Abstract
Introduction
The twentieth century marked a pivotal shift in communication and human connectivity, propelled by the rapid evolution of digital technologies (Schwab, 2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution, a concept introduced by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, refers to an era of profound technological disruption which is expected to have an even greater societal impact than previous industrial revolutions (Dimitrieska et al., 2018).
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, coupled with the disruptions brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, has reconfigured how work is conducted across sectors, including social work. Traditionally grounded in in-person interactions with individuals, families, and communities, the social work profession had to adapt swiftly to include virtual service delivery models. In recent years, social workers have increasingly employed digital tools to improve the effectiveness and reach of their services—ranging from video counseling and social media engagement to cloud-based documentation and mobile communication platforms and integration with AI (Reamer, 2013, 2023). Digital tools offer significant potential to enhance participation and empower service users, aligning closely with the social justice principles central to the profession (Ryan & Garrett, 2018). Lamendola (2019) asserts that integrating technology with conventional social work methods can foster resilient and sustainable support networks.
The COVID-19 crisis accelerated these shifts, compelling social workers to utilize digital service platforms to maintain continuity in supporting vulnerable populations. This broadened the debate on how social work can be delivered more inclusively and effectively beyond the emergency response. A global survey conducted by the Global Social Service Workforce Alliance (GSSWA, 2020) during March and April 2020 revealed a growing consensus among social workers and organizations that digital tools will remain a fixture in post-pandemic practice. However, the study confirmed that this transition has not been without obstacles. Increased workloads, combined with the complexities of remote engagement, have stretched the capacities of both organizations and professionals (GSSWA, 2020). Golightley and Holloway (2020) highlight that restrictions on in-person contact threaten the relational foundations of social work. To retain intimacy, care, and responsiveness, innovations should include platforms that allow service users to access video connections (Pink et al., 2020).
These shifts prompted a review of the core competencies required of social workers, as many gained digital confidence, and virtual practice became a fundamental skill set in both professional training and service delivery. Digital tools expanded access to historically marginalized populations, particularly in remote or underserved areas (Crocetto, 2021). These developments underline the need for a responsive practice framework for hybrid social work—one that can inform training, guide decision-making, and prepare the profession for future crises (Pink et al., 2022).
However, despite these advancements, digital inequality persists as a critical issue in the digital era. An estimated 40% of the global population still lacks Internet access—a statistic that highlights the systemic nature of digital exclusion (Seah, 2020). Those without connectivity or digital skills are excluded from accessing online services, thereby reinforcing existing social disparities. This digital divide not only limits access to virtual social services but also raises broader ethical concerns related to equity and justice in digital contexts.
The pandemic not only magnified longstanding social inequities but also revealed new forms of technological injustice, which Farkas and Romaniuk (2020) argue, require coordinated advocacy efforts. The adoption of digital tools presents a pivotal opportunity for the social work profession to confront and address disparities. Dunlop and Fawcett (2008) emphasize the importance of developing blended advocacy skills—combining traditional and digital approaches—to empower disadvantaged communities and promote equitable access to social services.
This article draws on selected findings from the qualitative phase of a doctoral study (Claassens, 2025) to critically explore digital inequities from the perspective of social work practitioners in South Africa. The research question for the study was: How can a hybrid approach facilitate inclusive social work practice in South Africa? Using Fraser's theory of social justice as an analytical lens, this exploration examines how the dimensions of redistribution, recognition, and representation can inform strategies to bridge the digital divide and support the development of inclusive, equitable, and sustainable hybrid models of social work. While grounded in the South African context, the analysis provides broader insights for practitioners and policymakers seeking to address global challenges of digital inequality. The article concludes by proposing guidelines for a hybrid approach that reflects the practical and policy implications of Fraser's framework. The next section introduces Fraser's theory of social justice, which provides the conceptual framework for the analysis.
Fraser's three-dimensional framework of justice and injustice
Fraser's (2008b) theory of social justice provides a multidimensional framework for understanding and addressing structural inequalities. It focuses on the systemic exclusion of marginalized groups and advocates for equitable inclusion through the interrelated dimensions of redistribution, recognition, and representation across institutional and public spheres (Fraser, 2011; Hölscher & Bozalek, 2020). She builds on and critiques John Rawls's model of distributive justice by arguing that justice must extend beyond the fair distribution of resources (Fraser, 2011). In her view, justice also requires redressing patterns of cultural misrecognition and ensuring equitable political representation (Hölscher, 2014). While Rawls (1999) focuses primarily on distributive fairness through the “difference principle,” Fraser's model offers a more expansive vision of justice. She argues that redistribution must be accompanied by recognition of diverse cultural identities and the political inclusion and representation of marginalized voices in decision-making structures (Hölscher, 2014). These three dimensions are necessary to achieve participatory parity—the central normative principle of her theory—where all individuals have an equal standing to interact as peers in social life (Fraser, 2008a).
In the South African context, the digital divide intersects with inequalities rooted in race, geography, and socio-economic status. It reflects not only material deprivation but also symbolic exclusion and political marginalization (Patel, 2015). As Botha (2016) notes, access to digital technologies is increasingly recognized as fundamental to achieving social justice and enabling human flourishing.
Fraser's three-dimensional theory of social justice identifies and challenges structural inequalities by addressing three distinct but interconnected forms of injustice: economic maldistribution, cultural misrecognition, and political misrepresentation (Hölscher & Bozalek, 2020). These forms of injustice correspond to the three interrelated dimensions of justice—redistribution (addressing economic maldistribution), recognition (addressing cultural misrecognition), and representation (addressing political misrepresentation)—each of which responds to a specific injustice and aligns with fundamental justice questions: the “what,” the “who,” and the “how” (Fraser, 2011).
The economic dimension addresses the “what” question of justice, which focuses on distributive injustices and material inequalities. This level concerns how resources are allocated and seeks to rectify disparities in wealth, access, and opportunity (Fraser, 2011). Fraser (1998) argues for redistribution that takes relational inequalities into account, ensuring all individuals can participate as equals. In the context of digital justice, this includes addressing material barriers through equitable access to technology and services (Dunlop & Fawcett, 2008; Fuchs & Horak, 2008).
The cultural and legal dimensions relate to the “who” question and focus on recognition. It addresses symbolic injustices in which certain groups experience devaluation based on race, gender, or language (Fraser, 2011). Misrecognition results in exclusion from esteem, rights, or full membership of society, reinforcing patterns of inequality (Hölscher, 2014). Fraser (1998) maintains that redistribution cannot be achieved without recognition, particularly where cultural bias intersects with social exclusion.
The political dimension engages with all three justice questions: the “what,” “who,” and “how” (Fraser, 2011). It addresses misrepresentation, where certain groups are excluded from political voice and decision-making processes (Fraser, 2008a). At a deeper level, it critiques misframing, or the ways in which justice claims are delimited—such as the exclusion of noncitizens or marginalized communities from policy debates (Fraser, 2008b). Finally, it interrogates procedural justice, examining how institutional processes either enable or obstruct equal participation (Fraser, 1997, 2011). Across these levels, Fraser (2008b) argues for participatory parity—a condition in which all individuals can interact as social peers on equal footing, requiring the combined redress of redistribution, recognition, and representation. Each dimension is mutually reinforcing; injustice in one area (e.g., digital exclusion) often signals deeper issues across all dimensions. Therefore, social justice is best pursued through a holistic, multidimensional approach that supports structural transformation rather than isolated reform (Fraser, 2011).
In the digital realm, an integrated framework can advance justice by addressing redistribution, recognition, and representation in tandem, as no single dimension on its own can address the complexity of digital inequity. In social work, such an integrated framework calls for hybrid models of service delivery that are technologically viable and socially just. Technologies must be accessible, user-friendly, and beneficial to both practitioners and service users (Afrouz & Lucas, 2023).
Fraser's (2008b) theory provides a critical lens to examine and address these systemic barriers: Redistribution speaks to the unequal access to technological resources; recognition involves addressing cultural misrecognition in digital contexts, especially for marginalized identities, and representation demands inclusive participation in the design and governance of digital platforms.
Applied to social work, Fraser's framework supports the development of hybrid models that are not only technically functional but also ethically responsive. Social workers play a dual role by facilitating technology adoption while challenging the structural inequities that perpetuate the digital divide (Patel, 2015; Reisch, 2016). An integrated justice framework urges the profession to develop inclusive, participatory, and empowering digital services that uphold social justice—especially for marginalized populations.
Research methodology
The research question for the study was: How can a hybrid approach facilitate inclusive social work practice in South Africa? To address this question, the study utilized a mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2014). Guided by a pragmatic paradigm, the design aimed to address the complex issue of digital exclusion in social work (Sefotho, 2021).
The research was exploratory, due to limited existing knowledge on hybrid social service delivery, and descriptive, as it aimed to illustrate how hybrid methods promote inclusion (Doody & Bailey, 2016; Fouché, 2021). A sequential exploratory design structured the study into two phases: an initial qualitative phase, which utilized semistructured interviews (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), and a subsequent quantitative phase, involving an online survey (Creswell, 2014). For this article, the authors draw on findings from the qualitative phase of the study.
Research participants
Nonprobability purposive sampling was used to recruit 22 social workers, supervisors, and managers affiliated with the National Coalition for Social Services (NACOSS), representing the nongovernment sector, and the Department of Social Development (DSD), representing the government sector (Gravetter & Forzano, 2016). Participants’ age distribution ranged from 20 to over 60, with the majority between 30 and 39 years old. Their social work experience spanned from 1 to 28 years, with an average of 11.6 years, indicating a broad range of professional expertise. Participants worked across diverse service areas—often overlapping—particularly in child and family services. These commonly included statutory work, youth care, early childhood development (ECD), gender-based violence (GBV), services for older persons, poverty alleviation, mental health, and disability support. Participants represented urban, semi-urban, and rural settings across all nine provinces of South Africa.
Data collection and analysis
The study adhered to ethical principles, including obtaining ethical clearance from the University of Pretoria (Protocol Number HUM 015/0323). Informed consent was obtained, participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was ensured by using pseudonyms in the form of numbered codes (P1–P22) when reporting qualitative findings (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013), and by storing data in password-protected files.
Data were collected through one-on-one semi-structured interviews that lasted between 1 and 2 hours; all but one were conducted virtually at the participants’ request. The interview guide included open-ended questions aimed at obtaining participants’ views and interpretations of rendering both in-person and technology-supported social services. To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, strategies of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were applied (Claassens, 2025). Qualitative data were thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti data analysis software, which assisted in assigning codes to relevant text, clustering related codes, developing themes, and ultimately categorizing these themes by identifying relationships between them (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
Results
Using Fraser's dimensions of social justice—distribution/maldistribution, recognition/misrecognition, and representation/misrepresentation—as an analytical framework, three overarching themes emerged from the data, highlighting the complexities and implications of the digital divide in social work. Theme one relates to the inequitable access to resources and infrastructure. Theme two focuses on valuing identity, diversity, and lived experience. Theme three addresses voice, participation, and accountability in hybrid practice. Together, these findings reveal how multiple, intersecting forms of inequality shape the digital divide and inform guidelines for more inclusive social work practice in a hybrid context.
Inequitable access to resources and infrastructure
The findings indicate that service users are directly affected by the digital divide in access to fair and equitable social service delivery. As the following subthemes indicate, barriers such as limited access to devices, data, and connectivity highlight the digital injustices and exclusion experienced, as well as the organizational and professional challenges.
Limited access to devices, data, and connectivity
The findings indicate that service users are directly affected by the digital divide in accessing fair and equal social service delivery—such as not having devices, lacking airtime, and limited Internet access. As noted by participant P17, most service users do not have access to data or devices, such as smartphones or computers, and they also lack the means to obtain data. One participant elaborated on the impact of poverty and a lack of basic education of service users, which further excludes them: … we are working with solely people who are in need, people who can't even afford basic airtime […]. Definitely, technology is excluding our service users because some … are illiterate; they still have to get the basics [on technology]. (P14) Connectivity. I think for now that is one of the major, major, major problems we have. (P8)
Digital injustice and social exclusion
Access barriers highlight the digital injustice experienced by service users, as captured by another participant: If our clients, there are some things that [they] are not used to, or there are things that [they] are not able to access, that means we're not going to be doing justice to our clients. (P6)
Findings highlight that the cost of technology and infrastructure is a challenge for social service organizations, which affects the use of technology in service delivery, but also excludes service users. The high cost and unaffordability of technology on service delivery corroborate the findings of a study by Cortis et al. (2021) which reported that during the recent pandemic, nearly three-quarters of organizations stopped offering in-person services and expressed concerns that they could not afford the necessary technology, infrastructure, and training to shift to online service provision.
Organizational and professional challenges
Connectivity is often a challenge for social workers primarily due to limited organizational resources. In many cases, organizations are unable to provide data because of budget limitations, leaving social workers to cover these costs themselves. As a result, they often avoid using data-intensive platforms, which undermines the potential of digital service delivery. As a participant explained: Connectivity—I think that's the other challenge because people will always say that I don't have data because the organisation is not providing. (P15)
Restricted access to technology and infrastructure deepens inequalities in resource allocation, where only some service users can benefit from digital support. Drawing on Fraser's (2008b) social justice theory, this restriction reflects concerns around redistribution and equal participation. By adjusting how services are delivered—such as offering in-person services where digital access is not possible—social workers actively respond to these redistributive imbalances and promote broader inclusion. This practice ensures fair and accessible services, regardless of disparities in access to technology and infrastructure.
These findings support Fraser's call for redistributive justice, highlighting the need for the social work profession to advocate for equitable access to digital infrastructure and resources. Choosing platforms that are widely used—such as WhatsApp—can improve accessibility and encourage greater engagement among service users as a participant states: I think one [platform] that is more often inclusive would be WhatsApp because literally I think almost everyone has WhatsApp on their phone. (P8)
Valuing identity, diversity, and lived experience
The findings highlight how social workers engage with technology in ways that reflect—and at times challenge—the principles of dignity, autonomy, and inclusion. Participants’ accounts revealed both opportunities and limitations in adopting digital tools, particularly in contexts of poverty and inequality. Four interconnected subthemes emerged, which are discussed below.
Service users’ autonomy and choice
The findings indicate that social workers should recognize that valuing the identity of service users affirms their dignity by considering their preferences, respecting diversity and incorporating the lived experiences of marginalized groups. Several participants noted that they generally adapt to the technology preferences of service users, using platforms such as WhatsApp calls and videos. These findings align with research by Mishna et al. (2021, pp. 488, 490), where social workers described adopting a flexible, “client-driven approach” that enabled service users to choose technologies that best meet their needs.
The importance of service user autonomy in choosing whether or not to engage with technology reflects broader shifts in the helping relationship—particularly in the dynamics of power. Respecting service users’ choices aligns with Fraser's (2011) concept of participatory parity, which highlights the need for all individuals to engage equally in social relations and decision-making processes. Achieving this in social work requires that service users not only have the right to participate but also the necessary resources, skills, and autonomy necessary to do so—without feeling dependent or pressured. In the context of digital service delivery, this means ensuring that service users can make informed, independent decisions about whether and how they engage with technology.
Structural barriers and digital exclusion
The findings also show that when service users choose not to use technology, their decision is often shaped by a lack of access to essentials such as devices and mobile data—resources necessary for meaningful participation in digital social work. Furthermore, excluding service users from decisions limits their agency, which is a core element of participatory parity defined by Fraser (2011). Structural challenges, such as poverty and inequality, further restrict access to technology and hinder equal participation. In this context, the digital divide is not merely a technical gap—it becomes a structural barrier that prevents service users from fully exercising their agency in technology-based services. Fraser's concept of participatory parity goes beyond basic access; it calls for the removal of systemic inequalities that hinder full and equal involvement. These findings therefore point to a breach in participatory parity. To uphold social justice, social workers must ensure that service users have the tools and the freedom to make empowered, informed choices about engaging with technology.
Digital literacy and social inclusion
The study's findings further highlight how the digital literacy of service users influences the use of technology in service delivery. Participants reflected on varying levels of digital literacy across different groups. For instance, they observed that older adults often possess lower levels of digital competence compared to other demographic groups. As one participant explains: But the capacity of the person to concern that yes, […]. So, if it's a grandmother, then we don't even need to look at that. We know exactly that we need to do a physical home visit to that person. (P18) … depending on whether you are really educated […] clients who actually not having knowledge on how to use technology. (P21)
From a social justice perspective, these findings caution against an over-reliance on digital platforms in social work, as this risks marginalizing those without adequate digital competence. In South Africa—where bridging the digital divide is central to advancing equity—this underscores the importance of assessing service users’ digital literacy when implementing technology-based practices. This aligns with Fraser's (1998) theory, which centers on participatory parity and equitable redistribution. Fraser (2008b) argues that a just society enables all individuals to participate fully in social life, free from systematic barriers. Her framework recognizes that digital exclusion is often rooted in broader structural inequalities, such as disparities in education, income, and geographical location. An exclusive dependence on digital service delivery may inadvertently entrench these inequalities. Therefore, social workers are encouraged to adopt a hybrid approach that accounts for varying levels of digital literacy, helping to prevent the reinforcement of existing disparities. This approach also reflects Fraser's (2000) concept of recognition, which calls for institutional arrangements that respond to structural exclusion and accommodate diverse needs and capabilities. In doing so, social workers can promote a more inclusive, participatory, and socially just model of service delivery.
Ethical dilemmas in digital practice
A recurring finding in social work practice related to technology is that practitioners often encounter ethical dilemmas in their efforts to deliver services. This supports Ketsamaile's (2023) assertion that social workers operating in digital environments must “remain diligent in upholding ethical principles,” particularly in relation to confidentiality.
An important ethical consideration for social workers using technology is the obligation to promote inclusivity by ensuring that all service users can access the support they need. This aspect of the findings is particularly significant given the study's focus on inclusive practice. Where digital tools present barriers to access, practitioners are ethically compelled to provide in-person services as a viable alternative. This principle aligns with Fraser's theory of social justice, particularly the concept of participatory parity, which emphasizes the need for all individuals to engage equally in social processes—regardless of whether services are delivered online or in person, as previously discussed. One participant captured this commitment to inclusive service delivery by highlighting the importance of adapting methods of engagement to suit service users’ needs—in this instance, children: … it brings up a bit of an ethical thing in terms of access to services that's available. […] the reason why we mainly see children at school, do home visits still, because we cannot […] do online therapy. (P17)
Technology and the helping relationship
Another finding demonstrates that technology has influenced the helping relationship in several ways. A participant noted that it has improved accessibility, bringing social workers closer to service users as “you can reach out whenever you want to […]” (P13). Similarly, participant P19 highlighted that digital platforms enable interaction with service users, thereby improving service provision and engagement. This supports the view of Chan (2016) and Chan and Holosko (2017), cited in Afrouz and Lucas (2023), who argue that digital tools have shifted helping relationships from a hierarchical model to one that is more collaborative and dialogical. Platforms like WhatsApp were regarded as making communication easier and less intrusive. As a participant observed: … if you send them a WhatsApp message, oftentimes a faster way of communicating and it also seems less threatening. (P10)
However, one participant described challenges in online communication, particularly when service users refused to turn on their video cameras or cited poor connectivity: … then you have to ask them, can you turn on your video? And oftentimes, it's that thing of, we have low channel, or the connection is not good, we can't do it. (P9)
Technology's impact on the helping relationship is multifaceted. While it opens up new opportunities for engagement and empowerment, social workers must remain attentive to power dynamics rooted in broader inequalities. Fraser's theory of social justice underscores how structural barriers can result in exclusion and imbalance—issues that remain relevant in digital contexts (Hölscher & Bozalek, 2020). Digital tools have the potential to redistribute power and offer greater flexibility to service users. As Hooley (2012) argues, technology can democratize practice and reshape relationships beyond traditional constraints.
Most participants viewed the impact of technology on the helping relationship positively. However, a critical insight emerging from the findings is the shifting nature of power dynamics. Social workers must remain mindful of how historical inequalities continue to shape practice and consider how technology can contribute to redressing these imbalances.
These findings also highlight the importance of cultural and symbolic recognition when using technology in social work—ensuring that digital practices are not only accessible but also affirming and empowering.
Voice, participation, and accountability in hybrid practice
The findings indicate that those affected by decisions—such as service users and social workers—should have a voice in shaping the systems that impact them by participating in decision-making processes. Participants frequently emphasized the role of mobile phones in facilitating communication with service users, highlighting the speed and convenience of this method. This is consistent with other findings in the study, where participants reported using a range of platforms—including Microsoft Teams, landlines, and email—to engage with both service users and colleagues. As already mentioned, WhatsApp emerged as one of the most widely used platforms, not only among social work colleagues but also for connecting with service users. As a participant noted: … [it is] better to communicate with WhatsApp as colleagues. Even with clients sometimes …. (P15) … [we were] not allowed to use WhatsApp with clients because we are using our own personal phone. (P6) I may not use WhatsApp for calls. I may just use [my] cell phone and landline. (P14)
This aspect of the findings highlights broader issues of unequal resource allocation, as well as the political dimension of exclusion described by Fraser—particularly, the ways in which organizational rules can limit access to essential communication technologies (Hölscher, 2014). Organizational policy plays a crucial role in enabling or constraining inclusive service delivery. Revising such policies to support the safe and ethical use of platforms like WhatsApp could significantly improve access for service users, especially those who face network challenges or lack alternative forms of digital communication.
Equity, inclusion, and ethical dilemmas
A key ethical issue raised by participants was the obligation to ensure equitable access to services. If digital platforms risk excluding certain individuals—due to a lack of access, affordability, or digital literacy—then social workers are ethically obliged to offer in-person alternatives. This concern for inclusion reflects the study's focus on justice and aligns with Fraser's (2008a) concept of participatory parity, which demands that all individuals have equal opportunity to engage in social work processes, whether in digital or face-to-face contexts.
The ethical imperative to adapt service modalities—whether digital or in-person—to users’ needs was reinforced by participants, many of whom expressed concerns about maintaining confidentiality when using technology. Several viewed the safeguarding of confidential information as one of their most critical responsibilities when working online. As one participant reflected: The issue of confidentiality, […] that's a major issue I would attach to the use of technology… I don't know how confidential or to what level […] a very confidential conversation with a client via WhatsApp, that information is protected. (P8)
The need for clear policies and guidelines
Another key finding from the study was the recommendation to develop clear guidelines for implementing hybrid approaches in social work. This echoes scholarly concerns about the absence of standardized protocols for engaging service users via online platforms and social media (Afrouz & Lucas, 2023; Banks et al., 2020; Goldkind et al., 2019). While some participants reported that their organizations had adopted technology-related policies, others were unaware of any such protocols. Reamer (2013) emphasizes that clear guidelines are essential for upholding ethical standards and protecting service users in digital contexts. He further argues that such protocols help resolve ambiguities and minimize ethical challenges and risks in technology-mediated practice.
When asked about existing guidelines, participant P4 explained that their organization primarily relies on the South African legislation, called the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), to regulate the use of technology. He noted that, beyond POPIA, he was not aware of any specific internal guidelines—highlighting a distinction between legislative requirements and organizational policy. Several participants similarly stated that they were unaware of formal policies within their organizations governing the technology use in practice, though they acknowledged that such guidelines may exist or be in development. The absence of a formal policy was justified by one participant on the grounds that online interactions were unusual: We don't have a policy on that because … it's very rare that we see a client online currently. (P1)
These reflections highlight the uncertainties and practical limitations surrounding consent, data protection, and the ethical use of digital tools in the absence of explicit policy frameworks. The participants’ insights align with Fraser's concept of participatory parity which calls for structural reforms that enable marginalized groups to have meaningful representation in shaping digital social work services and governance. In this context, both social workers and service users should be actively involved in developing hybrid models of service delivery. Their participation is essential not only to ensure fairness in the distribution of technological resources but also to recognize and accommodate the diverse needs of all stakeholders. Such inclusive engagement is critical to formulating guidelines that promote equitable and accessible social work practice. In this study, social workers were given the opportunity to contribute to the development of guidelines aimed at enhancing the inclusivity of social service provision. Through the lens of Fraser's social justice framework, the analysis informed guidelines for hybrid practice that are inclusive, including participatory and empowering approaches.
Guidelines for inclusive hybrid practice
Drawing on Fraser's social justice framework, inclusive hybrid social work practice goes beyond access, embracing participation, empowerment, and equitable engagement. It relies on practitioner and organizational readiness, ethical technology use, responsiveness to service users, appropriate intervention choices, and collaborative professional practice. The following guidelines show how these elements can be integrated to ensure hybrid services are inclusive for service users and practitioners.
Foundational requirements for hybrid practice
An inclusive hybrid model depends on readiness at both the practitioner and organizational levels. Social workers must have the digital competence and confidence to engage effectively in technology-assisted interventions. This entails regular assessment of their digital skills, as well as access to appropriate hardware and reliable internet connectivity. Social service organizations, in turn, bear responsibility for ensuring that practitioners receive ongoing professional development in emerging digital tools. Such training should be aligned with ethical standards and social work values, fostering practice that is both effective and socially just.
Organizational support is equally critical in enabling inclusive hybrid practice. Organizational policies must provide clear guidelines on the responsible and ethical use of technology, including procedures for obtaining informed consent in digital contexts, data protection requirements, and the rights of service users in virtual environments. All technological tools and platforms should be inclusive, with a strong emphasis on accessibility for marginalized populations. Social workers have a key role in advocating for systemic change to address digital inequalities—this includes lobbying for infrastructure investment, affordable connectivity, and user-friendly technologies that reflect the needs of diverse communities.
Drawing on Fraser's model of social justice, such advocacy involves efforts toward the redistribution of digital resources, addressing patterns of maldistribution, and promoting participatory parity in digital decision-making. Social workers should be positioned to directly influence policy and practice in ways that confront and redress historical and structural inequities in access and representation.
Upholding professional conduct in a hybrid context
While technology has the potential to improve reach and efficiency, its integration into practice demands more than access—it requires a deliberate, ethically informed, and context-sensitive approach. Social workers’ personal attitude toward technology profoundly influences the successful implementation of hybrid service models. Their digital fluency, openness to innovation, and access to appropriate tools all shape the integration of technology into everyday practice. Geographical location also plays a critical role—practitioners in rural or underserved areas may encounter connectivity challenges, requiring flexible and adaptive approaches to service delivery solutions. Organizations must provide targeted professional development and guidance to ensure practitioners can respond effectively to diverse service contexts. Furthermore, the physical and psychological safety of both social workers and service users must remain central when determining modes of digital engagement.
Centering the service user in hybrid service delivery
Inclusive hybrid practice must place service users at the center, with responsiveness to their needs, preferences, and lived experience as a guiding principle. Service users must have agency in deciding whether to engage through digital or in-person modes, and their autonomy must be respected. Social workers are responsible for assessing barriers to digital access, including Internet availability, availability of devices, and digital literacy. Where such access is limited, in-person services remain essential. Conversely, when service users prefer digital engagement, services should be adapted accordingly to meet those needs. Providing training and support in digital literacy can build service users’ confidence and promote broader participation in society. The choice of service modality must never be influenced by bias based on a service user's age, race, gender, or geographical location. Principles of equity and nondiscrimination are fundamental to inclusive practice. Decisions about service delivery must account for confidentially, as well as physical and psychological safety, ensuring that digital tools do not inadvertently place service users at risk of harm.
Matching the intervention type to the service modality
The choice of service modality should be guided by the nature of the intervention, ensuring that digital or in-person delivery is appropriate for its context. In-person engagement is critical for complex or risk-sensitive interventions—such as trauma counseling, home visits, and family assessments—where direct interactions are necessary for accurate assessment and therapeutic presence. Conversely, technology can enhance service delivery for follow-ups, online counseling, or administrative functions, including assessments and mediation. Flexible digital platforms such as WhatsApp and video conferencing can support continuity of care and help overcome geographic and logistical barriers, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Rather than replacing in-person interactions, technology should be used to complement them—broadening access while preserving the relational foundations of social work.
Enabling collaboration among practitioners
Hybrid models can enhance professional collaboration in social work. Online meetings and online CPD opportunities enable flexible knowledge sharing across geographical locations, improving collective capacity. Online supervision models offer support for practitioners working in isolation, especially those in rural or under-resourced areas. Nonetheless, in-person collaboration remains an essential aspect of practice, including complex decision-making, reflective practice, and team-building. A blended approach that integrates both digital and in-person engagement provides the most robust infrastructure for professional support and development.
Ethical use of technology
The ethical use of technology is non-negotiable in hybrid practice. Social workers must be guided by national regulatory standards—such as the SACSSP Code of Ethics—and ensure strict adherence to protocols on data security, confidentiality, and informed consent. Social service organizations must develop and regularly update ethical guidelines for digital practice, including protocols for safeguarding service user information, securing devices, and maintaining accurate digital records. Service users must be clearly informed about how their data is collected, used, stored, and protected. User-friendly and inclusive technologies must be used—particularly for populations historically excluded from digital access. Lastly, social workers must implement mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and feedback, ensuring that hybrid services remain responsive, ethical, and accountable.
Limitations of the study
The primary limitation of this study was the exclusion of service users, who are directly affected by digital exclusion. As the main recipients of social services, their perspectives are essential to fully understanding the lived realities of the digital divide. While social workers, supervisors, and managers provided valuable insights—including reflecting on service users’ challenges—the findings ultimately represent practitioners’ perspectives rather than those of service users themselves.
Conclusion
Inequities in access, recognition, and participation continue to shape the digital divide in social work, influencing how services are delivered and experienced. Inclusive social work practice must address three key areas: inequitable access to resources and infrastructure, valuing identity, diversity, and lived experience, and ensuring voice, participation, and accountability for both service users and practitioners.
The proposed guidelines offer a framework that is inclusive, ethically grounded, and aligned with the principles of social justice. By integrating digital tools thoughtfully—without compromising the relational essence of social work—social workers can enhance both the reach and effectiveness of their practice while actively challenging structural digital inequities. Fraser's theory of social justice emphasizes that inclusive practice must simultaneously address redistribution, recognition, representation, and participation. Implemented with care and critical consciousness, a hybrid model can serve as a vehicle for more just and inclusive social work practice.
Footnotes
Ethical Consideration
To ensure that the rights of participants were respected and protected, the author(s) followed the Faculty of Humanities’ application process to obtain ethical approval and clearance from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Pretoria before embarking on the study. On 3 April 2023, the authors obtained ethical clearance (HUM015/0323) from the Ethics Committee to commence with the study.
Informed consent
In this study, all participants were required to sign informed consent forms before data collection began. The informed consent letter provided information about the researcher, the title and objectives of the study, and the research procedures followed in the study. It also outlined the potential risks, discomforts and benefits of participation, as well as the participants’ rights to decline or retract from the study at any time. The letter informed participants about the recording of interviews and the measures taken to protect the collected data. These details enabled participants to make an informed decision about their participation in the study. The informed consent also granted the researcher permission to use the collected data for the doctoral thesis, conference presentations, journal or book publications, and future research.
Consent to participate
Participation in this study was voluntary. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty and to decline to answer any questions they did not wish to answer. They were given the opportunity to ask questions before participating and were informed of their right to access the data collected during the interview process.
Consent for publication
Participants provided informed consent for the publication of anonymized data from the study. All identifying information was removed, pseudonyms were used, and findings are presented in a manner that prevents identification of individual participants.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by the UCDP grant to cover PhD-related costs from the University of Pretoria.
Declaration of conflicting interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
A summary of the data (thematic categories) supporting the findings of this study has been deposited in the University of Pretoria's Figshare repository, a publicly accessible research data archive. However, the dataset, including the anonymized survey responses and qualitative interview transcripts, is not available due to the confidentiality agreement with participants. To access the summarized dataset, please visit 
.
Writing assistance and third-party submissions
For editing, the authors used Grammarly, an AI-based language tool, to enhance clarity, grammar, and readability; however, the authors remain responsible for all substantive content and interpretations.