Social Work Digital Storytelling Project: Digital Literacy,Digital Storytelling,and the Makerspace

Purpose and Background

The SWDS project was a research study undertaken to (1) enhance digital literacy of practitioners and students through digital storytelling training, (2) diversify engagement in a local public library technology hub (the “makerspace”), and (3) understand and enhance social work leadership knowledge among students and practitioners through the creation and sharing of leadership-focused digital stories. Technology in social work practice is more than a tool to be exploited; it is a politically implicated system of resources and processes, bound by history and context (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016; Franklin & Swenarchuk, 2006). This project developed (in part) out of increased regulation of the use of digital media technologies in social work and the need to question who is empowered as a user of technology; what rules and prohibitions are linked to social workers’ use of technology in practice; and how, these processes reflect power relations at play within the profession (La Rose, 2019b). Understanding these phenomena holds the potential to support strategic engagement with technology that may broaden the scope of participation and empowerment within (and beyond) the profession.

Technology in Social Work

Technological advancements bring many positive changes to social work. The introduction of online resources enhances clients’ awareness of services and, in many cases, facilitates access to a broader range of social welfare resources; online social work training (e.g., professional development) and formal education (e.g., degree programs) enhances the reach and scope of the profession (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016). Databases, e-records, and online documentation systems enhance social workers’ capacity to share and access practice materials across space and time (Kennedy & Yaldren, 2017). Finally, internet-based communication technologies remake local events as global phenomena, opening the door for grassroots communication and advocacy to occur beyond national boarders (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016; La Rose, 2019b).

In spite of these benefits, for many social workers and clients, digital technologies reshape practice in undesirable ways. In many instances, technological innovations reflect neo-liberal austerity, through which the cost of technology reduces the resources available for direct service delivery (Baines, 2017; Gillingham, 2019; Goyen & Debatin, 2009). In other instances, technologies result in reduced practice autonomy and increased standardization resulting from the subtle introduction of machine learning and artificial intelligence (Gillingham, 2019). Sometimes, technology is used to conduct surveillance on workers and clients, while the linking of data entry activities to funding flow may mean administrative tasks supersede client engagement (Baines et al., 2020; La Rose, 2009, 2016a).

The technological environment surrounding social workers is also described as less than ideal for spiriting innovation. Social welfare agencies and organizations frequently lack the resources to upgrade and maintain infrastructure, meeting only the most basic technical requirements (Kennedy & Yaldren, 2017). Finally, professional regulatory bodies have promoted extreme caution around social workers’ use of digital technologies (National Association of Social Workers, 2017); these cautions may scare workers away from their own self-directed learning for fear that making a mistake while learning to use technology may affect the social workers’ professional reputation (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016; Fitch, 2005; La Rose, 2019b).

Digital Literacy

The concept of digital literacy highlights the complex relationships between individuals, technologies, and the many contexts in which they are used. Digital literacy may be defined generally as “the set of skills, knowledge and attitudes required to access, create, use, and evaluate digital information effectively, efficiently, and ethically” (Julien, 2018, p. 2243). Digital literacy supports individual capacity to “locate, organize, understand, evaluate and create information using digital technology” (Bawden, 2001; Gilster, 1997). Detlor et al. (2018) advocate for development of two distinct literacy skills sets: (i) skills to operate and utilize digital technologies such as computers, tablets, and smart phones and (ii) skills to access, create, use, and evaluate digital information.

In social work, digital literacy requires the mediation of social work’s value system and process orientation in addition “to developing…not just technological proficiency, but also a wide variety of ethical, social, and reflective practices that are embedded in work, learning, leisure, and daily life…” (Media Smarts, 2010, p. 5). For social workers, questions remain as to how and where they might elect to undertake this kind of professional development, such that they would feel comfortable and confident experimenting and exploring without fear of judgement by employers, peers, and professional associations.

Makerspace Approaches

Many community-based organizations play active roles in developing digital literacy skills within the communities they serve. For example, public libraries provide a variety of programs and services to promote digital literacy, increase digital comfort, and encourage the adoption and use of digital technologies among community members (Cole & Ryan, 2016; Nordicity, 2018). A key ingredient in digital literacy advocacy by such community-based organizations is the makerspace—“a physical place where informal, collaborative learning can happen through hands-on creation, using any combination of technology, industrial arts, and fine arts” (Bowler & Champagne, 2016, p. 117). Also known as learning labs (Koh & Abbas, 2015), Fablabs, Hackerspaces, and TechShops (Calvalcanti, 2013), makerspaces provide environments where people are free to experiment with and learn about new technologies in the process of creating or building digital or analog technological artifacts (Bagley, 2014; Bowler & Champagne, 2016). According to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (2012), “[m]akerspaces are part of a growing movement of hands-on, mentor-led learning environments to make and remake the physical and digital worlds. They foster experimentation, invention, creation, exploration, and STEM learning” (p. 1).

In this sense, makerspaces are “places where making happens in community” and where learning occurs (Litts, 2015, p. i). Importantly, makerspaces are a special blend of community, space, and tools that provide community members with a “third place” (Litts, 2015). A third place is a space between work and home where people can meet informally and where people are provided with a unique and meaningful sense of worth (Oldenburg, 1989). Makerspaces may be of special interest to social workers who may be fearful of technology and/or hesitant to experiment with digital tools. Makerspaces can provide safe and friendly learning environments (or a third place) for social workers to explore and learn about information technology through the process of creation and experimentation.

Digital Storytelling and Social Work

The complexity of digital storytelling makes it an excellent medium in which to grow and nurture digital literacy skills (La Rose, 2019a). The method utilizes various media such as video, audio, photography, music, and text to construct, communicate, and share narratives. These stories can teach; entertain; build community, connection, and hope; illustrate identities and experiences; and create action (La Rose et al., 2018; Detlor, 2017). The polycontextual nature of digital stories means that developing these online narrative texts as learning activities within the context of a collective learning environment also promotes critical reflexivity (La Rose, 2019a).

Digital storytelling is an arts-informed research practice facilitating participants’ sharing of personal/professional narratives multimodally. It is an approach to narrative research that challenges the limitations of traditional research and knowledge generation techniques and serves to broaden what might be understood as “knowledge” within social work epistemological contexts (La Rose, 2016a, 2016b). Digital stories may be understood as artifacts created by social workers to represent particular events, experiences, values, beliefs, and moments in time (Couldry, 2008). Analysis of the digital story archives supports research and scholarship into the values, beliefs, and perspectives of social workers over time (La Rose, 2019b).

Use of Technology

Social workers described their use of digital media technologies before participating in the workshop as reflective of a broad range of practical tasks such as shopping, banking, connecting with friends/family and locating community resources. Participants indicated they used digital technology for “research and learning” which sometimes related to social work practice but also included inquiries about current events and life skills such as cooking tips/recipes. Participants also mentioned both passive (I look but don’t post) and active (I look and post) use of social media sites such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Reddit, Wordpress, and Instagram. The activities reflected by the social workers are consistent with the literature on social media engagement more generally (Couldry, 2008; Lange, 2009).

Advocacy Practices

Advocacy practices were highlighted as one of the ways participants used digital technologies. The respondents stated they frequently used the internet and social media to explore social justice campaigns and social movement activities. Responses emphasized participation in ongoing online advocacy; however, participants did not identify themselves as the initiators of online campaigns. One participant (P2) indicated they used social media to express opinions; a statement setting them apart from the rest of the group. Advocacy and participation in social movements and social justice campaigns online are discussed in the literature as a common type of digital engagement among social workers (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016; La Rose, 2019b). Advocacy is closely associated with the social justice goals of the profession and is seen as one of the unique social work practice roles (Baines, 2017). Digital advocacy activities and social media campaigns are natural extensions of traditional social work activities (La Rose, 2019a).

Enhancing Communication

In the survey completed after the conclusion of the digital storytelling workshops, participants suggested the SWDS project enhanced their openness to new experiences and creative opportunities. Consistently, the respondents touched on the theme of enhanced communication and the potential for the use of more diverse communication activities as a result of their participation in this project. Participants saw their new understanding of digital technology and digital storytelling as having the potential to reduce communication barriers within professional contexts as exemplified through the following quote:

Telling a story and articulating concepts with supporting imagery opens up many possibilities I had not previously considered. I have a reason to upgrade my computer skills and learn more software program options…I have a sense of there being new communications options that are accessible to me and others. I have more confidence that I can learn new modalities and this reduces barriers for me. (P4)

The participants also emphasized the belief that they needed to develop additional skills to engage digital technologies and apply digital storytelling approaches effectively, particularly in their practice. Several participants indicated the changing nature of social media platforms and digital technologies led them to believe they would continuously need to upgrade knowledge and skills to participate effectively. The literature suggests that the changing nature of digital technologies and online platforms means social workers need to continue to develop knowledge and skills on an ongoing basis (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016). Continued exposure and ongoing use is what allows social workers to develop these skills as they engage and experiment with technologies (Fitch, 2005; La Rose, 2019a, 2019b).

Learning How to Learn

While participants indicated they needed additional knowledge, the workshops were understood to have enhanced their capacity to seek out information and resources in order to learn what was necessary for technological engagement. While no respondents claimed to have mastered digital literacy, greater awareness of how to learn to do something new was seen as creating greater possibility for engagement; these social workers felt more confidence to experiment since participating in the SWDS project.

The respondents reflected on possible ways to bring digital storytelling methods into their day-to-day practice, which was described as a process of “taking small steps” (P2). Included in these small steps was the decision by three participants to independently return to the makerspace to use technology resources for other projects (e.g., poster making, embroidery printing, and 3D printing). The fact that participants returned to the makerspace independently suggests that in some small way the project goal of enhancing the range of users in the makerspace was achieved.

Rules and Norms

In the preparticipation survey, participants were asked to reflect on their knowledge of rules and norms related to technology within their workplace[s], within the broader context of professional social work, and to consider how these related to/affected their use of social media and digital technologies. The participants were readily able to identify warnings and prohibitions against the use of social media and internet technologies reflected in both organizational (e.g., place of employment/school) and regulatory policies (e.g., see: OCSWSSW.ca). In reflecting on these, participants suggested employers and regulators fear social workers’ use of technology. Responses emphasized a “risk aversion” orientation by participants, which they described as a response to organizational warnings and formal rules.

In the postparticipation survey, participants reflected more specifically on the risks associated with social media activities and the need to engage in specific types of harm reduction rather than avoiding social media and digital technologies altogether. As one participant stated, engaging in online activity holds the potential that a social worker might experience “lots of backlash” (P5). Therefore, ensuring audiences do not have access to personal information (e.g., full name, primary address, place of employment) is an important aspect of social workers’ digital literacy.

Postparticipation respondents suggested the tenor of rules and norms about social media emphasized preventing and avoiding risk to the employer or the profession specifically, a sentiment that is echoed in much of the literature about professionalization and contemporary practice (Baines, 2017; Brookfield, 2009; La Rose, 2019a). Simpson (2016) and Yokoyama (2016) reflect a similar sentiment to that of the participants, suggesting social workers fear the repercussions of using digital technology and social media sharing, not on the basis of risk to self, but risk to organizations and institutions.

Blurry Boundaries

Preparticipation survey responses suggested social workers receive contradictory messages about the “boundaries” between personal and professional technology use. Participants indicated they felt this divide was largely arbitrary, in that regulatory regimes and employers expected social workers to engage with a particular kind of decorum/morality consistent with the social work Code of Ethics (CASW, 2005a) and Professional Practice Guidelines (CASW, 2005b). These expectations extend beyond the workplace and beyond working hours, and are well-documented in the literature (Baines, 2017; Brookfield, 2009; La Rose, 2019a). For example, Weinberg (2010) discusses fear of punishment similar to that expressed by these participants; Boddy and Dominelli (2016) also reflect on these experiences of fear in their consideration of social media ethics case studies.

Participants suggested boundaries were a necessary part of risk management; however, postparticipants indicated they could not confidently state where the personal began and the professional ended. Participants asserted this lack of clarity exists in part because RSW with the OCSWSSW and other regulatory colleges are required to disclose personal circumstances, like (for example) their mental health status and history (See: OCSWSSW.ca: SWSSW Act, 1993: R.A., 2018x, O.R. 383/00). Rather than seeing a firm division between the person and the profession as most important, postparticipant respondents suggested concern for “context” might be a better indicator of ethical engagement with digital technology and digital storytelling.

Regardless of this analysis, respondents indicated they continued to have concerns or worries about interpretations of technology use and curbed their engagement/use in an effort to protect their professional reputation. As one participant suggested:

As an employed person, I consider the ramifications of my online presence and how things could be misconstrued—against me. I avoid posting overly political or personal items on my social media. Additionally, I consider the ways in which technology can overtake some aspects of my role in a negative way. I do what I can to keep interpersonal communication as a primary focus…. (P3)

That being said, informal social media use bled into work-related communication, such as checking in with colleagues, asking for suggestions, and/or seeking information from other social workers. Once again, instant messaging, Facebook groups, or Instagram were used in the work community because these technologies allowed for rapid responses via cellular device; these communication activities constituted a significant form of support for workers in stressful situations, which is affirmed by contemporary scholarship in this area (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016; Yokoyama, 2016).

The use of social media described by participants could also be described as “peer supervision” (Baker, 2018), a type of professional support reflected in the literature as a protector of worker wellness and as a necessity due to neoliberal austerity and managerialism which make clinical supervision a low priority (Baines, 2017; Baines et al., 2020; Baker, 2018). Peer supervision that might have occurred in the lunchroom or over the wall of a cubicle is mediated to the digital realm through social media and supports workers to bear the uncertainty that is part of social work practice (Weinberg, 2010).

Considering Context

Participants suggested that context of use might be a better way to understand these subtle differences in social media use. The workers emphasized context was largely missing from discussions of social media and digital technology by employers and regulators (Yokoyama, 2016). This concern is echoed by Weinberg (2010) who suggests contemporary social work ethics lacks both nuance and flexibility. The examples and concerns raised by participants suggest considerations of context in contemporary practice requires attention to the complexity of practice and to increasing expectations placed on workers. As the concept of work and professional identity become more blurry, there is a need to bring context into greater focus, a shift consistent with social work practice traditions (Baines, 2017; Boddy & Dominelli, 2016). The issue of context is explored in greater detail in the discussion of neoliberalism presented later in this article.

Professional Development

The social workers surveyed reflected an appreciation for digital media technologies as resources supporting professional development and improved quality of care for service users/clients. Respondents commonly commented on the benefit of online resources in facilitating access to information and practice innovations. In the postparticipation survey, technology was described as supporting “currency and competency” by participants, as well as allowing workers to “stay fresh…[by] keeping up with policy changes.” (P4)

The capacity to develop a deeper understanding of issues facing clients was another important application of digital media cited by respondents. As one worker reflected:

I often use online resources to research services, information about diagnoses and issues a client may be facing…I also participate in professional development courses/webinars…Online resources allow me to stay on top of new developments and research about practices which improve[s] my ability to provide quality of care. It also allows me to stay informed about issues that matter to clients…(P1)

Internet Access

In the postparticipation survey, some participants suggested that social workers’ capacity to engage with digital technologies and online social media platforms may be blocked by employers who restrict access to the Internet or particular sites such as YouTube, a practice also reflected in the literature (Yokoyama, 2016). While YouTube may be used recreationally, many YouTube videos now focus on learning/instruction and may be directly related to the work at hand. Therefore, employers who block internet access potentially limit employees’ capacity to engage in professional development or to support the needs of clients. Yokohama (2016) suggests that controlled internet access also reduces worker morale, job satisfaction, and affinity for the workplace—costs that employers may not consider in their desire to control distractions. This idea was reflected in the following statement by respondent P1:

[In] my child welfare position, we are blocked from accessing many sites (particularly social media) from work computers/networks. This is difficult, as social media is often used for investigative purposes, such as accessing photos for youth in care to create lifebooks…(P1)

Neoliberalism

Survey participants suggested workload and workplace standardization were significant obstacles to integrating digital technologies and social media use into practice. Workers felt they would not have time to use these technologies at work, or that their work design did not allow them the flexibility needed. Furthermore, the climate of evidence-based practice was discussed as limiting the value placed on practices where learning by doing and experimentation were required and where absolute outcomes could not be guaranteed, such as in the case of digital storytelling.

Participants note that workload and work design limited their capacity to be creative and innovative; these social workers worried about simply meeting the requirements of their job with little hope of doing anything extra. Within contemporary social work, issues of workload and work design are frequently cited as preventing social workers from practicing in ways workers feel are most consistent with social work values and ethics (Baines, 2017; Boddy & Dominelli, 2016; La Rose, 2016a). There is little reason to believe that digital literacy and the use of social media would in any way be exempt from these effects. However, there is little research that explicitly considers the relationship between social work workloads and the use of digital technologies, internet-based resources, and social media; perhaps this is an area where additional research is warranted.

The limitations described by the workers reflect understandings that contemporary social work environments are largely shaped by neoliberal ideologies, which emphasize efficiency, risk aversion, standardization, and “evidence”-based practice often at the cost of innovation and adaptiveness (Baines, 2017; Boddy & Dominelli, 2016). In this way, social workers’ capacity to use digital media technologies in practice is limited by contemporary ideological principles.

Weinberg (2010) suggests neoliberalism is remaking social work ethics and values, arguing these new ethical approaches limit social workers’ capacities to interpret and implement policies in context, which in turn limits the potential for innovation and interpretation of action such that social change orientations are maximized. These foci move social work away from concerns about macro issues, which could be explicated and shared in common reflections online through digital storytelling. Weinberg’s analysis is largely congruent with the participants’ sense there is little room for digital storytelling and digital technologies in their current work contexts—in part because of a lack of space and tolerance for critical reflection.

Desire for Innovation

Politics, obstacles, fears, and doubts aside, respondents overwhelmingly indicated they hoped to incorporate social media and digital storytelling into their social work practice going forward. Of particular note was the reflection provided by P3 who commented on the “need for additional resources” in order to be able “to apply enhanced skills.” Respondents discussed the importance of knowledge in advancing their own potential of using digital media. Knowing more meant digital storytelling felt more accessible, as the quote below suggests:

…Being able to work through questions and then actually work on a digital media project was very helpful…Really liked the practical component and walking away with new skills in this area…as well as new ways of thinking about intersections between our profession and the use of digital technologies. Often times we don’t talk about the use of digital technologies in social work because of the perceived “inherent risks,” so it was great to be able to discuss and work through some of these tensions while learning and developing new skills. (P7)