2017) The social relativity of digital exclusion: Applying relative deprivation theory to digital inequalities. Communication Theory 27(3): 223–242.

20.

Henman

PWF

(2022) Digital social policy: Past, present, future. Journal of Social Policy 51(3): 535–550.

21.

Heponiemi

Jormanainen

Leemann

, et al. (2020) Digital divide in perceived benefits of online health care and social welfare services: A national cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22: e17616.

22.

Hjelholt

(2022) Digitalizing at the Expense of Others: The Hidden Costs of Digital Welfare. Hamburg: Innovative Science Publishers.

23.

IASSW/IFSW (2014) Global definition of social work. Available at: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/global-definition-of-social-work-review-of-the-global-definition/

24.

IASSW/IFSW (2018) Global social work statement of ethical principles. Available at: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/global-social-work-statement-of-ethical-principles-iassw/

25.

IASSW/IFSW (2020) Global standards for social work education and training. Available at: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/global-standards-for-social-work-education-and-training-archive/

26.

Ioakimidis

Sookraj

(2021) Global standards for social work education and training. International Social Work 64(2): 161–174.

27.

Kalenda

Kowaliková

(2020) The digital exclusion of vulnerable children: Challenge for sustainability issues in Czech social work practice. Sustainability 12(23): 9961.

28.

Kalenda

Kowaliková

Gojová

, et al. (2023) The digitalization of social work with vulnerable children and older people in the Czech Republic: A challenge for the future. In: López Peláez

Kirwan

(eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 206–218.

29.

Klinger

Mayr

Sackl-Sharif

(2022) Digitalisierung der Handlungspraxis in der Sozialen Arbeit. Kontrastierungen nach Angebotsstrukturen und Zielgruppen. Qualitative Social Research 23: 2.

30.

Kuoppamäki

Hänninen

Taipale

(2022) Enhancing older adults’ digital inclusion through social support: A qualitative interview study. In: Tsatsou

(ed.) Vulnerable People and Digital Inclusion. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 211–230.

31.

Kwilinski

Vyshnevskyi

Dzwigol

(2020) Digitalization of the EU economies and people at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Journal of Risk Financial Management 13(7): 1–14.

32.

Lee

Y-Y

Falahat

Sia

B-K

(2019) Impact of digitalization on the speed of internationalization. International Business Research 12(4): 1–11.

33.

Lehtiniemi

(2024) Contextual social valences for artificial intelligence: Anticipation that matters in social work. Information, Communication & Society 27(6): 1110–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2234987

34.

López Peláez

Kirwan

(2023) Introduction: Digital social work – Reshaping social work practice in the 21st century. In: López Peláez

Kirwan

(eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work. London: Routledge, pp. 1–10. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003048459/routledge-international-handbook-digital-social-work-antonio-lópez-peláez-gloria-kirwan

35.

López Peláez

Marcuello-Servós

(2018) e-Social work and digital society: Re-conceptualizing approaches, practices and technologies. European Journal of Social Work 21(6): 801–803.

36.

López-Peláez

Erro-Garcés

Pérez

(2023) Digital social work the opportunity of digitalisation: A meta-analysis. In: López-Peláez

Kirwan

(eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 13–25.

37.

López Peláez

Keet

Sung

(eds) (2025) Social Welfare Programs and Social Work Education at a Crossroads: New Approaches for Post-pandemic Society. Abingdon: Routledge.

38.

Lucas

(2007) Structural functional theory. In: Ritzer

Rojek

(eds) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, pp. 4852–4855. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss289

39.

Lundvall

B-Å

(2007) National innovation systems – Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation 14(1): 95–119.

40.

Lythreatis

Singh

El-Kassar

A-N

(2022) The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121359.

41.

Mubarak

Suomi

(2022) Elderly forgotten? Digital exclusion in the information age and the rising grey digital divide. Inquiry: The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing. Epub ahead of print 26 April. DOI: 10.1177/00469580221096272.

42.

Neves

Vetere

(eds) (2019) Ageing and Digital Technology Designing and Evaluating Emerging Technologies for Older Adults. Singapore: Springer.

43.

Nguyen

(2022) Digital inclusion. In: Liamputtong

(ed.) Handbook of Social Inclusion. Cham: Springer, pp. 265–279.

44.

Nordesjö

Scaramuzzino

(2023) Digitalization, stress, and social worker–client relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Social Work 23(6): 1080–1098.

45.

Nordesjö

Scaramuzzino

Ulmestig

(2021) The social worker-client relationship in the digital era: A configurative literature review. European Journal of Social Work 25(2): 303–315.

46.

Olsson

Samuelsson

Viscovi

(2017) At risk of exclusion? Degrees of ICT access and literacy among senior citizens. Information, Communication and Society 22(1): 55–72.

47.

Ornellas

Spolander

Engelbrecht

(2018) The global social work definition: Ontology, implications and challenges. Journal of Social Work 18(2): 222–240.

48.

Otterlei

(2018) What is a profession, and what are the prerequisites for being a profession? In: Örtenblad

(ed.) Professionalizing Leadership. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31–43.

49.

Park

(2022) Multidimensional digital exclusion and its relation to social exclusion. In: Tsatsou

(ed.) Vulnerable People and Digital Inclusion. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 75–93.

50.

Park

Humphry

(2019) Exclusion by design: Intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Information, Communication and Society 22(7): 934–953.

51.

Pink

Ferguson

Kelly

(2022) Digital social work: Conceptualising a hybrid anticipatory practice. Qualitative Social Work 21(2): 413–430.

52.

Reamer

(2023) Artificial intelligence in social work: Emerging ethical issues. International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 20(2): 52–71.

53.

Reisdorf

Rhinesmith

(2020) Digital inclusion as a core component of social inclusion. Editorial. Social Inclusion 8(2): 132.

54.

Relinque-Medina

Álvarez-Pérez

(2024) Socio-digital challenges for social work in the metaverse. The British Journal of Social Work 54(5): 2258–2277.

55.

Rodriguez

(2022) The impact of digitalization on social welfare systems: A comparative analysis. Social Dynamics Review 5(1): 1–8.

56.

Romakkaniemi

Kivistö

Harrikari

, et al. (2023) Emerging opportunities for relationship-based social work? Finnish social workers’ reflections on utilising digital environments during two phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Social Work 27(5): 952–964.

57.

Saukkonen

Elovainio

Salovaara

, et al. (2024) Perceived effects of digitalization on social work in Finland: A network analysis approach. International Social Work 67(6): 1464–1481.

58.

Scheerder

Van Deursen

Van Dijk

(2017) Determinants of internet skills use and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics 34(8): 1607–1624.

59.

Schou

Pors

(2019) Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in digitalised welfare. Social Policy and Administration 53(3): 464–477.

60.

Seifert

Hofer

Rössel

(2018) Older adults’ perceived sense of social exclusion from the digital world. Educational Gerontology 44(12): 775–785.

61.

Sewpaul

(IASSW Chair) and Jones

(IFSW Co-Chair) (2004) Global standards for social work education and training. Social Work Education 23(5): 493–513.

62.

Sonnenberg

(2021) International social work and the global social work statement of ethical principles. In: Sonnenberg

Ghaderi

(eds) Social Work in Post-War and Political Conflict Areas. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 45–64.

63.

Steiner

(2021) Social work in the digital era: Theoretical, ethical and practical considerations. The British Journal of Social Work 51(8): 3358–3374.

64.

Taylor-Beswick

AML

(2023) Digitalizing social work education: Preparing students to engage with twenty-first century practice need. Social Work Education 42(1): 44–64.

65.

Trittin-Ulbrich

Scherer

Munro

, et al. (2021) Exploring the dark and unexpected sides of digitalization: Toward a critical agenda. Organization 28(1): 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420968184

66.

Tsatsou

(2021) Is digital inclusion fighting disability stigma? Opportunities, barriers, and recommendations. Disability and Society 36(5): 702–729.

67.

Turel

Qahri-Saremi

Vaghefi

(2021) Special issue: Dark sides of digitalization. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 25(2): 127–135.

68.

Wanka

Urbaniak

Oswald

, et al. (2023) Digital transformations in ageing societies: Challenges and opportunities for inclusive digitalization. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 56(3): 177–180.

69.

Warwick

Beddoe

Leigh

, et al. (2023) The power of relationship-based supervision in supporting social work retention: A case study from long-term ethnographic research in child protection. Qualitative Social Work 22(5): 879–898.

70.

Wilson-Menzfeld

Erfani

Young-Murphy

, et al. (2024) Identifying and understanding digital exclusion: A mixed-methods study. Behaviour and Information Technology 44(8): 1649–1666.

71.

World Bank Group (2023) Digital progress and trends report 2023. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/digital-progress-and-trends-report

72.

Zelenev

(2023) Promoting digital inclusion. In: López Peláez

Suh

S-M

Zelenev

(eds) Digital Transformation and Social Well-being: Promoting an Inclusive Society. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–22.