SOCIAL WORKERS’ PERSPECTIVES REGARDING THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

PLATFORMS AND ITS IMPACT IN THEIR PRACTICE

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

by

Kaarteeka Prasad

SPRING 2020

© 2020

Kaarteeka Prasad

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

SOCIAL WORKERS’ PERSPECTIVES REGARDING THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

PLATFORMS AND ITS IMPACT IN THEIR PRACTICE

A Thesis

by

Kaarteeka Prasad

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Maria Dinis, Ph.D.

______, Second Reader Serge Lee, Ph.D.

______Date

iii

Student: Kaarteeka Prasad

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and this thesis is suitable for electronic submission to the library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Program Director ______Tyler M. Argüello, Ph.D. Date

Division of Social work

iv

Abstract

of

SOCIAL WORKERS’ PERSPECTIVES REGARDING THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

PLATFORMS AND ITS IMPACT IN THEIR PRACTICE

by

Kaarteeka Prasad

This study explored how social media platforms impact social workers in their field of practice. The study utilized a quantitative survey research design that asked participants to respond to questionnaire items using a Likert scale. Participants (n=30) were selected via convenience and snowball sampling and were asked to respond to survey question items regarding their perspective towards using social media networking sites. Data analysis showed that there was only one statistically significant association between field practice experiences and practitioners who used social media to find evidence to use for professional work purposes. Implications for the social work practice and policy are discussed.

______, Committee Chair Maria Dinis, Ph.D

______Date

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my parents, Jagdish and Chandra Prasad. There are no that can express my gratitude for the support, guidance, and encouragement you have provided me throughout my education. Thank you for being my pillars of strength. To my siblings: Shiu, you have provided me with all the I needed and more to complete my assignments. Keshri, you have always been my confidant and reminded me of my strengths. Keshaw, you have provided me with all my favorite snacks continuously such as Hot Cheetos, Cookie Dough ice cream, Rockstar energy drinks, and other junk foods to help me get through those long nights. All of you have encouraged me to move forward whenever I felt like giving up. I love all of you always.

To all my field instructors, task supervisors, and supporting staff: Mia, Kelly,

Adriana, Lora, Mercedes, Nina, Patrice, and Oxana, I have gained a deeper understanding and invaluable experience of the social work profession through your supervision. All of you have pushed me to think outside of the box. Thank you!

I would like to offer my appreciation to my advisor Dr. Maria Dinis who helped me from the beginning to the end of all stages of my thesis. Thank you for your quick responses and depth feedback. This thesis would not have been successful without you.

Thank you! I would also like to offer my appreciation to Dr. Serge Lee who accepted to be my 2nd reader. Your assistance was a milestone in the completion of this thesis.

Thank you!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgements ...... vi

List of Tables ...... x

List of Figures ...... xi

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………. 1

Background of the Problem ...... 3

Statement of the Research Problem ...... 6

Purpose of the Study ...... 7

Research Question ...... 7

Theoretical Framework ...... 7

Stages of Moral Development ...... 8

Application of Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory ...... 10

Definition of Terms...... 12

Assumptions ...... 13

Justifications ...... 13

Delimitations ...... 15

Summary ...... 15

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 16

Historical Background of and Social Media ...... 16

vii

Communication in Prehistoric Times ...... 17

Communication in the Form of Pictographs and Ideograms ...... 18

Communication from the to the 20th Century ...... 19

Communication in Modern Times ...... 20

Confidentiality in the Helping Professions ...... 22

Human Trafficking...... 26

Human Trafficking via Technology...... 29

Effects of Social Media and School ...... 31

Electronic Communication in Social Work Practice ...... 33

Other Uses for Social Media Platforms ...... 35

Gaps in the Literature...... 36

Summary ...... 40

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 41

Research Question ...... 41

Research Design...... 41

Quantitative Approach ...... 42

Exploratory Study ...... 43

Survey Research ...... 43

Variables ...... 45

Study Population ...... 46

Sample Population ...... 46

Instrumentation ...... 47 viii

Data Gathering Procedures ...... 49

Data Analysis ...... 50

Protection of Human Subjects ...... 50

Summary ...... 52

4. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 53

Demographics of Study Participants ...... 53

What are social workers’ perspectives regarding the use of social media

Platforms and their impact on their practice?...... 58

Summary ...... 75

5. CONCLUSION ...... 76

Summary ...... 76

Discussion ...... 77

Implications for Social Work Policy and Practice ...... 80

Recommendations ...... 81

Limitations ...... 83

Conclusion ...... 86

Appendix A. Participation Confirmation / Letter of Informed Consent ...... 87

Appendix B. Data Collection ...... 89

Appendix C. Human Subjects Committee Approval Letter ...... 94

References ...... 95

ix

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page

1. Protective Services Worker Use of Social Media Platforms vs.

Social Workers in Other Agencies Age of Participants ...... 59

2. Locating AWOL client(s) vs. Field of Practice Experience ...... 60

3. Social Workers Believe there are Privacy and Confidentiality Issues

Related to Social Media Networking vs. Field of Practice Experience ...... 62

4. Worker’s Information from Social Media Platform(s) vs. Field

of practice...... 64

5. Field of Practice Experience vs. Social media has Positively Affected

Work with Client(s)...... 65

6. Social Media Positively Affected Practice vs. Having the Same Social

Media Network ...... 67

7. Search Client Before Working with Them vs. Field of practice

experience ...... 68

8. Biases After Viewing a Client(s) Social Media Platform(s) vs. Field

of Practice ...... 69

9. Locating CSECY vs. Field of Practice ...... 71

10. Social media platforms and decision-making vs. Field of practice ...... 72

11. Social Media Platforms for Professional Work vs. Search

Client Before Working with Them ...... 74

x

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page

1. of Experience of Participants…...………………………………………....55

2. Education Degree of Participants ………………………………………………..55

3. Participants Field of Experience. …………….……………………………….....56

4. Type of Social Media Platforms Used ...….……………………………………..56

5. Working with Different Age Groups and Other Agencies………………………57

xi

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Social networking platform usage has become a vital part of the lives of most people regardless of age in today’s society. There are advantages of using social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and blogs to help individuals stay connected globally with family and friends and give frequent updates regarding their daily activities. In addition, social networking platforms can alert individuals to information quickly, which is useful in an emergency. However, social networking sites can also destroy how a person views themselves as as others, their career, and/or their relationships with other individuals. The researcher is interested in understanding how policies and regulations currently affect social workers when they are following their

“gut” feeling and searching for information regarding their clients on social media platforms. Moreover, it is important to recognize whether current policy and guidelines need to be upgraded and/or clarified due to the advanced growth of online communication.

After interning at child protective services (CPS), this researcher has witnessed the benefits and ramifications of utilizing social media platforms to surveil clients. For example, parents who violated the safety plans put in place have their children removed from the home and taken into custody. As months went by in one case, the mother completed her court ordered services. According to the caseworker, the mother was engaged and compliant in all her alcohol and other drugs (AOD) and counseling classes, thus successfully moving towards reunification with her children. However, the

2 caseworker sensed something was not right and took the risk of violating the client’s right of privacy to conduct a search of the mother on a social networking site. The caseworker discovered that the mother had remarried. The caseworker completed a background check on the new spouse, which revealed a lengthy criminal history including felony, robbery, spousal abuse, and possession and selling of illegal substances, and was affiliated with a known gang in the local area. The evidence collected from the mother’s social media site was used as evidence in court.

This is one case of many in which a social media networking site was used as a surveillance technique and assisted the social worker in protecting children from further trauma. After the Supreme Court ruling of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of

California, social workers are obligated to warn a potential victim if they believe their client presents an imminent threat to that individual (as cited in Bowers, Givelber &

Blitch,1986). But threats are not always expressed verbally and cases involving individuals who have a disability or are too young to communicate can be challenging for caseworkers. Based on data collected from all 50 states, the National Child Abuse and

Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported that an estimated 1,720 children died nationally from abuse or neglect in federal fiscal 2017 (as cited in Child Welfare

Information Gateway, 2019).

Social media platforms can be to help individuals and families quickly receive or give updates regarding their overall physical, emotional, social, and mental health. However, communicating or making contact via social networking sites can cause ethical issues which put social workers and/or clients at risk. To avoid such risks,

3 agencies need to update and enhance their policies concerning the use of social media in their field of practice (Voshel & Wesala, 2015). For the purpose of this research, the terms social media platforms and social networking sites will be used interchangeably.

Background of the Problem

In this section, the researcher will briefly discuss ethical dilemmas of using social networking sites; however, more depth will be added in Chapter 2 (Review of Literature) as it is a large topic and the focus of this study. The researcher will address three primary matters related to the dilemma of using social media platforms: 1) surveillance; 2) direct messaging; and 3) being searchable/accessible. Social media platforms have grown rapidly since the early 2000s (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019). Social workers are now using technology such as video counseling, email chat, social networking websites, text messaging, avatar-based websites, and other technology to provide clinical services to clients (Reamer, 2015a). But some practitioners use social media platforms with clients within a surveillance paradigm (Byrne, Kirwan, & McGuckin, 2019).

The first issue is surveillance. Some practitioners believe that searching for clients on social media crosses an ethical boundary for the social worker, while others believe that sometimes it is necessary to conduct an online search regarding the client where risk is considered to be high, particularly in child protection work or safeguarding vulnerable individuals (Byrne, Kirwan, & McGuckin, 2019). Thus, the question as posed by Reamer

(2015b): “With all due respect to Shakespeare and Hamlet, we must ask: To google or not to google? That is the question” (p.1).

Research suggests that child welfare workers are more prone to use online

4 searches than those in other fields of social work because investigating clients’ private lives is sometimes needed (Byrne, Kirwan, & McGukin, 2019). A study conducted by

Breyette and Hill (2015) revealed that out of 136 respondents 86.8% reported that they never use social media directly with clients, 8.1% reported that they rarely use social media directly with clients, and 4.4% reported that they sometimes use social media directly with clients. Sage, , Sage, and Devlin (2017) conducted a survey of 171 child welfare workers regarding their use of social media in their direct-practice with their clients which revealed that 53% of workers stated social media was acceptable to use in some situations to search for a client, such as a missing parent. But this is apparently not rogue behavior, as 56% of child welfare workers stated that their supervisors gave them permission to search for clients using social media for work- related purposes (Sage, Wells, Sage, & Devlin, 2017).

Social workers may be unsettled when deciding whether to use online technology in relation to their clients. Reamer (2015a) writes that digital, online, and other electronic have created ethical dilemmas and risk issues for practitioners involving client and practitioner privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, conflicts of interest, boundaries and dual relationships, consultation and client referral, termination and interruption of services, documentation, and research evidence. There are several different perspectives related to social workers using social media platforms in their practice. In addition, social work practitioners must be cautious to protect their own information by leaving out identifying factors such as their , and instead use a pseudonym as an alternative.

5

The second issue is direct messaging/contact. According to Strom-Gottfried,

Thomas, & Anderson (2014), online with clients inherently generates a risk of crossing boundaries and, eventually, there are violations produced under the

National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics. In addition, social workers who communicate with or search for clients through social media networking sites may learn unnecessary details of the client’s personal life which may create unintended biases for the social worker who may have difficulty ignoring those biases when working with the client (Strom-Gottfried, Thomas, & Anderson). Likewise, when clients discover personal material online regarding their social workers, it can change the client and professional relationship.

The third issue is being searchable/accessible. A study conducted with young medical school graduates regarding their personal use of Facebook revealed that 82 out of

138 accounts were not closed to the general public, thus clients are able to view their personal information (MacDonald, Sohn & Ellis, 2010). This study also found that of those accounts 43% revealed relationship status, 46% showed photographs of the users drinking alcohol, and 10% showed pictures of the users intoxicated (MacDonald, Sohn &

Ellis). In regard to social workers, their personal information could be easy to access for clients and others, depending on the privacy settings of the user. Thus, given the ubiquitous of social media and content posted online by users, it is recommended that social work professionals use thoughtful reflection concerning likelihood of ethical dilemmas that may appear due to the type of information posted and the degree of self- disclosure (Tunick, Mednick, & Conroy, 2011).

6

However, there are why social workers should use social media platforms and other online technology. Social workers may need to use social networking sites to upholds their responsibility towards their clients. Due to the nature of this profession, when working with clients (children, adolescents, adults) unique issues may arise concerning the protection and safety of those clients. For example, according to O’Brian,

White, and Rizo (2017), adolescents with a history of domestic minor sex trafficking

(DMST) victimization reported having run away from their home or placement. Also, children and youth who use digital technology are at risk of being involved in cyberbullying as a victim, bully, or both bully and victim (Betts, Spenser, & Gardner,

2017). Therefore, practitioners might need to use online resources available to them for communicating with or surveilling their clients.

Statement of the Research Problem

The research problem is that current professional policies and guidelines concerning social media platforms are still vague, and therefore social workers may be uncertain whether to search for clients even though safety or wellbeing of the client is in question. Although the National Association of Social Workers revised their code of ethics in 2017 (National Association of Social Workers, 2020) to include the use of social media and other technology regarding practitioners and clients, it remains ambiguous whether social workers are able to utilize social media platforms when necessary in their practice “ethically” and not be considered to be crossing boundaries. These are significant issues to understand if social work is able to differentiate between crossing boundaries and the duty to clients.

7

Purpose of the Study This study is designed to better understand social workers’ perspectives regarding their use of social media platforms and the positive or negative impact it may cause in the field of social work. The further purpose of this study is to understand social workers’ judgments and their views on ethical practice and upholding boundaries using social media regarding their clients. The findings from this study may further illuminate the risks and limitations social workers face in successfully completing and closing their cases. This study might be beneficial for educators to inform future social workers regarding using social media platform in their practice as a tool and policymakers regarding if there is a need for either policy change or a policy that needs to be implemented.

Research Question

This study is focused on exploring the following research question: What are social workers’ perspectives regarding the ethical use of social media platforms and its impact in their practice?

Theoretical Framework

The underlying principles of Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development theory help to inform this research study. The theory will be described in the following section, and then be applied to a discussion of how individuals make decisions regarding ethical dilemmas.

8

Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s study expanded on Jean Piaget’s earlier work on moral development

(McLeod, 2013). Morality, as stated in the APA dictionary (2020), “is a system of beliefs or set of values in the matter of correct conduct, against which behavior is determined to be acceptable or unacceptable” (p.1). Kohlberg studied moral reasoning by posing hypothetical dilemmas and examining the reasoning behind individual responses to children of different ages (Olson, 2011).

A well-known dilemma that Kohlberg used in his study involved a man named

Heinz (McLeod, 2013). Heinz’ wife was diagnosed with cancer and the doctor believed there was one dug that would be able to save her. However, Heinz was not able to buy the drug because the pharmacist was charging ten times more than the drug cost to make.

Heinz took the legal route to borrow money but still came up short. He then explained to the pharmacist that his wife was dying and he asked the pharmacist to sell it cheaper or let him pay another time. The pharmacist said no. Heinz then thought about stealing the drug for his dying wife. The primary question asked concerning this hypothetical ethical dilemma is should Heinz steal the drug? Why or Why not? (as cited in McLeod, 2013).

After he reviewed the responses, Kohlberg outlined six different stages of moral reasoning and arranged them within three general levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional (Olson, 2011). The preconventional level is the earliest phase of moral development and consists of two stages: the obedience and punishment orientation stage and the individualism and exchange stage (Olson). At the obedience and punishment orientation stage, the child/individual does what they consider to be right and

9 honest in order to steer clear of being punished (Mcleod, 2013). If the child/individual is punished, it implies they must have done wrong (Mcleod). For example, "One should not steal the cookie from the cookie jar because one will be punished if caught in doing so.”

At the individual and exchange stage, the child/individual is aware that everyone has their own opinions and beliefs which may be right (Mcleod, 2013). Thus, there is more than just one right interpretation of what is perceived to be right. In this stage, the child/individual’s mentality of right or wrong focuses on what the individual believes to be in their best interest and what satisfies their own personal needs or delivers rewards

(Sanders, 2019). An example would be when a student is asked to follow classroom rules.

The student might ask “what do I get in return?” and the teacher will offer the student an incentive such as allowing the student to draw on the white board or giving out stickers.

The conventional level contains stage three, which is good interpersonal relationships, and stage four, which is maintaining the social order (Mcleod, 2013). In stage three, also known as the “good boy-good girl” orientation, children/individuals have a need live up to others’ expectations and do what others would want them to do in order to win their approval (Cherry, 2019). The child /individual’s focus is to be good for the purpose of being seen as a good person by others (McLeod). For example, “One should share one’s cookie with one’s brother because that’s what a good sibling would do.” In stage four, children/individuals follow directions of an authoritative figure such as parents, teachers, law enforcement, etc. to stay within the boundaries of what is thought to be normal “good” behavior (McLeod). For example, “I don’t want to stay home but,

10 due to the stay at home order from the California State Public Health Officer, I will not leave my residence unless it is important.”

The post-conventional level consists of stages five and six. The social contract and individual rights (stage five) suggests that the child/individual becomes mindful there are moments when the rules might work against their interest because problems may not be black or white (McLeod, 2013). For instance, in Heinz’s dilemma, saving his wife’s life outweighs breaking the law and stealing. The protection of life is more important than breaking the law (McLeod). In the universal principles stage (stage six), people do what they feel is right even if there is a conflict with the law (Wilber, 2018). For example, Heinz could follow his conscience, so even if the person was other than his wife such as a stranger, Heinz could steal the drug. Heinz could also go to court to obtain the drug legally for his wife. However, court proceedings could be a long process, and

Kohlberg does not provide the exact time of how long the wife has to live.

Application of Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory

Moral development is a life-long learning process which evolves throughout one’s life cycle (McLeod, 2013). Starting from infancy and carrying through adulthood, moral reasoning is significantly influenced by one’s experiences and their behavior when confronted with discrete, difficult ethical problems through different phases of their physical and cognitive development. Some external factors that affect early moral development include the individual’s age, family background (, beliefs, and values), society, school, and peer group. Therefore, having the sense of judgement will help individuals to make ethical choices.

11

Moral decision making is a crucial element in social work practice. Social workers often encounter ethical dilemmas when working with clients, colleagues, administrators, and community members. They have an obligation to make moral decisions that affect the lives of individuals, families, and communities. Kohlberg's theory of moral development can help social workers achieve better insight when making decisions in their practice. Social workers could apply this theory in their practice by highlighting individual rights, using rules and principles focused on reasoning, and using equality as a way to accomplish social justice (Koeng, Spano, & Thompson, 2020). Like everyone else, a social worker’s decision-making ability depends on their life experiences to understand right vs. wrong.

Moral development theory provides a framework in which to explore and begin to understand how moral reasoning develops within individuals (Sanders, 2019). Social workers may be influenced by social norms, which create a foundation of what is perceived as acceptable behavior. The matter of social workers choosing to search their client via social networking sites or other online technology, may depend on their personal values or beliefs. Therefore, some practitioners may strictly follow policy and guidelines to avoid getting into trouble, whereas others may consider policy and guidelines, but ultimately go with their gut feeling. Moral development theory can be utilized as a lens to assess human behavior and choices made when working with individuals. By focusing on the perspectives of social work practitioners, this research has added potential to assess how social workers might use social medial platforms and other technologies in their practice.

12

Definition of Terms

This section outlines the terms applied within the current study. These terms are defined and briefly described so that readers may understand and know how they are used throughout this research.

Attitude/Perspectives: a certain outlook, belief or emotion towards a particular or matter (APA, 2020).

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC): sexual abuse or exploitation of children and adolescents (Barnert, et al., 2017). This definition also includes youth, and so the acronyms CSEC and CSECY are used interchangeably.

Confidentiality: limiting of the disclosure of a client’s identity, their condition or treatment, and any information entrusted to professionals during assessment, diagnosis, and treatment (APA, 2020).

Cyberbullying: verbally threatening or harassing individuals or groups of people through electronic and online technology such as social media platforms, cell phone calls, e-mail, and text messaging (APA, 2020).

LGBTQ: an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (APA, 2020).

National Association of Social Workers (NASW): an organization of professional social workers, whose purpose is promoting the professional development of its members and setting ethical and professional standards of practice (APA, 2020).

13

Social Media Platforms/Social Networking Sites: forms of electronic communication

(i.e. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) created through users for the purpose of sharing information, ideas, personal messages, and other content such as videos (APA, 2020).

Assumptions

The following assumptions are made in this research study: 1) The participants for this study are all social workers; 2) The participants’ responses to the questionnaires were truthful; 3) Participants have different field of practice experience; 4) The participants may feel uncertain answering some of the questions; 5) Participants have awareness of the concerns of using social media platforms and other online technology in their field of practice; and 6) This study may change social workers viewpoint regarding the use of social media platforms and other online technology in their practice.

Justification

The purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics revised in 2017 by the NASW

Delegate Assembly, is to help guide social workers in making ethical decisions when a

conflict arises in their practice, and to be vigilant when working with clients. It includes

guidelines that could be helpful to social workers deciding whether or not to search their

clients using social media if there are concerns about safety. For instance,

“Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all information

obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional

reasons. The general expectation that social workers will keep information

confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious,

foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person. In all

14

instances, social workers should disclose the least amount of confidential

information necessary to achieve the desired purpose; only information that is

directly relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure is made should be

revealed” (National Association of Social Workers, 2020, para.8).

However this guideline, as the others regarding social media platforms and online technologies, is vague because it does not state what would be considered to be serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person. It is blurred about specific fields such as child welfare. According to Sage and Sage (2016), policy and regulations in child welfare settings concerning the use of social media by practitioners are also vague. For example, a client who shows that they are following court ordered services, but a caseworker has a gut feeling that the client is doing something unlawful.

Would that be a probable to search the client?

The aim of this study is to assess current attitudes and points of view of practitioners in the field of social work. Because online technology is evolving, social workers have the opportunity to expand their toolboxes, but there are potential conflicts.

Practitioners should avoid conducting online searches for information concerning clients without their knowledge or consent unless the practitioner decides that conducting the search is essential to prevent severe harm (Reamer, 2015b). Based on the assumptions, this study can influence social workers who work in child welfare, schools, or mental health settings.

15

Delimitations

This study does not claim that social workers are unable to successfully complete

their work without using social media platforms or other online technologies, but instead

that it can be a helpful resource. Since the subject group was limited to only social work

professionals, the respondents to the survey turned out to be a smaller sample size than

anticipated. Because this is a quantitative study, participants’ responses do not offer any

additional insight and experience regarding their knowledge or awareness of this matter.

It is important to note that the research is limited in its scope.

Summary

Chapter one introduced the topic of this study. A synopsis of the background of the problem, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research question, theoretical framework utilized in examining the topic, definition of terms used throughout the study, assumptions, justification, and limitations were presented. In Chapter two, the literature on the topic will be reviewed, including the history and of online technology and social networking sites and how they are changing the social work profession. This chapter will review the importance of and the ramifications of social media platform websites and include a discussion of the gaps that exist within the literature. Chapter three presents a description of the methodology that was used in this study. In chapter four the data will be analyzed. Chapter five will conclude this study with the summary of the findings and recommendations to help improve future studies relating to this topic.

16

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter will examine the major themes that are present in the literature regarding how technology, the Internet, and social networking sites are transforming in the social work profession both good and bad ways. Since there is a lack of research literature specifically discussing social workers utilizing social networking websites in their practice field regarding clients, the researcher will utilize literature associated with the social work practice and technology in general as an alternative.

First, a history of how social media platforms evolved will be covered. The second section explores the ethical implications of confidentiality and the National

Association of Social Work’s (NASW) guidelines regarding duty to warn. In addition, the usefulness and the detrimental outcomes of utilizing social networking websites will be addressed. The third section explores the importance and the ramifications of social media regarding human trafficking. The fourth section will briefly include a discussion of the due diligence of locating family members in child welfare cases. Lastly, Chapter Two concludes with a discussion of the gaps that exist in the literature as well as how this current study will attempt to enhance existing research. A summary paragraph is also presented.

Historical Background of Communication and Social Media The idea of communicating with others without having access to the internet or smartphones maybe difficult to fathom at this point in time. However, the human species has long had the ability to conversate despite being deprived of the elaborate technology

17 we have today. The historical record of communication dates back to ancient times

(Nguyen, 2019). Communication has been a significant part of human life because it allows individuals to interact with each other by means of receiving or transferring important information. However, before the development of any technology, communication was conceived in a visual form discovered by archeologists in various parts of the world. Eventually, the engraved visual art became more specific and more distinguishable in terms of what the message was portraying. In due course, communication has evolved over time with the use of technology and tools. Thus, the historical background will explore how communication has been revolutionized from ancient times to the modern day in three parts: prehistoric times, pictographs and ideograms, and modern communication.

Communication in Prehistoric Times

Humans are social beings and have conversated with one another before any technology was created. In prehistoric times, before writing was developed, people communicated through primitive art identified as , an image carved into a rock which allowed individuals to make visual representations of things in order to share and exchange information or to remember facts, ideas, or entities (Rea, 2014 &

Marchant, 2016). Although art has been identified in various locations around the world dated to 65,000 years ago, the cave created by are the first works of art indicated in the to be forms of visual communication (Greshko, 2018). It is difficult to identify the oldest cave ; however, the first painted cave acknowledged as being in Altamira, (Clottes, 2019). Nonetheless, new

18 dating analysis suggests images such as the trio of rotund cow-like creatures sketched on the wall in Lubang Jeriji Saléh cave located in the province of

Indonesian are at least 40,000 years old, which establishes them as the earliest figurative cave paintings yet found (Wei-Hass, 2018). The majority of the paintings consisted of animal figures such as mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses, cave bears, and, later on, experts found , , , and ibex (Clottes). The paintings are believed to have been a symbolic or created for rituals and to have opened the door to imaginary realms, and spirit worlds (Marchant).

Communication in the Form of Pictographs and Ideograms

Pictographs, also known as , are that exhibit a concept, , activity, place or event through illustration, and are identified as the earliest forms of writing beginning sometime around 3000 BC (, 2019). Pictographs were used by ancient in most parts of the world as an early including

Sumerians, Egyptians, and Chinese (Mark, 2011). The ancient Sumerian development of cuneiform dates back to sometime around 3400 BC (Andrews, 2015). Cuneiform was created by making wedge-shape marks on soft clay with a writing tool known as a stylus to produce impressions that manifest pictographs, and in due course, phonograms (Mark,

2018). An ideogram communicates a particular message using recognizable that portrays an idea (Mark, 2016).

Cultures in various parts of the ancient world utilized pictograms and ideograms such as: hieroglyphics and oracle bones. Author Joshua Mark (2016) claims in that ancient Egyptian writings, hieroglyphics, was established prior to the early Dynastic

19 period. And it was formed out of the early pictographs and later phonograms and ideograms. In ancient China, individuals engraved marks on bones or shells which were then heated until they cracked; thereupon, a diviner would interpret the cracks to predict the future (Mark, 2011). Oracle bones, created from the shoulder blades of oxen or the flat, underside of a turtle's shell, dated from the Shang Dynasty of China between 1600 and 1046 BCE and the early Zhou Dynasty between 1046 and 226 BCE (Mark, 2016). It is difficult to say when began verbally communicating with each other. Because leaves no evidence in the archeological records, experts claim spoken started early as the beginning of human genus or late as 50,000 years ago (Balter, 2015).

Communication from the Middle Ages to the 20th Century

The middle ages, or medieval period, began with the fall of the Western Roman

Empire in 476 CE (Wasson, 2018). In this time, trying to connect with people separated by distance was still challenging and could be a long process. Written communication took in the form of letters on parchment; dried calfskin and split sheepskin were the most common materials for developing parchment (Rennicks, 2017). Ink was developed in ancient China and around the same time from carbon particles (Taylor,

2017). According to Bellerby (2017), men would deliver messages by traveling on animals such as mules or horses. In due course, delivering letters by traveling advanced to postal systems. In 1737, Benjamin Franklin was named Postmaster of Philadelphia

(Man of Letters, 2002). He made visits to the major postal offices in the colonies to find ways of improving services such as more direct routes (Man of Letters). Posting letters

20 by mail became a popular method of communication for several hundred years (Andrews,

2016).

In 1794, the non-electric telegraph was invented by Claude Chappe. His invention was a visual system based on the flag alphabet (Andrews, 2016). Harrison Dyar created the first telegraph in the U.S. by sending electrical sparks through a chemically treated paper tape to burn dots and dashes in 1828 (Bellis, 2019). Developed on Joseph Henry’s earlier invention of a powerful electromagnet, Samuel Morse improved the electromagnet by creating sketches of a magnetized magnet which made his invention practical and effective (Bellis). The telegraph technology advanced the way people communicated.

Alexander Graham Bell revolutionized communication through his invention of the telephone and successfully making a call in 1876. However, some dispute that, claiming

Antonia Meucci was the first inventor of the telephone (Smith, 2019).

Communication in Modern Times

Technological advances have created new ways of communication. Social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and blogs are used for a variety of reasons. The communication platform that played an early influential role in the development of online communication was Sixdegrees.com, launched by Andrew

Weinreich in 1997 (Digital Trends, 2014). This social networking site contained popular features such as profiles, a friends list, and school affiliations in one service, however it only lasted until 2001 before the next overriding networking website started (Digital

Trends, 2014).

21

Friendster, the new social media networking website launched in 2002 by

Jonathan Abrams and Peter Chin (Digital Trends, 2014); applied the same idea as

Sixdegrees.com but refined it. Its underlying premise was that an online community can exist only between people who have mutual bonds, and the interface shared many of the same traits one would find on an online dating site (Digital Trends). Friendster attracted three million registered users within its first years; but due to mismanagement and technical difficulties, Friendster collapsed and is currently an online gaming site (Digital

Trends).

A year later two major social networks were created: LinkedIn and MySpace.

LinkedIn was founded by Konstantin Guericke, Reid Hoffman, Jean-Luc Vaillant, Eric

Ly, and Allen and took more of a serious approach and focused on creating a business-oriented social networking website (Digital Trends, 2014). LinkedIn was launched in 2003; this networking website was different from the others because it was mainly used for professional networking, including employers posting jobs and job seekers posting their curriculum vitae and resources rather than being a simple arena for among former classmates and teenagers (Digital Trends). Presently,

LinkedIn is utilized by more than 297 million people. MySpace was co-founded by Chris

DeWolfe and Tom Anderson and was launched in 2003. MySpace became a networking website where users were able to share music, videos, pictures, and personal information.

However, today it is primarily a website where artists connect with audiences, collaborators, and partners (Digital Trends).

22

In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg and his college roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew

McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes launched Facebook (Digital Trends,

2014). According to Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012), Facebook use is mainly influenced by two basic social needs: (1) the need to belong and (2) the need for self-presentation.

Both needs can be self-sufficient and are determined by other elements, including cultural background, sociodemographic variables, and personality traits, such as introversion, extraversion, shyness, narcissism, neuroticism, self-esteem, and self-worth (Nadkarni &

Hofmann, 2012). In addition, people use Facebook because the forum permits individual surveillance and mediated lurking, such as stalking individual Facebook profiles and scrutinizing an individual's photos, posts, and friends, viewing what others posts and how they interact online from a distance (Child & Starcher, 2016). There are several ways that users are able to protect their personal information. Facebook offers privacy settings which allow users to set different levels of privacy for different occasions and activity and suggests limiting self-disclosures by not providing or posting certain personal information (Lankton, Mcknight, & Tripp, 2017).

Confidentiality in the Helping Professions

The National Association of Social Workers (2017) provide social workers some guidelines regarding confidentiality, boundaries, dual relationships and several that concerns utilizing social media platforms in social work practice. These measures relate to clients and invading the personal information of children, adolescents, parent/guardian and/or caretaker. Confidentiality is vital for several professionals such as: psychiatrists, physicians, attorneys, therapists, and social workers. Social workers and other

23 professionals often face ethical dilemmas regarding the obligation to keep client information confidential and the responsibility to warn potential victims of violent crimes the client may be planning to commit (Henderson, 2015).

The California Supreme Court ruling Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of

California (1976) concluded that if a psychotherapist reasonably believes that one of their patients presents a credible threat of physical harm to another identifiable person, the therapist has a legal obligation to warn the potential victim or otherwise protect potential victims by notifying law enforcement and/or to take whatever other steps are reasonably essential under the condition (Bowers, Givelber & Blitch,1986). However, if the psychotherapist fails to warn the potential victim and the patient harms the victim, then the therapist is to be held accountable (Bowers, Givelber & Blitch). One of the major concerns for psychiatric associations at the time of this case was that the obligation outlined by the Court contradicted the therapist’s ethics by breaching confidentiality. It also implied accountability for failing to predict what they claimed they could not, such as the client doing violence towards another human (Bowers, Givelber & Blitch).

The countless quantity of personal information available on the Internet raises questions regarding professionals’ use of clients’ social media information (Mattison,

2018). Researchers Kolmes and Taube (2014) conducted an online survey to explore the experiences of psychotherapists in relation to accidental and intentional Internet based interactions with clients. Of the 265 mental health professionals or professionals in training who began the survey, only 227 completed it. Sixty-three of those participants reported accidentally discovering current client information online and from the sixty-

24 three participants, the majority off those (62%) discovered client information on

Facebook, followed by Google (30%), LinkedIn (17%), and shared e-mail lists (8%)

(Kolmes & Taube).

Forty-eight percent of theses mental health professionals of various disciplines and training levels reported intentionally seeking data about current clients in a nonemergency situation without the client’s awareness (Kolmes & Taube, 2014). Eight percent of participants reported purposely seeking information about a client in an emergency having to do with the client’s safety or whereabouts. In nonemergency circumstances, 81% sought general information related to treatment or verification of details shared in psychotherapy (Kolmes & Taube). Furthermore, 23% of the participants searched to see whether their client was a part of their extended social network or to seek client information (19%) due to loss of contact information (Kolmes & Taube). Thirty- eight percent claimed they were trying to find out other information, such as previous client arrest records, blog updates during a client’s hospitalization, media work done by the client, or photographs, interests, and information about clients’ relationships (Kolmes

& Taube).

In a study involving 226 graduate students in a counseling and psychology program, 33.2% of participants disclosed that they had used the Internet to find out information about a client, and 19.5% used social networking websites to obtain information (Kurpius & Harris, 2014). The reasons provided by the participants for their online searches included curiosity and to verifying client statements from their sessions

(Kurpius & Harris). Discovering unintended information about a client through a social

25 networking site without having the knowledge beforehand or processing this new information with the client could present bias into the relationship between a healthcare professional and a client and compromise the client’s essential right to confidentiality

(Kurpius & Harris). On the other hand, seeing a social networking page of a client who is at a high risk, such as one having suicidal ideations, and has missed recent counseling sessions, may provide some awareness of the client’s whereabouts and some insight regarding the client’s mentality (Kurpius, & Harris).

Psychologists and clients run the risk of having more incidental contacts online due to their use of the Internet for personal and professional activities (Kolmes & Taube,

2014). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) claims that social workers have ethical responsibilities to clients in this regard such as obtaining client permission before conducting an electronic search on the client (National Association of Social

Workers, 2020). The NASW (2020) states the only exception to search a client lacking consent shall be for purposes of protecting the client or other identifiable person from serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm, or for other compelling professional. In other words, the right to confidentiality ends when the public peril begins (National

Association of Social Workers). Notwithstanding the fact that duty to warn a person takes precedence over patient/client confidentiality when a threat of violence is brought forth, professionals should keep in that not all imminent harm is caused by physical harm and not all clients will be truthful regarding their daily activity.

26

Human Trafficking

Human trafficking, now known as modern day slavery, is a phenomenon that has been closely related to slavery in various forms throughout history. Recently, the U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services Administration (DHHS) for Children and

Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s (ACF) Bureau published the Child Maltreatment Report, which analyzed data gathered in 2018

(Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). In this report, it was noted that child protective services (CPS) agencies claim the highest percentages of reports alleging child abuse and neglect are from education personnel

(20.5%), legal and law enforcement personnel (18.7%), and social services personnel

(10.7%). A number of victims of sexual exploitation are youth who are runaways, on the street, homeless, or from the foster care system (Fong & Cardoso, 2010). A national policy addressing human trafficking named: “The Trafficking Victims Protection Act

(TVPA),” defines ‘‘severe forms’’ of human trafficking as:

(a) Sex trafficking in which commercial sex is induced by force, fraud, or coercion,

or in which a person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years

of age; or

(b) The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person

for labor services, through use of force, fraud, or coercion, for the purpose of

subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage and slavery (Burke,

2013, p. 20).

27

Domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST) survivors end up in the child welfare system due to the unlawful nature of the activities associated with DMST (e.g., prostitution and truancy) and a lack of parental supervision (O’Brien, White & Rizo,

2017). Child welfare works with children and adolescents that are or have been abused and/or neglected. Although the definition of child abuse and neglect are defined on a state by state basis, established on standards set by federal law, types of child maltreatment such as neglect, physical abuse, psychological maltreatment and sexual abuse are recognized in most states (Fong & Cardoso, 2009). Further, readers need to keep in mind that not all traffickers are male. Author Elizabeth Dill (2011) informs readers that women also recruit and victimize others by pretending to make them feel safe and coaxing them to proceed willingly.

Researchers O’Brien, White and Rizo (2017) conducted a study to examine the relationships between demographic factors, domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST) status, and several psychosocial dependent variables for children and adolescents in the child welfare system who confirmed that they had been paid for sexual relations with someone within the past six months. Utilizing data collected between March 2008 and

September 2009 (Wave 1) and data collected between October 2009 and January 2011

(Wave 2) of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW II), this research found that adolescents who have a history of DMST victimization were more likely than their nonexploited peers to exhibit runaway behavior, demonstrate externalizing behaviors, and test in the clinical range for a substance abuse problem

(O’Brien, White, & Rizo). The sample population included a total of 814 children and

28 adolescents of which 38 disclosed DMST victimization (O’Brien, White, & Rizo). The researchers acknowledged that there is a possibility that more children engaged in acts of sexual victimization, but because the nationally representative data sets failed to capture the federal and legal definitions of DMST, they were unable to be identifiable through self-reporting (O’Brien, White, & Rizo).

Commercial sexual exploitation and DMST have a profound detrimental effect on the health of individuals, families, and communities (O’Brien, White, & Rizo, 2017).

Safe Harbor laws were intended to be restorative for young victims of commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children (Green, Gies, Healy, & Bobnis, 2019). These laws rejected a disciplinary approach and redirected youth from the juvenile justice system by prohibiting their arrest and prosecution as criminals (Green, Gies, Healy, &

Bobnis). The safe harbor laws decriminalized youth and proposed that youth should be steered in the direction of systems, agencies, and services that are capable and qualified to provide supportive services (Green, Gies, Healy, & Bobnis). Research concerning the effects of safe harbor laws are fairly new, thus studies usually have been limited.

Researchers claim that no comprehensive studies regarding the implementation of Safe

Harbor laws exist (Barnert, Abrams, Azzi, Ryan, Brook, & Chung, 2016).

The authors Barnert, Abrams, Azzi, Ryan, Brook, & Chung (2016) conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with Safe Harbor professionals in nine states. The purpose of these interviews was to guide responders associated with CSEC including state legislatures, health professional, law enforcement agents, and child welfare workers to send youth to child welfare agencies or other equipped service providers (Barnert et al.,

29

2016). Regardless of legalization and enactment of Safe Harbor laws in nine states which include: New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois,

Tennessee, Minnesota, and Florida in 2012. This legalization sanctions that young victims who are commercially sexually exploited or sex trafficked should be treated as vulnerable children in need of services and not as offenders.

There is hardly any guidance regarding how to put the policy regulation into practice (Barnert et al., 2016). Majority of the participants from the study believed that directing trafficked children directed to child welfare was better than criminalizing them; however, one child welfare representative stated that they lack training and lack policy and procedures to adequately provide services for CSEC youth (Barnert et al.). As an unintended consequence, states lacked the necessary funding for appropriate services; therefore, CESC responders had nowhere to take the young victims. Instead, they continued to arrest sexually exploited youth on charges other than prostitution to keep them safe (Barnert et al.).

Human Trafficking via Technology

Technology has altered various facets of sex trafficking in the ways connections are made between exploiters, buyers, and survivors by changing the ways in which information is used to engage in criminal activity (Thakor & Boyd, 2013). It is difficult to determine the identity of a person when contact is made via the Internet. Social networking accounts may contain phony profiles of an individual which consist of little or no personal information, and thus the identity of the individual who made contact remains anonymous. The Pew Research Center reports that 26% of youths ages 15 to 17

30 disclosed they post about their dating life on social media, compared with 16% of youths ages 13 to 14 (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). Traffickers, pimps, and buyers are continuously searching for victims. Tidball, Zheng, and Creswell (2016) claim the use of technology for exploitative purposes has increased due to the ubiquitousness of the Internet and the ability of users to remain anonymous. Because social workers are in a multitude of settings such as emergency rooms, health clinics, and shelters, they have the ability to play an essential role in identifying a trafficked person (Alvarez & Alessi, 2012).

Tidball, Zheng, and Creswell (2016) conducted a qualitative study to learn from

NGO representatives, law enforcement officials, and public officials about their experiences regarding how men buy girls on-line for sex, and the terminology that the men use in the transactions. The participants for their study consisted of 30 NGO representatives, six public health or government officials, and four law enforcement officials. In the matter of individuals buying sex, one participant expressed that these buyers went to websites such as Myredbook, Backpage, Craigslist, and USA Sex Guide where they look for girls. Another participant said some traffickers use Twitter or

Facebook to lure young girls or use women in their organizations to lure young girls into sex trafficking (Tidball, Zheng, & Creswell). Tidball, Zheng, and Creswell found that a typical pattern for a trafficked girl is an individual who was raised without a father, grew up in an unsupervised or neglectful environment, and had the experience of being sexually abused or sexually exploited.

Although technology has generated new methods to share information and to make connections, technology has also made it possible for individuals to increase sordid

31 and criminal behavior (Tidball, Zheng, & Creswell, 2016). However, technology has also gradually made it possible for professionals such as those in law enforcement to create new ways to intervene in criminal acts. Thakor and Boyd (2013) specified that law enforcement makes use of technology to trace criminal acts and to identify perpetrators, and corporations are also able to extract information concerning illicit transactions.

Technology is also helpful for anti-trafficking advocates who utilizes technology to educate and spread anti-trafficking messages, coordinate campaigns, and fundraise

(Thakor, & Boyd).

Effects of Social Media and School

One of the many criticisms of social media platforms is that the traditional bullying has evolved to cyberbullying (Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012).

Children and adolescents have been targeted by peers via social networking sites. The

Pew Research Center reports that about 6-in-10 U.S. adolescents have been bullied or harassed online as cited in Geiger, 2018. According to Messias, Kindric, and Castro

(2014), cyberbullying victimization has been linked to depression and suicide among youths. In their study, those who reported either form of bullying were at higher risk for also reporting 2-week sadness, suicidal ideation, plans, attempts, and attempts requiring treatment. (Messias, Kindric, & Castro). The results revealed 13.9% of those reported to have made a suicide attempt due to school bullying and 13.7% reported suicide attempt due to cyberbullying (Messias, Kindric, & Castro). Cyberbullying may have a much of a greater impact than traditional bullying because it is usually anonymous or difficult to trace

(Kidshealth, 2018). In addition, it is challenging to manage a post once the harmful

32 message has been posted because it would be impossible to know how many individuals have seen the messages (Kidshealth).

Authors Sbarbaro and Smith (2011) found that a teacher’s attitude for being proactive against bullying gave students a sense of safety, comfort and closeness to teachers and the overall school environment. However, if teachers ignore the issue of bullying and brush it to the side, students become less connected and feel uncomfortable at school (Sbarbaro & Smith). Educators have a responsibility to educate the school community about responsible Internet and technology use (Patchin & Hinduja, 2012). It is crucial that school districts address the issue of bullying and cyberbullying at all grade levels in order for students to maintain good health and reach their potential for academic success (Sbarbaro & Smith). Left unchecked, bullying and cyberbullying can lead to the disruption of the learning environment (Patchin & Hinduja) and risk students contemplating suicide and dropping out of school (Sbarbaro & Smith).

Teachers and school administrators are in a position to recognize whether a child or adolescent’s behavioral changes in the classroom and during group activities could be the result of bullying (Stauffer, et al., 2012). Some signs of cyberbullying regarding children and youth include unease when receiving a text or instant message, not wanting to attend school, withdrawing from friends and family, and unexplained anger or depression (Evans, 2019). Studies found that students perceive cyberbullying as similar and detrimental just as traditional bullying (Stauffer, et al.). Because there is a lack of research examining teachers’ perspectives regarding the effects of cyberbullying on students, researchers conducted a study to understand the intervention and prevention

33 strategies teachers use when dealing with and preventing cyberbullying. The inquiry regarding the possibility of teachers intervening with specific tactics to address cyberbullying concluded that teachers who are vigilant or informed of cyberbullying occurring during school hours are more likely to communicate it to school administrators

(Stauffer, et al.). Though some teachers disclosed that if the cyberbullying is not occurring on school grounds, they are somewhat less likely to talk with the victim or to report the incident to administrators (Stauffer, et al.). Patchin and Hinduja (2012) offer suggestions to prevent cyberbullying, such as posting signs on each computer and workstation to remind students of the appropriate use of the Internet and online communications technology.

Electronic Communication in Social Work Practice

Virtual technology has advanced in the helping professions. Clinicians now have the choice to interact with clients outside the office using video counseling technology, email, text messaging, and avatars. However, when contacting clients utilizing social networking sites, the boundaries of the clinician-client relationship becomes vague

(Reamer, 2015a). According to Reamer (2015a), social workers’ use of digital and other virtual technology to help individuals who are struggling with a great variety of challenges, including mood disorders, anxiety, addictions, and relationship issues is expanding. While several practitioners utilize digital technology as a supplement to traditional face-to-face contact and service delivery, other clinicians have made their clinical practices rely entirely on digital technology (Reamer, 2015a).

34

When professionals seek contact via social networking sites, there could be a power difference where the practitioner can be viewed as an authoritative figure rather than a support person to help them with challenges such as mental health, substance abuse, families in the system, etc. (Marwick, 2012). Although there are privacy settings on social media platforms whereby users can limit the information they share with and whom they share it, Marwick (2012) stressed that social networking sites are used as social surveillance because individuals post their personal information and activity from day-to-day life for people to see and some users may not know who is looking at their profile.

There is little research that addresses the benefits of practitioners using social media in their practice field; however, Breyette and Hill (2015) conducted a study regarding the direct impact of child welfare workers applying technology and social media in their field of practice to communicate with or about clients. They found that only two participants out of the 106 respondents believed social media is effective to communicate with co-workers in their agencies and to communicate with other workers at another agency regarding clients (Breyette & Hill, 2015). Only 13.2% reported that the use of social media use has made their practice with clients easier. However, the study also found that more than half (57.4%) of the participants believed that text messaging made their work with clients easier while one-quarter (27.2%) believed that text messaging should not be used because it violates client confidentiality. Authors Breyette and Hill (2015) referenced multiple articles regarding the challenges of electronic communication and social media including violation of privacy if an e-mail or message is

35 sent to the wrong person. Once the decision is made to communicate with clients via e- mail, professionals may end up unintentionally opening a Pandora’s box, causing unanticipated outcomes related to cyber communication, and potentially for creating confusion and misunderstanding.

If client and practitioner communicate using digital technology, it may become challenging for practitioners to undo or limit communication with clients via internet, which creates an area where ethical decision-making becomes uncertain and boundaries become permeable (Mishna, et al., 2012). For example, if a client sends a “friend request” from a social media platform and the worker intentionally or unintentionally accepts that request, the practitioner opens an avenue for the client to access a plethora of personal information, and vice versa. Notwithstanding the fact that social media and the internet technology could be harmful, social media platforms and other forms of internet- based technology may be beneficial for health surveillance purposes. Because social networking sites allows users to post comments and photos on their profiles regarding how they feel emotionally and physically in the exact moment (Schwab et al., 2018), the post can be seen by their family, friends, and peers who can monitor whether there is a need for help or extra support.

Other Uses for Social Media Platforms

Professionals, such as child welfare workers, use investigative assessment tools to determine whether children are safe at home, including information about personal backgrounds of family members (Sage & Sage, 2016.). There are many cases in the child welfare agency in which fathers are not involved due to a toxic relationship with the

36 mother, divorce, incarceration, or homelessness (Campbell, Howard, Rayford, & Gordon,

2015). However, child welfare workers are obligated to try and connect with both parents and relatives for all cases unless there is a no-contact order (Deihl, Martin, Nunez, &

Martin, 2002). At the micro level, social workers may use social media to find next of kin, support resource families, and communicate with birth relatives (Child Welfare

Information Gateway, 2017). Technology helps other professions as well. Law enforcement use social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to advertise missing persons cases. As referenced by Khimm (2017), social networking sites have become the new milk cartons for law enforcement across the country.

Gaps in the Literature

While reviewing the literature, there seems to be more focus on the negative effects and consequences of using technology in practice rather than the benefits. For example, there is a great deal of research on human trafficking, commercially sexually exploited children, and domestic minor trafficking in social work literature and media in recent years (Kotrla, 2010), including ways perpetrators use the internet and technology to trap their potential victims (Withers, 2019; Dill, 2011). However, there is a lack of research specifically on how social networking websites can be valuable and convenient to locate runaway youths, for child welfare workers to search for relatives, and for surveillance of clients to ensure they are not misleading the worker regarding their services (AOD counseling, drug treatments, violating a no-contact order, etc.) (Sage &

Sage, 2016; Schwab et al., 2018). Unfortunately, the use of social media as an agency- authorized assessment tool in a child welfare setting has hardly been discussed in the

37 scholarly literature; however, government agencies occasionally have specific policies or procedures that condone or prohibit its use as an investigative tool (Sage &Sage).

In addition, most literature references “female or male” as trafficking victims, leaving out other genders (Tidball, Zheng, & Creswell, 2016). As mentioned, “human traffickers and buyers frequently use the Internet to find younger girls for sex, we can follow their tracks through the words they use, and the practices they engage in” (Tidball,

Zheng, & Creswell, p.65). Yet, authors Schwarz and Britto referenced a study which found that LGBT youth who abscond from home or placement were subjected more often to sexual victimization than heterosexual youths who left their home or placement

(Schwarz & Britto, 2015). In addition, the LGBTQ population are more likely to engage in prostitution to get their basic needs met, such as food, , or shelter (Schwarz &

Britto).

There are some common issues that were found throughout the literature regarding the sample population. Some authors disclosed that the majority of their sample was comprised of older, experienced social work practitioners and provided their experience based off memory, which may differ from their actual experience with cyber technology (Mishna, et al., 2012). Due to the lower sampling probability and case-control design regarding the participants, current recollection of past experience magnified this study’s limitation for selection and recall bias (Manisha, et al.). Researchers Kolmes and

Taube (2014) acknowledged that their response size was small because they were unable to access the APA membership via electronic mailing lists for the purposes of recruitment, thus the sample size was collected via recruitment that relied critically on

38 those who are active on social media sites; and, as such, this sample may not be representative of psychotherapists overall.

In terms of high school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies, it is uncertain what steps would be taken by the administrators if teachers were to report cyberbullying to administrators (Stauffer, et al., 2012). Stauffer and colleagues recognized that teachers may have understood questions from the survey differently or that the wording may have been unclear (Stauffer, et al.) School administrators believe parents need to work directly with school administrators if there is a concern that their child is being victimized (Patchin & Hinduja, 2012).

Another reoccurring gap in this section includes the lack of policy and guidance concerning the use of social media platforms in the practice field. For instance, Mishna and colleagues (2012) found that numerous workers articulated the need for more guidance and policy development in the matter of cyber technology. When practitioners disagreed with their agency or department’s approach, or where there were no policies or guidelines, the workers would make decisions on a case-by-case basis and did not necessarily disclose their method to their supervisor or administration.

Although the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2017) obligates social workers to protect client privacy and keep their information confidential, it is mandatory to release or to breach confidentiality when there is imminent harm or danger to the client or other identifiable individuals. The NASW code of ethics provides a brief guideline about technology use in practice, but it does not specify or give permission for social workers to search a client’s online profile if they have a suspicion or a negative

39 feeling regarding a client’s demeanor and possible harmful decision-making. The NASW emphasizes that social workers have an ethical duty to clients in the matter of obtaining client permission before conducting an electronic search on them. It is advised that practitioners should keep themselves away from searching or gathering client information electronically (NASW). The only exception for searching a client is if there are imperative professional reasons and, if appropriate, social workers should obtain the client’s informed consent (NASW).

This current study will add to the existing research regarding how social workers may find social media platforms helpful in their practice; obtaining further clarity, insight, and exploring clear guidelines and procedures. Policies regarding technology often exist in government agencies and may not address the unique roles of other professions such as child welfare workers because they have the obligation to assess, make client contact, and search for families (Sage & Sage, 2016). This is the reason it is essential for agencies at the micro level to join with workers in forming guidelines for the most beneficial uses of social media tools (Sage & Sage).

Furthermore, it might also be noted that this study may develop policies, strategies, and approaches concerning social workers in their practice field. One of the approaches is to utilize social networking site to help practitioners locate youth who run away from their placement. When social workers are left at a disadvantage in terms of information, social media platforms may provide a way to find clients. Online searches are pivotal because the Internet has become another trafficking/ surveillance tool (Dill,

40

2011). Social workers can help address issues such as DMST and other social issues through education, advocacy, trainings, and research (Kotrla, 2010).

Summary

This chapter discussed the , the ethical implications of confidentiality, the importance and ramifications of social media platform websites regarding human trafficking, as well as a discussion of the benefits of using social media platforms in practice, and a discussion of the gaps that exist within the literature. The following chapter will focus on the methodology of this study.

41

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the methodology utilized in this research study is discussed with the following sections: 1) research question; 2) research design; 3) variables; 4) study population; 5) sample population; 6) instrumentation; 7) data gathering procedures; 8) data analysis; 9) protection of human subjects; and 10) summary.

Research Question

The primary research question for this study is: What are social workers’ perspectives regarding the use of social media platforms and their impact on their practice?

Research Design

In this study, the researcher utilized quantitative analysis of data collected through the use of an online survey tool program named Qualtrics. Based on the strength of the research design's experimental control, this quantitative research designs can be classified into pre-experimental research design because this design has no control groups. This research design is utilized for exploratory purposes of the research problem. As stated in chapter two, the topic regarding social workers using social media platforms in their practice is fairly new. Therefore, the quantitative research design allows for larger studies compared qualitative research design to take place, which provides better accuracy when making an effort to create generalizations regarding social workers’ perspectives use of social media platforms. In addition, quantitative design enables this study to be easily replicated in future studies by using applying the theory to new circumstances in an

42 attempt to determine the generalizability to different practice fields and province. (Yuen,

2019).

Quantitative Approach

The quantitative method provides greater objectivity due to the researcher maintaining distance from the study (Payne & Payne, 2004). Also, to examine relationships and making generalizations by permitting researchers to use objective measures to collect numerical data from a large or specific sample (Yuen, 2019). The quantitative method allows generalization, explanation, and prediction along with being more objective and outcome-oriented, whereas the qualitative method has limited ability for generalization and is more subjective and process oriented (Yuen). The quantitative approach tends to use closed-ended questions and is highly structured whereas qualitative approach contains mainly open-ended and in-depth inquiries (Rubin & Babbie, 2017).

Additionally, the quantitative research method could also be used to test for difference, correlation, and causation among variables (Yuen).

However, there are limitations and weakness of utilizing the quantitative research method. The quantitative research method is can be viewed as “superficial” regarding results from the study (Rubin & Babbie, 2016). This method may contain biases and flaws such as the wording of the survey questionnaire (Rubin & Babbie). This method could also lead to an improper representation of the target population and since this research method typically requires a large sample size, it may not be possible to achieve due to the lack of resources (Rubin & Babbie).

43

Exploratory Study In comparison to the descriptive design which focuses on in-depth information about a situation, its variables, or its characteristics, the exploratory research design helps the researcher gain familiarity in order to formulate more refined questions for future studies (Yuen, 2019). Social media platforms are becoming ubiquitous in individuals’ personal and professional lives. Although this phenomenon is scarcely new, it is unknown to what degree social workers are impacted by using social media platforms in their field of practice. Therefore, this study presents an area of exploratory research with the purpose of attaining a basic understanding of social workers’ perception regarding this subject. All research design procedures have weaknesses and strengths that can affect the results of the data. By utilizing exploratory design, the researcher is at risk of collecting data which may be false or produce inconclusive results.

Survey Research

There are four primary methods of administering survey questionnaires to potential respondents by face-to-face interviews, by telephone, by mail, and online

(Rubin & Babbie, 2016). In the face-to-face interview, the interviewer works directly with the respondent and has the opportunity to clarify confusing items and ask follow-up questions; however, the interviews lack anonymity which can impede responses regarding sensitive areas as well as the safety of the participant (Rubin &

Babbie). This process requires the interviewer to asks interviewees questions in a nondirective and unbiased manner and to remain neutral when questions are answered (Rubin & Babbie).

44

Similar to the face-to-face interview, telephone surveys permit some personal contact between the interviewer and the respondent, thus lacking anonymity. In addition, various people do not have their home or cell phone numbers publicly listed and are able to easily hang up leaving the researcher having a less response rate

(Rubin & Babbie, 2016). The advantage of utilizing the mail survey method is that they allow the respondent to fill the survey out at their own convenience; however, the response rates are often very low and limits the sample population which generally targets the elderly (Rubin & Babbie). Furthermore, mailing surveys are usually time consuming and expensive than the online survey (Rubin & Babbie).

For this study, the researcher utilized an online survey research design. The online survey method consists of several advantages and limitations. One significant advantage of the online survey is the efficiency and accessibility of design; surveys create more generalizable data for the reason that surveys generate larger sample size (Rubin &

Babbie, 2016). Since participants are asked the same questions, it increases the reliability of data compared to a face to face interview. The standardized questionnaires limit the possibility of influencing the response and the participants are not influenced by the subjective observations of the researcher (Rubin & Babbie). Other notable strengths of utilizing the online survey research are the low-cost, anonymity of participants (which responses are not influenced by the researcher), and the responses are automatically saved in a survey database, which limits the possibility of data errors (Rubin & Babbie).

Some limitations regarding the online survey research design is the lower response rates than a face-to-face interview and the representation of the sample

45 population by omitting retirees and individuals who do not have access to internet (Rubin

& Babbie, 2016). Consequently, surveys sent to potential participants via email could be deleted or ignored. Participants are more likely to opt-out of the survey if the survey is lengthy resulting in an incomplete data result. The online survey can produce uncertainty if the questions are not clear making it difficult for respondents to choose a specific answer. Furthermore, respondents may not agree entirely with the allowed choices provided, thus answering questions in an unfavorable manner. To address this matter, the researcher used questions that were easy to comprehend and were related to the topic.

Variables

In this study, the researcher will explore the following question: What are social workers’ perspectives regarding the use of social media platforms and their impact on their practice? The dependent variable identified in this study is social worker’s perspectives. The independent variable is social media platforms. The researcher will use a Likert scale and then utilize chi-square tests to measure the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Perspectives of social workers towards social media use were conceptualized using several different characteristics, including ethics, policy, and the decision-making process. Social media platforms were conceptualized by individuals expressing self, protesting for social justice, in search of social support, remain connected to family, friends, co-workers, seeking vengeance, and other things that happen in their daily life.

The Likert scale was used to measure and operationalize both independent and dependent variables. The five demographic questions are level measurement.

46

Nominal level of measurement has characteristics that can only be categorical, such as, gender and ethnicity (Rubin & Babbie, 2016). Although the researcher’s demographic questions did not ask participants for their gender or ethnicity, the questionnaires are still considered nominal measures. The five demographic questions are: 1) “I have my degree in (Check all that apply);” 2) “How many years of experience do you have as a Social

Worker?” 3) “I have experience in… (Check all that apply);” 4) “I have experience working with… (Check all that apply);” 5) “Which of the following social media website do you currently have an account with? (Check all that apply)”.

Study Population

The population for this study is social workers. The researcher does not distinguish a specific agency or field of the social work profession, such as school, hospital, or county, because the researcher will not be comparing samples but rather seeing how social media platforms impact social work practitioners overall.

Demographics of eventual participants are detailed further in Chapter 4.

Sample Population

For this research, out of the 34 participants only 30 of the sample respondents were used in the data analysis. The reason is because four of those surveys did not meet the study population requirement; therefore, those surveys were excluded from this study.

The researcher used two nonprobability sampling designs to select participants: convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Convenience sampling, also known as availability sampling, relies on available subjects, in other words people who are easy to contact or to reach (Rubin & Babbie, 2016). The benefit of using this design is that it is

47 usually less expensive than other methods; however, this method does have a risk of both conscious and unconscious sampling bias and influence in selecting individuals who are convenient to study, which is beyond the control of the researcher (Rubin & Babbie).

In snowball sampling the researcher collects data on subjects of the target population one is able to locate, and then asks those subjects to provide access to other members of that population (Rubin & Babbie, 2016). Snowball sampling design is beneficial to use when the people of a special population are difficult to reach or if the study is lacking participants. Although snowball sampling is usually used in a qualitative study, the researcher chose this method in the hope of not limiting the different fields of social work. Some limitations of the chosen sampling methods are that both are regarded as weak in terms of validity and generalization, and both allow for potential biases because the sample is not considered random and representative of the entire population of respondents who are being studied.

Instrumentation

The measurement instrument utilized in this study was a Likert scale questionnaire and several demographic questions. The Likert scale was developed in

1932 by Rensis Likert (Yuen, 2019). The Likert scale has a numerical value that is earmarked to each potential selection and is generally used to measure attitudes and opinions for statistical analysis (ex., strongly agree =1, agree=2, etc.) (Yuen). Likert scale is an ordinal level scale. The researcher created a survey comprised of 20 Likert scale questions to which participants would respond within the four categories indicating whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree to the enquiry

48

(Appendix B). The survey items were intended to measure how the use of social media platforms impact social workers in their practice.

There are several significant strengths and weakness of utilizing the Likert scale.

Some limitations of Likert scales include exposed to response distortions because central tendency bias may result from respondent unwillingness to choose extreme response categories (Brill, 2008). Acquiescence bias is also present when using this scale since respondents have a tendency to agree or disagree with all the questions and/or indicate a positive direction. Therefore, when respondents choose to agree with statements because of a desire to choose what they believe is the “correct” or otherwise most appropriate answer, the data is likely imprecise (Brill). Some strengths of this instrument are that it consists of closed-ended questions and perceived as convenient as well as easy for respondents to complete. The closed-ended approach decreases the reasoning burden of the respondent and improves the ability to compare responses (Holyk, 2008). The researcher administered closed-ended survey to avoid instability and to allow the participants to respond with whatever information they considered relevant.

The demographic section, consisting of five questions, collected information on participants’ educational degree, years of experience, fields of social work in which they worked, the age their client population, and the social media platform in which they work or are linked. The researcher limited the sample population by informing potential participants that eligibility is only for social workers who have either a bachelor’s or master’s social work degree. Unfortunately, numerous individuals who work in the child welfare agency do not hold a social work degree; therefore, it limited the sample size for

49 this study. There was face validity of the questions posed in the survey as some of the questions were modified according to feedback received from experts such as the project advisor and other social work experts. However, there were no reliability tests performed on this instrument.

Data Gathering Procedures

The researcher created an online survey tool, Qualtrics. Qualtrics is web-based survey tool that helps researchers to create and administer a survey. The California State

University of Sacramento (CSUS) allows students to utilize Qualtrics for their research free of charge, thus the researcher did not pay any fees to use this web-based survey tool.

The researcher administered the survey by contacting social work practitioners via email.

The researcher recruited social workers from Sacramento County Child Protective

Services, and professors at California State University of Sacramento who have experience working in the social work field and asked them if they were interested in participating in this study. The researcher requested the assistant director for child protective services in El Dorado County to distribute my survey link to the employees.

Those who chose to participate were sent consent forms and a link to the online survey.

The benefits of utilizing an online survey is that participants are invited to participate by filling out the survey in the comfort of their offices, homes, or cubicles.

Although online surveys have a lower response rate than face-to-face interviews, it is less expensive to use and can be sent to very large numbers of potential respondents in any location (Rubin & Babbie, 2017). One major concern regarding administrating online

50 surveys is that the representation may not target all population and may leave out the elderly and underprivileged individuals.

Authors Rubin and Babbie (2017) claim that individuals who are more likely to respond to online surveys are likely to be younger and more affluent then the rest of the population (Rubin &Babbie). The researcher sent out the survey only once to 63 possible participants. The researcher does not know how many employees form El Dorado CPS county received the survey link. Out of the 63 surveys that was personally sent out via email by the researcher, 34 was completed. However, 4 surveys were excluded due to not meeting the subject group requirement. Also, one participant completed 77% of the survey, but that survey was included in the data analysis. The response rate was 47.6%.

Data Analysis

The data collected from the survey program Qualtrics was downloaded in a locked file and then was entered into a statistical analysis software program named

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The researcher completed several tests on the data, including frequency distributions, charts, and chi-square tests. The results are exhibited in table and graph layouts in Chapter 4. These statistical evaluations were meant to reveal social workers’ perceptions regarding the use of social media platforms and its impact on their practice.

Protection of Human Subjects

Feasible measures were taken in this study to protect participants from harm, either physical or psychological. The researcher submitted a human subjects application to the Division of Social Work Research Review Committee at California State

51

University, Sacramento in order to receive permission to conduct an ethical research project. The study was approved as “exempt” level status and was given the protocol number 19-20-013. In this application, the researcher clarified the nature of this voluntary study. This survey was conducted voluntarily and semi-anonymously.

Because the researcher sent out the survey link through email, the researcher has email addresses of plentiful potential participants. However, the researcher does not know who has taken the survey or how the participants responded. Because the researcher is using the snowball method, the researcher asked potential participants to forward the survey to individuals who may be interested in taking part in this research.

The data collected was maintained as confidential by ensuring that the internet survey program Qualtrics would maintain a standard of security on their server for this study.

Furthermore, to avoid any possibility of conflicts of interest regarding power dynamics, no incentives were offered to the participants.

A consent form was attached on the e-mail as well as the survey link which was sent out by the researcher. The consent form consisted of detailed information regarding the possible risks, benefits, confidentiality, the researcher’s and thesis advisors contact information if participants had any questions or concerns regarding the research study.

In the consent form, the researcher clarified there would be no incentives offered and participants have the right to opt-out of participating at any time of the research survey.

The researcher further emphasized that due to the anonymity of the survey, it would be impossible to remove their response since the surveys do not have individual codes that correspond to specific participants. It was ensured that the research data would only be

52 viewed by the researcher and the thesis advisor.

Summary

The section provided details concerning the methodology of the current research including the research question, research design, variables, study population, sample population, instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis, and protection of human subjects. The following chapter presents the results from this study.

53

Chapter 4

DATA ANALYSIS

In this chapter, the data gathered will be presented from the research survey. The purpose of this chapter is to answer the following research question: what are social workers’ perspectives regarding the use of social media platforms and their impact on their practice? By exploring this research question, the author hopes to provide insight about the positive or negative impact social media platforms may cause in the field of social work. First, the demographics of the research participants will be presented in pie charts and frequency distribution tables. Next, chi-square tests will be used to explore significant associations with the independent and dependent variables. A p-value of less than .05 will be considered significant and a p-value between .05 and .10 will be considered approaching significance for trend-level data.

Demographics of Study Participants

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to calculate percentages and produce frequency distributions for the five demographic questions asked of participants. A total of 30 social work practitioners participated in this research study (N=30). It should be noted that participants who responded to demographic survey questions, such as “Which of the following social media website do you currently have an account with? (Check all that apply);” “I have experience in…(Check all that apply)” and “I have experience working with….” Participants were able to select more than one answer, therefore respondents who selected the same answers were grouped and measured as 1 value.

54

Out of 63 participants, 33 were fully completed the survey and 1 participant was

77% semi-completed (Figure 1). However, four of the surveys were completed by individuals who did not have a degree in social work; therefore, those surveys were excluded from this study. As shown in Figure 1, there are more of less experienced social workers who have 0-5 years of practice experience than those with more experience in the field of practice. Figure 2 illustrates the type of educational degree participants hold.

The answer selection for question “I have my degree in…” included licensed clinical social worker (LCSW), associate clinical social worker (ASW), master's degree in social work (MSW), bachelor’s degree in social work (BSW), other, and no social work degree.

Majority of the respondents 80% have a master’s degree in social work (MSW).

Figure 3 shows that 46.66% of the respondents have experience working in a child welfare agency. For this question, respondents were able to choose more than one answer and also enter their field of experience if not listed in “Other.” The answer selection for question “I have experience in…” included medical social work, school social work, hospice and palliative care social worker, psychiatric social worker, and other. Figure 4 shows the current type of social media platforms used by social workers.

The majority 25.8% currently use Facebook and several used more than one social networking sites. Figure 5 illustrated that majority 83.33% of the respondents have worked with infants, children, youths, adults, and community partners.

55

Figure 1. Years of experience of participants.

Figure 2. Education degree of participants.

56

Figure 3. Participants field of experience.

Figure 4. Type of social media platforms used.

57

Figure 5. Working with different age groups and other agencies.

58

What are social workers’ perspectives regarding the use of social media platforms

and their impact on their practice?

In this section, the researcher will analyze how social work practitioners from several different practices impacts their use of social media platforms in their practice.

The research findings will present through chi-square. There were a few participants who did not hold a social work degree; therefore, those responses were left out of this data.

Responses that were incomplete were not included in this data.

Table 1 illustrates the crosstabulation of field practice experience and practitioners who used social media to find evidence to use for professional work purposes. Nearly three-quarters (71.4%) of participants who agreed with the statement “I use social media to find evidence to use for professional work purposes” reported having experience working in child protective services (CPS). Among those who disagreed with the statement, 68.8% reported having no social work experience in Child Protective

Services. The results are statistically significant (흌2= 4.821, df=1, p=0.028).

Table 2 illustrates among the participants who reported to having no CPS experience, 62.5% agreed they have used social media to find AWOL (absent without leave) clients. Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of participants who agreed with the statement

“Social media has helped me locate a client(s) that is AWOL” reported having experience working in child protective services (CPS). Over half (54.5%) of those who disagreed with the statement reported having experience in other social work services other than

CPS. The results are not significantly significant.

59

Table 1

Child Protective Services Worker Use of Social Media Platforms vs. Social Workers in

Other Agencies

Field of Practice Experience Child Protective All Other Social Services Work Services Total I use social media to find Agree Count 10 5 15 evidence to use for % within I use social media 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% professional work purposes to find evidence to use for for example court hearing(s). professional work purposes for example court hearing(s). % within Field of Practice 71.4% 31.3% 50.0% Experience % of Total 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% Disagree Count 4 11 15 % within I use social media 26.7% 73.3% 100.0% to find evidence to use for professional work purposes for example court hearing(s). % within Field of Practice 28.6% 68.8% 50.0% Experience % of Total 13.3% 36.7% 50.0% Total Count 14 16 30 % within I use social media 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% to find evidence to use for professional work purposes for example court hearing(s). % within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience % of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.821a 1 .028 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.00.

60

Table 2

Locating AWOL Client(s) vs. Field of Practice Experience

Field of Practice Experience

Child Protective All Other Social Services Work Services Total Social media has Agree Count 9 10 19 helped me locate a client(s) that is % within Social media has 47.4% 52.6% 100.0% AWOL (absent helped me locate a client(s) that without leave). is AWOL (absent without leave). % within Field of Practice 64.3% 62.5% 63.3% Experience % of Total 30.0% 33.3% 63.3%

Disagree Count 5 6 11

% within Social media has 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% helped me locate a client(s) that is AWOL (absent without leave). % within Field of Practice 35.7% 37.5% 36.7% Experience % of Total 16.7% 20.0% 36.7%

Total Count 14 16 30

% within Social media has 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% helped me locate a client(s) that is AWOL (absent without leave). % within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience % of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .010a 1 .919

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.13.

61

Table 3 shows that 93.8% of participants who disagreed with the statement “I believe there are privacy and confidentiality issues related to social media networking” reported having experienced in other agencies than child protective services (CPS). More than two-fifths (42.3%) of the respondents who believes there are privacy and confidentiality issues related to social media networking reported having experience in child protective services. The results are not statistically significant.

Table 4 illustrates 60% of participants who disagreed with the statement

“Client(s) have tried to use my personal information that they have seen on my personal social media platform(s) and use it to their advantage” reported having experience in other agencies than child protective services (CPS). Nearly half (48%) of the participants who had experience in child protective services reported that client(s) have used their personal information that they had seen on their personal social media platform(s) and tried to use it to their advantage. In this study, “tried to” means that clients may have used their worker’s personal information but was either successful or unsuccessful in doing so.

The results are statistically not significant.

Table 5 illustrates that almost three-quarters (71.4%) of participants who disagreed with the statement “Using social media has positively affected my work with client(s)” reported having experience working in child protective services (CPS). Also, two-thirds (66.7%) who agreed with the statement have practice experience in other social work agencies. The results are not statistically significant.

62

Table 3

Social Workers Believe there are Privacy and Confidentiality Issues Related to Social

Media Networking vs. Field of Practice Experience

Field of Practice Experience Child Protective All Other Social Work Services Services Total I believe there Agree Count 11 15 26 are privacy and % within I believe there are 42.3% 57.7% 100.0% confidentiality privacy and confidentiality issues related to issues related to social media social media networking. networking. % within Field of Practice 78.6% 93.8% 86.7% Experience % of Total 36.7% 50.0% 86.7% Disagree Count 3 1 4 % within I believe there are 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% privacy and confidentiality issues related to social media networking. % within Field of Practice 21.4% 6.3% 13.3% Experience % of Total 10.0% 3.3% 13.3% Total Count 14 16 30 % within I believe there are 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% privacy and confidentiality issues related to social media networking. % within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience % of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

63

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.489a 1 .222 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.87.

64

Table 4

Worker’s Information from Social Media Platform(s) vs. Field of Practice

Field of Practice Experience Child Protective All Other Social Work Services Services Total Client(s) have tried to Agree Count 2 3 5 use my personal % within Client(s) have 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% information that they tried to use my personal have seen on my information that they have personal social media seen on my personal social platform(s) and use it to media platform(s) and use their advantage. it to their advantage. % within Field of Practice 14.3% 18.8% 16.7% Experience % of Total 6.7% 10.0% 16.7% Disagree Count 12 13 25 % within Client(s) have 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% tried to use my personal information that they have seen on my personal social media platform(s) and use it to their advantage. % within Field of Practice 85.7% 81.3% 83.3% Experience % of Total 40.0% 43.3% 83.3% Total Count 14 16 30 % within Client(s) have 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% tried to use my personal information that they have seen on my personal social media platform(s) and use it to their advantage. % within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience % of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .107a 1 .743 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.33.

65

Table 5

Field of Practice Experience vs. Social Media has Positively Affected Work with Client(s)

Using social media has Total positively affected my work with client(s). Agree Disagree Field of Practice Child Protective Count 4 10 14 Experience Services % within Field of Practice 28.6% 71.4% 100.0% Experience % within Using social 33.3% 55.6% 46.7% media has positively affected my work with client(s). % of Total 13.3% 33.3% 46.7% All Other Social Count 8 8 16 Work Agencies % within Field of Practice 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Experience % within Using social 66.7% 44.4% 53.3% media has positively affected my work with client(s). % of Total 26.7% 26.7% 53.3% Total Count 12 18 30 % within Field of Practice 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% Experience % within Using social 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% media has positively affected my work with client(s). % of Total 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

Asymptotic Significance Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.429a 1 .232 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.60.

66

Table 6 shows that 72.2% disagreed with the statement “Using social media has positively affected my work with client(s)” reported have not used two different accounts using the same social media network. Half (50.0%) of respondents reported they do have two different accounts using the same social media network; and over two-fifths (41.7%) revealed that using social media has positively affected their work with client(s). The results are not statistically significant.

As displayed in Table 7, among those who disagreed with the statement “I have used social media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them,” Over half

(68.8%) reported having experience in other social work services. Almost half (45.0%) of participants who have experience in child protective services reported that they agreed to the statement. The results are not statistically significant. Therefore, there is no association between the two variables.

Table 8 illustrates that 93.8% of the participants who have experience in other social work services disagreed with the statement “I have biases that originated after viewing a client(s) social media platform(s) which unpleasantly impacted my engagement with them.” Three-quarters (75.0%) of participants who had experience in child protective services reported they had biases that originated after viewing a client(s) social media platform(s) which unpleasantly impacted their engagement with their client. The results are not statistically significant.

67

Table 6

Social Media Positively Affected Practice vs. Having the Same Social Media Network

I have two different accounts using the same social media network. (E.g. Having one Facebook account for personal use and another Facebook account for professional use) Agree Disagree Total Using social media Agree Count 5 7 12 has positively % within Using social media has 41.7% 58.3% 100.0% affected my work positively affected my work with with client(s). client(s). % within I have two different 50.0% 35.0% 40.0% accounts using the same social media network. % of Total 16.7% 23.3% 40.0% Disagree Count 5 13 18 % within Using social media has 27.8% 72.2% 100.0% positively affected my work with client(s). % within I have two different 50.0% 65.0% 60.0% accounts using the same social media network. % of Total 16.7% 43.3% 60.0% Total Count 10 20 30 % within Using social media has 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% positively affected my work with client(s). % I have two different accounts 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% using the same social media network.

% of Total 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .625a 1 .429 a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.00.

68

Table 7

Search Client Before Working with Them vs. Field of Practice Experience

Field of Practice Experience Child Protective All Other Social Services Work Services Total I have used social Agree Count 9 11 20 media platform(s) to % within I have used social 45.0% 55.0% 100.0% search for a client media platform(s) to search for before working with a client before working with them. them. % within Field of Practice 64.3% 68.8% 66.7% Experience % of Total 30.0% 36.7% 66.7% Disagree Count 5 5 10 % within I have used social 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. % within Field of Practice 35.7% 31.3% 33.3% Experience % of Total 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% Total Count 14 16 30 % within I have used social 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. % within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience % of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .067a 1 .796 a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.67.

69

Table 8

Biases After Viewing a Client(s) Social Media Platform(s) vs. Field of Practice

Experience

Field of Practice Experience Child Protective All Other Social Services Work Services Total I have biases that Agree Count 3 1 4 originated after viewing a % within I have biases that 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% client(s) social media originated after viewing a client(s) platform(s) which social media platform(s) which unpleasantly impacted unpleasantly impacted my my engagement with engagement with them. them. % within Field of Practice 21.4% 6.3% 13.3% Experience % of Total 10.0% 3.3% 13.3% Disagree Count 11 15 26 % within I have biases that 42.3% 57.7% 100.0% originated after viewing a client(s) social media platform(s) which unpleasantly impacted my engagement with them.

% within Field of Practice 78.6% 93.8% 86.7% Experience % of Total 36.7% 50.0% 86.7% Total Count 14 16 30 % within I have biases that 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% originated after viewing a client(s) social media platform(s) which unpleasantly impacted my engagement with them.

% within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience % of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.489a 1 .222 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.87.

70

As illustrated in Table 9, among those who disagreed with the statement “Social media has helped me locate children and youth who are commercially sexually exploited

(CSECY),” 64.3% reported having experience in other social work services. Among those who have experience in CPS. Over half (56.3%) agreed that social media has assisted them to locate children and youth who are CSEC. However, 35.7% of participants who have experience in CPS disagreed with the statement. The results are not statistically significant.

Table 10 illustrates that 70% of participants disagreed with the statement “The use of social media platforms in my practice has impacted my decision-making process when working with client(s) during my social work career,” reported have experience in other social work services. However, 22.2% of those who have experience in other social work services agreed with the statement. Table 10 also shows that among the 77.8% of participants who agreed with the statement reported having experience in child protective services. The results are not statistically significant.

Table 11 displays that four-fifths (80.0%) of participants agreed with the statement “I use social media to find evidence to use for professional work purposes for example court hearing(s).” Among those who disagreed with the statement, one-fifth

(20.0%) have disagreed in using social media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. Almost half (46.7%) of the participants disagreed to use social media to find evidence for professional work purposes. The results are not statistically significant.

71

Table 9

Locating CSECY vs. Field of Practice Experience

Field of Practice Experience

Child Protective All Other Social Services Work Services Total

Social media has Agree Count 9 7 16 helped me locate children and youth % within Social media has 56.3% 43.8% 100.0% who helped me locate children and are commercially youth who are commercially sexually exploited sexually exploited (CSECY). (CSECY). % within Field of Practice 64.3% 43.8% 53.3% Experience

% of Total 30.0% 23.3% 53.3%

Disagree Count 5 9 14

% within Social media has 35.7% 64.3% 100.0% helped me locate children and youth who are commercially sexually exploited (CSECY).

% within Field of Practice 35.7% 56.3% 46.7% Experience

% of Total 16.7% 30.0% 46.7%

Total Count 14 16 30

% within Social media has 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% helped me locate children and youth who are commercially sexually exploited (CSECY).

% within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience

% of Total 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.265a 1 .261 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.53.

72

Table 10

Social Media Platforms and Decision-Making vs. Field of practice Experience

Field of Practice Experience

Child Protective All Other Social Services Work Services Total

The use of social Agree Count 7 2 9 media platforms in my practice has impacted % within The use of 77.8% 22.2% 100.0% my decision-making social media platforms in process when working my practice has impacted with client(s) during my decision-making my social work career. process when working with client(s) during my social work career.

% within Field of Practice 53.8% 12.5% 31.0% Experience

% of Total 24.1% 6.9% 31.0%

Disagree Count 6 14 20

% within The use of 30.0% 70.0% 100.0% social media platforms in my practice has impacted my decision-making process when working with client(s) during my social work career.

% within Field of Practice 46.2% 87.5% 69.0% Experience

% of Total 20.7% 48.3% 69.0%

Total Count 13 16 29

% within The use of 44.8% 55.2% 100.0% social media platforms in my practice has impacted my decision-making process when working with client(s) during my social work career.

% within Field of Practice 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Experience

% of Total 44.8% 55.2% 100.0%

73

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.729a 1 .017 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.03.

74

Table 11

Social Media Platform for Professional Work vs. Search Client Before

I have used social media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. Agree Disagree Total I use social media to Agree Count 12 3 15 find evidence to use % within I use social media to 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% for professional work find evidence to use for purposes for example professional work purposes for court hearing(s). example court hearing(s). % within I have used social 60.0% 30.0% 50.0% media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. % of Total 40.0% 10.0% 50.0% Disagree Count 8 7 15 % within I use social media to 53.3% 46.7% 100.0% find evidence to use for professional work purposes for example court hearing(s). % within I have used social 40.0% 70.0% 50.0% media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. % of Total 26.7% 23.3% 50.0% Total Count 20 10 30 % within I use social media to 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% find evidence to use for professional work purposes for example court hearing(s). % within I have used social 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% media platform(s) to search for a client before working with them. % of Total 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.400a 1 .121 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.00.

75

Summary

In this chapter, the perspective of social workers regarding social medial was analyzed. Demographic information of participants was also presented through pie charts and bar graphs. Chi-square tests were conducted between different variables and displayed in table format. In Chapter 5, the findings of the research will be discussed. The next chapter will include implications for the field of social work, a summary and discussion of the research findings, recommendations for future studies, the limitations of this current research, and conclude the current study.

76

Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the key findings of this study will be presented. Chapter five includes the following: summary, discussion, implications for social work policy and practice, recommendations, and limitations.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to gain a better insight into social workers’ perspectives and beliefs regarding their use of social media platforms, the positive or negative impact it may cause in their practice, and how to maintain boundaries regarding their clients in the age of social media. Frequency distributions, charts, and chi-square tests were used to determine correlations between social workers and the use of social media platforms with their clients.

The data analysis between social workers and their use of social media platforms was inconclusive, as the majority of correlations proved to be not statistically significant.

The researcher compared the responses on the questionnaires in light of the social workers’ fields of experience and their perceptions of social media platform use in different circumstances. Out of the eleven crosstabulation chi-squares, only one was found to be statistically significant. As seen on Table 1 in Chapter 4, the crosstabulation of field practice experiences and practitioners who used social media to find evidence to use for professional work purposes was statistically significant.

The majority of the participants in this study (83.33%) have experience working with infants, children, youths, adults, and community partners. Because the researcher

77 was unable to separate the selection choices regarding the use of social media platforms, it is safe to say that 26.67% of the participants use only Facebook while other respondents use more than one type of social media network sites. Ten percent of the respondents stated that they do not use the following: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or

Snapchat. One of the participants had claimed to use only email regarding the online technology. One of the participants claimed not to use any of the social media platforms mentioned above and did not list anything.

As illustrated in Chapter 4, Figure 3 shows that almost half (46.66%) of the respondents have experience working in a child welfare agency and over half (53.33%) have experience in either medical social work, school social work, hospice and palliative care social work, psychiatric social work, or other social work services. The researcher was unable to test the multiple-choice answers for this question separately. However, the results indicated that a majority of participants have experience in other social work agencies, but since the respondents were allowed to select more than one answer for their field experience, it is unknown if the study population’s specific field experience is related to their use of social media networking sites in their practice.

Discussion

The data analysis of social workers and their use of social media platforms did not lead to a conclusion or a resolution; therefore, the overall study was inconclusive. Nearly the entirety of the data analysis proved to be not statistically significant. The data collected from the surveys revealed that there is no association between the two variables.

Assumptions regarding social media use appeared to apply more towards child welfare

78 social workers. According to Kurpius and Harris (2014), learning unintended information about a client through a social networking site without having the knowledge beforehand could present bias into the client/worker relationship. In Chapter 4, table 8 illustrates that

75% of participants who had experience in child protective services reported they had biases that originated after viewing a client(s) social media platform(s), which negatively impacted their association with their client. Table 10 shows that 70% of participants with experience in other social work services reported the use of social media platforms in their practice does not impact their decision-making process when working with client(s).

In Chapter 2, the literature review suggested social workers could encounter challenges using social media platforms to find information on their clients for professional use. However, the results from this study shows that 66.7% of child welfare social workers use social media platforms to find information regarding their clients for professional purposes. There are challenges regarding the use of electronic communication and social media platforms, including violation of privacy if an e-mail or message is sent to the wrong individual (Breyette & Hill, 2015).

Lankton, Mcknight, and Tripp (2017), claimed there are several ways that users are able to protect their personal information. For example, Facebook offers privacy settings which allow users to set different levels of privacy for different occasions and activity and suggests limiting self-disclosures by not providing or posting certain personal information (Lankton, Mcknight, & Tripp). According to participants in this study, clients have not tried to use their personal information that they have seen on the social workers personal social media platform(s) and use it to their advantage. However,

79 that was not the case for CPS workers. Table 4 displays that 48% of the respondents had experience clients who used their worker’s personal information from their social media platform to their advantage.

The use of social media networking sites as an agency-authorized assessment tool in a child welfare setting has rarely been addressed in the scholarly literature; nevertheless, most agencies have specific guidelines or regulations that condone or prohibit its use as an investigative tool (Sage & Sage, 2016). However, this research found that nearly three-quarters of respondents who had experience working in child protective services claimed that social media platforms provide evidence they use for professional work purposes such as court hearings; and that nearly two-thirds of the respondents who had experience in CPS claimed they have used social media networking sites to locate clients who are absent without leave (AWOL).

Tidball, Zheng, and Creswell (2016) claim the use of online technology for exploitative purposes has increased due to the widespread use of the Internet and the ability of users to remain unidentified. According to Alvarez and Alessi (2012), social workers have the ability to play a critical role in identifying individuals who have been trafficked because they are in a multitude of settings such as emergency rooms, health clinics, and shelters. However, this research found that of those who reported having experience in other social work services, 64.3% claimed that social media platforms have not helped them locate children and youth who are commercially sexually exploited

(CSECY).

80

Implications for Social Work Policy and Practice

There are significant implications for social work from this study. At the macro level, the proliferation of child neglect and abuse, human trafficking, cyberbullying, and mental health issues demands legislation, but this presents a challenge when it controls access that bridges connection between human beings and their physical, mental, and social wellbeing. There is little literature on the subject of social workers’ use of online technology concerning their clients, which continues to be seen as unethical, yet it appears that child welfare workers use social media platforms and other online technology more so than other social workers in their field of practice. There is a lack of research on how social work practitioners use the new technology to benefit their clients in terms of assuring their safety and other matters. Further research is warranted.

Implications for micro level social work practice include the need for self- awareness among practitioners regarding technology including the benefits and ramifications to their practice. The Tarasoff case predominately altered the social work profession regarding clients’ right to confidentiality (Bowers, Givelber & Blitch, 1986).

As a result, social workers now have an ethical obligation to protect potential victims from harm and protect clients from self-harm. Social media platforms and other online technology can assist practitioners in upholding their duty to their clients. However, social worker should be aware of their own biases if they conduct an online search on a client and discover information that is not essential to their case when they use this method of contact or investigation.

81

On the mezzo level, social workers have an ethical duty to educate and promote awareness within the profession. Social media platforms and other online technologies support social workers in unprecedented ways. For instance, practitioners can use the platform to advocate for justice, provide online counseling (group or individual), and provide social support to a variety of groups (Halabuza, 2014). Furthermore, social workers can inform others about community events.

Technology has advanced as far in society that some social workers now use online methods directly in client treatment. By advocating for a transparent method to use social networking sites, social workers would not feel like they are breaching current guidelines, instead they would be complying with their ethical responsibility to better lives through macro-level policy. Although the NASW Code of Ethics revised in 2017 is unclear about what would be considered to be serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person in order for social workers to search their clients via social media platforms or other online technologies, it does provide clear guideline regarding boundaries. According to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), social workers should avoid communication with clients using social media platforms, online chat, e-mail, text messages, telephone, and video for personal or non-work-related purposes (National Association of Social Workers, 2020).

Recommendations

The objective of this study was to get a better understanding of social workers’ perspectives regarding their use of social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and

Instagram and the positive or negative impact it may have on their discipline. This

82 section provides recommendations for social workers, agencies, policymakers, and future research:

• Agencies could discuss regulations and guidelines concerning the use of social

media platforms and other online technology for social workers regarding their

clients.

• Social workers could avoid communicating with clients using technology for

personal or nonwork-related purposes, in an effort to maintain appropriate

boundaries.

• Agencies could help social workers become technologically literate by informing

them of problems related to privacy, while educating them about the possible

benefits and dangers of online interaction.

• Social workers should take steps to avoid client access to social workers' personal

social media platforms and other online technology in order to avoid ethical

dilemmas regarding boundary confusion and to maintain safety.

• Social workers could be mindful that clients may discover personal information

about them due to their personal affiliations and use of online technology.

• The survey questionnaire used in this study would have improved by a specific

rating scale to measure the demographics and better oriented questions regarding

social workers’ comfortability using social media platforms in their practice.

• Future research should emphasize influences that impact participants’ responses,

including demographic information and prior experience with online technology,

in order to find out if their cultural background has an effect on decision-making.

83

• Social workers who offer tele-health should help clients identify alternate

methods of service delivery if the use of technology to deliver services is not

appropriate.

• Further research should be conducted on social media and social work practice, so

that policymakers can be better informed.

• Future research should focus on child welfare workers and mental health service

workers.

Limitations

This study had a multitude of limitations that are worthy of consideration. This research lacked information regarding the participants’ gender and their reasons for searching or not searching clients. In chapter one, Lawrence Kohlberg’s theoretical framework for moral development had some criticism. The theory exaggerates the concept of justice when making moral choices and some elements such as compassion, caring, and other interpersonal feelings may take part in a significant part in moral reasoning (Cherry, 2019). The Heinz dilemma may have been profound for his respondents to understand since the majority of his study participants were children under the age of 16 (Cherry). Furthermore, psychologist Carol Gilligan proposed that

Kohlberg's theory was gender-biased considering that all of the participants in his sample were male (Cherry).

In chapter two, the literature review had limited studies on statistics regarding how many social worker practitioners use social media platforms and online technologies across different fields of social work practice. Many of the literature were relatable to

84 social workers working in the child welfare agencies. As discussed in Chapter 2, social work regarding social media platforms in other fields of practice were limited. As well as a need of research specifically on how social networking websites can be valuable and convenient for vulnerable populations such as finding runaway youths, helping child welfare workers to diligently search for immediate family or next of kin, and as surveillance for clients to ensure they are not misleading the worker regarding their services.

In chapter three, limitations include survey collection method, number of participants, study population, and survey instrument. This study had limited data due to the small sample size of 30 participants, all of whom were gathered through convenience and snowball sampling. The researcher used two non-probability sampling methods: snowball and convenience sampling. According to Lavrakas (2008), the main issue of applying nonprobability samples is assessing the validity. The sampling error is unknowable, so the researchers cannot say whether the results are representative or not, and the risk of non-sampling errors becomes greater (Lavrakas). Because the questionnaire did not ask demographic questions regarding gender or ethnicity, the study is unable to analyze the data regarding those demographics.

The researcher collected data through the use of an online survey tool program named Qualtrics. This program claimed that the data could be exported in Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), which would be helpful because the researcher would not have to enter each response manually (Exporting Response Data, 2020).

However, when the researcher exported the data analysis to SPSS format, the information

85 was entered incorrectly and some were missing; therefore, the researcher had to enter the responses from the survey manually.

The next issue was the target population. It is noteworthy to mention that not all workers in the helping professions such as those in the child welfare system, schools, and hospital settings are social workers. Because the target population for this study were individuals who obtained a social work degree, this requirement left out numerous individuals who work in the helping profession such as licensed marriage family therapists, and counselors. There were four completed surveys that were excluded due to the criteria of this study. There is a possibility that many individuals were not able to participate, thus lowering the response rate and leading this study to lack the representativeness of the population due to the small sample size and sampling method used to collect data.

The survey instrument had weaknesses and lacked questions that could have been helpful. The measurement instrument used in this study was a Likert scale questionnaire and several demographic questions. This survey was challenging to analyze due to the answer selections, which allowed participants to “check that all apply.” As a result, the researcher was not able to separate individual responses and had to group answers together. Due to the same issue, it is unknown how many social workers utilize social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat individually.

Furthermore, question three should have been worded as “What agency are you currently working in?” with the same answer selection listed in the survey. Because the researcher asked, “I have experience in… (Check all that apply),” the researcher was

86

unable to analyze data independently with other independent variables. The survey

instrument also consisted of a few double-barreled questions that may have caused

inaccuracy in the analysis because respondents were able to answer only one of the

two questions. Consequently, the researcher does not know to which question they were

responding. The research lacked questions that could have been helpful in this study. For

instance, it is possible that social workers do not use their social media regarding their

clients due to comfortability and work ethics. However, no questions regarding

comfortability or safety was asked.

Conclusion The primary purpose of this study was to understand social workers’ perspectives and beliefs regarding their use of social media platforms and the impact it may cause in their practice including maintaining ethical boundaries. In chapter one, an outline of the background of the problem, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research question, theoretical framework utilized in examining the topic, definition of terms used throughout the study, assumptions, justification, and limitation was presented.

Chapter two, reviewed literature about social media platforms and how they are shifting the social work profession. In chapter three, the methodology used in this study was discussed. In chapter four, the data collected was analyzed and discussed in chapter five.

Nearly all of the findings from this study were not statistically significant; however, recommendations were made in the following areas: social workers, health service agencies, policymakers, and future research.

87

Appendix “A”

PARTICIPATION CONFIRMATION / LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT

Social Workers’ Perspectives Regarding the Use of Social Media Platforms and its Impact in their Practice

Hello,

My name is Kaarteeka Prasad and I am a second-year graduate student in the Division of Social Work program at California State University, Sacramento. I am conducting this research study to gain a better understanding of social workers’ perspectives on social media regarding its impact or influence in their practice in social work. I would like to invite you to participate in this research study. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a 10 to 15 minutes online survey.

Risk: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. There are some possible risks involved for participants. These risks are not anticipated to be any greater than the risks you encounter in daily life.

Benefits: This study may allow social workers to better understanding and gain more knowledge regarding their use of social media platforms and the positive or negative impact it may cause in their field of practice in social work. The findings from this study may add information that could further recognize the risk and limitations social workers face using social media platforms and its influence in their practice. This study might be beneficial to policymakers regarding how social work practitioners use their social media platforms in practice with their clients and whether there is a need for policy changes to be made or implemented.

Confidentiality: It is anticipated that study results will be shared with the public through presentations and/or publications. The Qualtrics survey will have IP address collection turned off, which will maintain anonymity. responses will be kept confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used. Your information will be maintained in a password protected file in a laptop using encryption at a locked location. Upon completion of this study, all identifiers in the raw data will be destroyed accordingly.

Contact Information: If you have any questions about this research study at any time, please contact Kaarteeka Prasad (707) 674-1044 or by email at [email protected]. You may also contact my thesis advisor Maria Dinis, Ph.D., MSW, at California State University, Sacramento at (916) 278-7161 or by e-mail at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a

88 research project please call the Office of Research, Innovation, and Economic Development, California State University, Sacramento, at (916) 278-6402, or by email at [email protected].

Your participation indicates that you have read and understood the information provided above and you agree to participate. The researcher will be unable to remove anonymous data from the database should you choose to withdraw your data. Thank you for participating in this study. Please print this form and keep it as your copy. Please right click here to open hyperlink to begin your survey.

Best,

Kaarteeka Prasad Graduate Student, MSW CSUS, Division of Social Work

89

Appendix “B” DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Social Workers’ Perspectives Regarding the Use of Social Media Platforms and its Impact in their Practice

For the following questions, please circle all responses most likely to match your experience and/or beliefs. Your answer may include more than one response for each question; in which case, you may circle all that apply as a response to a question.

Part I. Background and Demographic Information:

1. I have my degree in (Check all that apply) a. Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) b. Associate Clinical Social Worker (ASW) c. Master's Degree in Social Work (MSW) d. Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work (BSW) e. Other. Please Describe______f. No Social Work degree

If you have a social work degree, continue to Question 2. If no, thank you for your interest but at this time this study is only for social workers who have a social work degree.

2. How many years of experience do you have as a Social Worker? a. 0-5 b. 6-11 c. 12-17 d. 18-23 e. 24+ 3. I have experience in… (Check all that apply) a. Child Protective Services b. Medical social work

90

c. School social work d. Hospice & palliative care social worker e. Psychiatric social worker f. Other. Please Describe______4. I have experience working with… (Check all that apply) a. Infants b. Children c. Youths d. Adults e. Community Partners 5. Which of the following social media website do you currently have an account with? (Check all that apply) a. Facebook b. Instagram c. Twitter d. Snapchat e. Other. Please Describe______

Part II: Perspectives of Social Workers Regarding the Ethical Use of Social Media Platforms and their Interactions with Clients

6. Client(s) have tried to use my Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly personal information that they Agree Disagree have seen on my personal social media platform(s) and use it to their advantage.

7. My agency has a social Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly networking policy and procedure Agree Disagree for me to use to notify clients regarding boundaries.

91

8. I have unintentionally accepted a Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly request from a client on my social Agree Disagree media account that put me in a difficult position.

9. I believe there are privacy and Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly confidentiality issues related to Agree Disagree social media networking. 10. I have two different accounts Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly using the same social media Agree Disagree network. (E.g. Having one Facebook account for personal use and another Facebook account for professional use)

11. Using social media has Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly negatively affected my work with Agree Disagree client(s). 12. Using social media has positively Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly affected my work with client(s). Agree Disagree

13. I was held accountable in my Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly profession for something that I Disagree posted on my personal social media platform(s) in which received complaint(s) because it may appear to be insensitive, offensive, and/or unprofessional.

14. I have used social media Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly platform(s) to search for a client Agree Disagree before working with them. 15. I have searched a client using Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly social media platform(s) after Agree Disagree closing their case.

92

16. Social media has helped me Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly locate children and youth who Agree Disagree are commercially sexually exploited (CSECY).

Commercial sexual exploitation can involve prostitution, pornography, sex tourism, stripping, escort services, phone sex lines, and private parties.

17. I have biases that originated after Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly viewing a client(s) social media Agree Disagree platform(s) which unpleasantly impacted my engagement with them.

18. I use social media to find Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly evidence to use for professional Agree Disagree work purposes for example court hearing(s).

19. Social media has helped me Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly locate a client(s) that is AWOL Agree Disagree (absent without leave). 20. I believe using social media Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly platform(s) to search client(s) and Agree Disagree look at client(s)’ profile or blog is an invasion of their privacy.

21. The use of social media platforms Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly in my practice has impacted my Agree Disagree decision-making process when working with client(s) during my social work career.

93

22. The use of social media platforms Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly in my practice has caused a Agree Disagree misunderstanding with my client(s); therefore, the client(s) became resistant to receive services.

23. The use of social media platforms Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly in my practice has caused an Agree Disagree ethical dilemma resulting in transferring the case to another social worker.

24. The use of social media platforms Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly in my practice has influenced my Agree Disagree treatment approach when working with client(s).

25. The use of social media platforms Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly in my practice has caused an Agree Disagree ethical dilemma resulting in terminating a case.

94

Appendix “C” Human Subjects Committee Approval Letter

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK

To: Kaarteeka Prasad Date: November 5, 2019

From: Research Review Committee

RE: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION

Your Human Subjects application for your proposed study, “Social Workers’ Perspectives Regarding the Use of Social Media Platforms and its Impact in their Practice”, is Approved as Exempt. Discuss your next steps with your thesis/project Advisor.

Your human subjects Protocol # is: 19-20-013. Please use this number in all official correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your file will be shredded three years from this approval date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the Committee promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no modification in the protocol without prior approval of the Committee.

The committee wishes you the best in your research.

Research Review Committee members Professors Maria Dinis, Kisun Nam, Francis Yuen, Jennifer , Arturo Baiocchi, Teiahsha Bankhead, Susanna Curry, Susan Nakaoka

Cc: Dinis

95

References

Alvarez, M., & Alessi, E. (2012). Human trafficking is more than sex trafficking and

prostitution: Implications for social work. Affilia, 27(2), 142-152.

American Psychological Association. (2020). APA Dictionary of psychology. Retrieved

from https://dictionary.apa.org/

Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018, November 28). Teens and their experiences on social

media. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teens-

and-their-experiences-on-social-media/

Andrews, A. (2016, December 14). The history of communication. Retrieved from

https://www.activia.co.uk/soft-skills/communication/resources/history-of-

communication

Andrews, E., (2015, December 16). “9 things you may not know about the ancient

Sumerians.” Retrieved from www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you-

may-not-know-about-the-ancient-sumerians.

Balter, M. (2015, January 13). Human language may have evolved to help our ancestors

make tools. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/human-language-may-

have-evolved-help-our-ancestors-make-tools

Barnert, E., Abrams, S., Azzi, V., Ryan, G., Brook, R., & Chung, P. (2016). Identifying

best practices for “safe harbor” legislation to protect child sex trafficking victims:

Decriminalization alone is not sufficient. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 249-262.

96

Barnert, E., Iqbal, Z., Bruce, J., Anoshiravani, A., Kolhatkar, G., & Greenbaum, J.

(2017). Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children and

adolescents: A narrative review. Academic pediatrics, 17(8), 825–829.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.07.009

Bellerby, R. (2017, April 9). Communication in medieval times: how messages were

sent. Retrieved from https://www.shorthistory.org/middle-ages/communication-

in-medieval-times-how-messages-were-sent/

Bellis, M. (2019, October 13). The history of the electric telegraph and telegraphy.

Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/the-history-of-the-electric-telegraph-

and-telegraphy-1992542

Betts, L., Spenser, K., & Gardner, S. (2017). Adolescents' involvement in cyber bullying

and perceptions of school: The importance of perceived peer acceptance for

female adolescents. Sex Roles, 77(7), 471-481.

Boddy, J., & Dominelli, L. (2017). Social media and social work: The challenges of a

new ethical space. Australian Social Work: Special Issue: EProfessionalism and

the Ethical Use of Technology in Social Work, with Guest Editors Donna

McAuliffe and Sharlene Nipperess, 70(2), 172-184.

Bowers, William J., Givelber, Daniel J., & Blitch, Carolyn L. (1986). How did Tarasoff

affect clinical practice? (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California,

1974). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484,

70.

97

Breyette, S. K., & Hill, K. (2015). The impact of electronic communication and social

media on child welfare practice. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286927015_Breyette_S_Hill_K_The_I

mpact_of_Electronic_Communication_and_Social_Media_on_Child_Welfare_Pr

actice_Journal_of_Technology_in_Human_Services

Brill, J. (2008). Likert scale. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research

methods (pp. 428-429). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:

10.4135/9781412963947.n273

Burke, M. (2013). Human trafficking: Interdisciplinary perspectives (Criminology and

justice studies). New York: Routledge.

Byrne, J., Kirwa, G., & Mc Guckin, C. (2019, April 4). Social media surveillance in

social work practice realities and ethical implications. Journal of Technology in

Human Services. Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228835.2019.1584598?journalC

ode=wths20

Campbell, C., Howard, D., Rayford, B., & Gordon, D. (2015, June 1). Fathers matter:

Involving and engaging fathers in the child welfare system process. Children and

Youth Services Review, 53, 84.

Cherry, K. (2019, September 28). Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Retrieved

from https://www.verywellmind.com/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-development-

2795071

98

Child, J., & Starcher, S. (2016). Fuzzy facebook privacy boundaries: Exploring mediated

lurking, vague-booking, and Facebook privacy management. Computers in

Human Behavior, 54, 483-490.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Social media: Tips for foster care workers.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s

Bureau. Retrieved from

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/smtips_worker.pdf

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Child abuse and neglect fatalities 2017:

Statistics and interventions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatality.pdf

Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Child

maltreatment 2018. Retrieved from

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2018.pdf

Clottes, J. (2019, March 13). Cave art. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/art/cave-painting

Deihl, M., Martin, S., Nunez, R., & Martin, M., (2002). Caregivers and the courts:

Improving court decisions affecting children in foster care. San Francisco, CA:

Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts.

Digital Trends. (2014). The history of social networking. Retrieved from

http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/

99

Dill, E. (2011). Human trafficking: A decade's track record, plus techniques for

prosecutors and police moving forward. Criminal Justice, 26(1), 18-26.

Evans, J. (2019, March 27). 10 signs your child is a cyberbullying victim. Retrieved from

https://resources.uknowkids.com/blog/bid/173713/10-signs-your-child-is-a-

cyberbullying-victim

Exporting Response Data. (2020). Qualtrics. Retrieved from

https://www.qualtrics.com/support/survey-platform/data-and-analysis-

module/data/download-data/export-data-overview/

Fong, R., & Berger Cardoso, J. (2010). Child human trafficking victims: Challenges for

the child welfare system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(3), 311-316.

Geiger, A.W. (2018, September 27). Q&A: How and why we studied teens and

cyberbullying. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2018/09/27/qa-how-and-why-we-studied-teens-and-cyberbullying/

Green, B., Gies, S. V., Healy, E. B., & Bobnis, A. (2019, September). Safe harbor laws:

Changing the legal response to minors involved in commercial sex, phase 3. the

qualitative analysis. Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/253244.pdf

Greshko, M. (2018, February 22). World's oldest cave art found—And Neanderthals

made it. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/neanderthals-cave-art-

humans--science/#close

100

Halabuza, D. (2014). Guidelines for social workers’ use of social networking websites.

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 11(1), 23-32.

Henderson, E. (2015). Potentially dangerous patients: A review of the duty to

warn. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 41(3), 193-200.

Holyk, G. (2008). Questionnaire design. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey

research methods (pp. 657-659). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Khimm, S. (2017, March 23). How cops are using social media to find missing teens.

Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmbknz/how-cops-are-using-

social-media-to-find-missing-teens

Kidshealth (2018). TeensHealth. Retrieved from

https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/cyberbullying.html

Koenig, T. L., Spano, R., & Thompson, J. B. (2020). Human behavior theory for social

work practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. (2014). Seeking and finding our clients on the Internet:

Boundary considerations in cyberspace. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 45(1), 3-10.

Kotrla, K. (2010). Domestic minor sex trafficking in the . Social

Work, 55(2), 181-7.

Kurpius, R., & Harris, S. (2014). Social networking and professional ethics: Client

searches, informed consent, and disclosure. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 45(1), 11-19.

101

Lankton, N., Mcknight, D., & Tripp, J. (2017). Facebook privacy management strategies:

A cluster analysis of user privacy behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 76,

149-163.

Lavrakas, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods (SAGE research methods

online). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

MacDonald, J., Sohn, S., & Ellis, P. (2010). Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: A

dilemma for young doctors. Medical Education, 44(8), 805-813.

Man of Letters. (2002). PBS. Retrieved from

https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_world_letters.html

Marchant, J. (2016, January). A journey to the oldest cave paintings in the world.

In Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journey-oldest-cave-paintings-world-

180957685/

Mark, E. (2016, February 26). In Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

https://www.ancient.eu/Oracle_Bones/

Mark, J. J. (2011, April 28). In Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

https://www.ancient.eu/writing/

Mark, J. J. (2016, November 16). In Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

https://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_Writing/

Mark, J. J. (2018, March 15). In Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

https://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/

102

Marwick, A. E. (2012). The public domain: Surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance &

Society. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279673507_The_Public_Domain_Surve

illance_in_Everyday_Life

Mattison, M. (2018). Informed consent agreements: Standards of care for digital social

work practices. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(2), 227-238.

MacDonald, J., Sohn, S., & Ellis, P. (2010). Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: A

dilemma for young doctors. Medical Education, 44(8), 805-813.

McLeod, S. (2013). Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Messias E., Kindrick K., & Castro, J. (2014) School bullying, cyberbullying, or both:

Correlates of teen suicidality in the 2011 CDC youth risk behavior

survey. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(5), 1063–1068.

Mishna, F., Bogo, M., Root, J., Sawyer, J., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2012). “It just crept

in”: The digital age and implications for social work practice. Clinical Social

Work Journal, 40(3), 277-286.

Nadkarni, Ashwini, & Hofmann, Stefan G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook?

(Report). Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 243-249.

National Association of Social Workers. (2020). Highlighted Revisions to the Code of

Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-

Ethics/Highlighted-Revisions-to-the-Code-of-Ethics

103

Nguyen, Tuan C. (2019, April 21). The early history of communication. Retrieved from

https://www.thoughtco.com/early-history-of-communication-4067897

O’Brien, J., White, K., & Rizo, C. (2017). Domestic minor sex trafficking among child

welfare–involved youth: An exploratory study of correlates. Child

Maltreatment, 22(3), 265-274.

Olson, C. (2011). The deep roots of the fairness committee in Kohlbergs moral

development theory. Schools, 8(1), 125-135.

Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019, September 18). The rise of social media. Retrieved from

https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media

Patchin, J., & Hinduja S. (2012). School-based efforts to prevent cyberbullying.

(Report). The Prevention Researcher, 19(3), 7-9.

Payne, G. & Payne, J. (2004). Sage key Concepts: Key concepts in social research (pp.

153-157). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd

Pictogram. (2019, March 27). New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pictogram

Pictography. (2012, July 6). Pictography. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/pictography

Rea, T. (2014, November 8). Pictures on rock: What pictographs and petroglyphs say

about the people who made them. Retrieved from

https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/pictures-rock-what-pictographs-and-

petroglyphs-say-about-people-who-made-them

104

Reamer, F. (2015a). Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and risk-

management challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 120-132.

Reamer, F. G. (2015b, September). Eye on ethics. Retrieved from

https://www.socialworktoday.com/news/eoe_092215.shtml

Rennicks, R. (2017, July 12). The history of vellum and parchment. Retrieved from

https://www.abaa.org/blog/post/the-history-of-vellum-and-parchment

Robinson K., Sharon E., & Harris, S. (2014). Social networking and professional ethics:

Client searches, informed consent, and disclosure. (Report) (Author

abstract). Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 45(1), 11-19.

Rubin, A., & Babie, E. R. (2016). Essential research methods for social work (Fourth ed.,

Brooks/Cole empowerment series). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Rubin, A., & Babie, E. R. (2017). Research methods for social work (Ninth ed.,

Brooks/Cole empowerment series). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Sage, M., Wells, M., Sage, T., & Devlin, M. (2017). Supervisor and policy roles in social

media use as a new technology in child welfare. Children and Youth Services

Review, 78, 1-8.

Sage, T., & Sage, M. (2016). Social media use in child welfare practice. Advances in

Social Work, 17(1), 93-112.

Sanders, C. E. (2019, January 2). Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/Lawrence-Kohlbergs-stages-

of-moral-development#ref334564

105

Sbarbaro, V., & Smith, Enyeart, T. (2011). An exploratory study of bullying and

cyberbullying behaviors among economically/ educationally disadvantaged

middle school students. American Journal of Health Studies, 26(3), 139.

Schwab-Reese, L., Hovdestad, W., Tonmyr, L., & Fluke, J. (2018). The potential use of

social media and other internet-related data and communications for child

maltreatment surveillance and epidemiological research: Scoping review and

recommendations. Child Abuse & Neglect, vol.85, 187-201.

Schwarz, C., & Britto, H. (2015). Queering the support for trafficked persons: LGBTQ

communities and human trafficking in the heartland. Social Inclusion, 3(1), N, a-

n, a.

Smith, C. (2019, April 19). The history of the telephone: Six pioneers who transformed

the world of communications. Retrieved from http://home.bt.com/tech-

gadgets/phones-tablets/who-invented-the-telephone-bell-meucci-gray-reis-

ericsson-cooper-11364256543584

Stauffer, S., Heath, M., Coyne, S., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers' perceptions

of cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Psychology in the

Schools, 49(4), 352-367.

Strom-Gottfried, K., Thomas, M., & Anderson, H. (2014). Social work and social media:

Reconciling ethical standards and emerging technologies. Journal of Social Work

Values and Ethics, 11(1), 54-65.

Taylor, S. (2017, October 12). Timeline showing the fascinating history of ink post.

Retrieved from https://www.centrecolours.co.uk/my-first-blog-post

106

Thakor, M., & Boyd, D. (2013). Networked trafficking: Reflections on technology and

the anti-trafficking movement. Dialectical Anthropology, 37(2), 277-290.

Tidball, S., Zheng, M., & Creswell, J. (2016). Buying sex on-line from girls: NGO

representatives, law enforcement officials, and public officials speak out about

human trafficking—A qualitative analysis. Gender Issues, 33(1), 53-68.

Tunick, R., Mednick, L, & Conroy, C. (2011). A snapshot of child psychologists' social

media activity: Professional and ethical practice implications and

recommendations. (Author abstract) (Report). Professional Psychology, Research

and Practice, 42(6), 440-447.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s. (2018). Child

maltreatment 2018. Retrieved from

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2018.pdf

Voshel, E., & Wesala, A. (2015). Social media & social work ethics: Determining best

practices in an ambiguous reality. Journal of Social Work Values and

Ethics, 12(1), 67-76.

Wasson, D. L. (2018, April 12). Fall of the western roman empire. Ancient History

Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/835/

Wei-Haas, M. (2018, November 7). 40,000-year-old cave art may be world's oldest

animal drawing. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/11/news-oldest-animal-

drawing-borneo-cave-art-human-origins/

107

Wilber, J. (2018, June 8). Lawrence Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development.

Retrieved from https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Lawrence-Kohlbergs-Six-

Stages-of-Moral-Development

Withers, M. (2019, November 22). Social media platforms help promote human

trafficking. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/modern-

day-slavery/201911/social-media-platforms-help-promote-human-trafficking

Yuen, F. (2019). Conceptual and practical research and statistics for social workers. San

Diego, California: Cognella Academic Publishing.