1

1

Use of ICT in Social Work Practicum

Pratap Chandra Behera1

Introduction

Social workers deal with the service users contextualizing in their social environment. A

multitude of transactions take place between the service users, their environment and the

social worker (Blok, 2012). Globalization, technological change and neo-liberalism

continuously interplay. At present, the context for social work profession is a technologically

based global society. Though the context of social work practice is continuing within modern

systems, ‘the profession has not proactively harnessed much of the technology which has

been integrated in various fields of practice ... Essentially, ICT still appears to play a very

limited role in the delivery of social work services despite the fact that it is an aspect of a

modernist, globalized world that can offer extensive benefits to social work and our clients’

(West & Heath, 2011, p. 215).

Social work practice is increasingly happening in an informational context (Parton, 2008). In

this context, the social workers need to ‘stay abreast of new developments in technology, and

acknowledge the complexity of practice issues in the context of cultural and social diversity’

(Congress & McAuliffe, 2006, p. 161). There has been growing research in the field of social

care. These research findings work as evidence in professional practice. With the

advancement of communication technology, for practitioners, there is a huge amount of

readily available information (Aveyard & Sharp, 2009).

ICT and its Social Interface

Information and communications technologies cover a broad range of items from the old

printed newspapers to the very recent internet and mobile devices. Computers, satellites,

wireless/mobile phones, the Internet, e-mail and multimedia generally are labelled as ICTs.

They help in creating, storing, and manipulating information (Hill & Shaw, Social work &

ICT, 2011). These are also labelled as new technologies and are based on digital

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute, Ladnun, Rajasthan

2

2

communications (Greenberg, 2005, p. 16). The Human Development Report 2001 has a

special focus on information and communication technologies. It discusses how people can

create and use technology to improve their lives and the necessity of new policies to benefit

from the information and communications technology in the direction of human

development. Technology can play an enabling role like education and can help people

overcome poverty (UNDP, 2001). Report of the World Summit on the Information Society

strongly emphasises the importance of access to information towards economic, social and

cultural development and achievement of millennium development goals (World Summit on

the Information Society, 2006).

The potential of ICT is being increasingly discussed. Countries across the world have

strategies to ‘explore ways of using ICTs to reduce poverty in line with the Millennium

Development Goals’ (Tiwari, 2006, p. 11). They can play critical role in empowering people,

provision of social services, in alleviating poverty and in improving health services

(Chandrasekhar, 2000; Chandrasekhar & Ghosh, 2001; Greenberg, 2005; Gulati, 2012;

Hazra, 2012; Monga, 2008; Pathak, 2008; Shearman, 2003). Study shows that Indian farmers

are getting benefits from information services (Fafchamps & Minten, 2012). Fishermen in the

state of Kerala used mobile phones in their business and did efficient transactions (Jensen,

2007). Gyandoot, Drishtee, Aksh, n-Logue, and TARAhaat are some of the ICT initiatives to

provide social services and promote e-governance (Singh, 2006). However, one needs to

know that India is differentiated economy with large inter and intra regional and social

disparities. In this situation, the government should ‘ensure that the benefits of ICTs do not

accrue only to the early mover or high-income states’ (Vijaybaskar, 2003, p. 2363).

Ganesh and Barber (2009)are critical about the ICT and development in the third world

countries as it is an extension of capitalism which does not serve the poor. Also, it is wrong to

assume that ‘access to ICTs and the implementation of ICT initiatives has direct and positive

connections with alleviating some serious and familiar problems of developing regions,

including poverty, health, employment and education’ (Ganesh & Barber, 2009, p. 852).

Unless agencies like state do not moderate, ICTs would get influenced by the ‘existing

traditional institutions of power, economic or social’ (Vijaybaskar, 2003, p. 2364).

3

3

ICT Infrastructure in India

The rural density is increasing in rural area in India. At present it is about 300 million rural

connections which were less than 5 million at the onset of the new millennium (Gulati, 2012).

The draft National IT policy in India envisages to make every family e-literate and to

promote ICTs for key social sector initiatives like education, health, rural development and

the like. There are articulated policy concerns for the people with disabilities and socially

excluded groups. Similarly, the draft National Telecom Policy 2011 is planning to promote

the broadband services which would facilitate development of a knowledge based society.

This would address issues of equity and quality of governance to an extent. The Eleventh

Five Year Plan of Government of India has concerns to expand the communication

technologies to the masses. The emphasis is:

‘… to make an effective and maximal utilization of ICT to improve the quality

of life of the common man and promote inclusive growth, increase

productivity and competitiveness and generate wealth and strength so that

India emerges as a knowledge superpower in the comity of developed

nations.’ (Planning Commission, Government of India, 2008, p. 253)

Over the last decade, there has been tremendous growth in telephone services in India as

indicated in the table below. It is increasing more in rural areas. Whereas the subscription for

landline is decreasing, the wireless connections are increasing. As on 31st March 2012, there

are more than 900 million telephone subscribers, out of which more than 600 million in urban

areas and more than 300 million in rural areas. Similarly, whereas the urban teledensity is

fully saturated, it is still quite low in the rural areas. There are more than 22 million internet

users out of which more than 13 million are broadband users. The number is quite substantial

from the private sectors. All together, in case of India, the telecom industry is quite large and

reaching almost all areas. As on December 2010, as many as 96971 (40.06 per cent) village

panchayats had broadband connections out of a total of 242069 village panchayats in India

(Government of India, 2010). In many states, most of the colleges are connected with

broadband facilities which would facilitate e-learning and academic developments. In India, a

number of free telephone numbers are available which are related to care and welfare. They

exist for quite sometime in the country. However, there is still some efforts needed to make

their use widespread and user friendly. These can also be starting points to initiate certain e-

service.

4

4

Sociology of Technology

Technology is a product of human creativity that evolves in socio-cultural milieu. In a way

technology is socially constructed. A piece of technology has three aspects: ‘first, artefacts

and technical systems, second the knowledge about these and, third, the practices of handling

these artefacts and systems’ (Bijker, 2010, p. 64). Bijker (2010) discusses the sociological

aspects of technology. Society today is technological and these technologies are pervasively

cultural. These are everyday features of human life and modify human activities and

behaviour.

There is an assumption that technology regulates society. This is called technological

determinism. This seemed to lack the scope ‘to influence the course of technological

development’ (Bijker, 2010, p. 66). Instead, now it is believed that technology is socially

shaped (Wajcman, 2002). A concept called social construction of technology looks at these

aspects. It would provide a set of research heuristics for interpretative sociology. Instead of

looking singularly at an artifact, a holistic view is ‘that a technological system comprises a

combination of technical, social, organisational, economic and political elements’ (Bijker,

2010, p. 66). Similarly, the design and content of a technological artifact is socially shaped

and many social factors come into play. Accordingly, it is said, that ‘technology is a socio-

technical product, patterned by the conditions of its creation and use’ (Wajcman, 2002, p.

351).

There is a process of individualization with regard to a piece of technology and its user(s). An

individual or group would attribute a meaning that would differ largely from other users. The

same piece of technology would have different meaning for individuals with varying age,

gender, and cultural values. Views of the persons with disabilities would differ further. It may

be convenient and acceptable to one and quite inappropriate for others. Hacking (1982)

describes this process as methodological relativism. The interpretation of the relevance of a

piece of technology can be analysed under different frames, however, frames should not be

treated hierarchically. This would help in avoiding the principle of prioritisation – treating

one is better than other.

5

5

Taking this argument for ICT and their social interface, it can be attributed that ‘ICTs are

sociotechnical or sociomaterial configurations that exhibit different degree of determination

and contingency at different moments in their relationship’ (Jung, Ball-Rokeach, Kim, &

Matei, 2007, p. 596). For a social group, the use and manipulation on these technologies

would depend on their boarder economic and social circumstances. The social structure has a

key role in determining the technology in society. As Warschauer (2003) says, ‘technological

and social realms are highly intertwined and continuously co-constitute each other in a

myriad of ways. This co-constitution occurs within organizations, institutions, and in society

at large’ (p. 205).

Digital Divide

Digital divide, as a concept, is an evolving one. It shows the varying level of information

‘between those individuals who have access to the information society and information and

communication technologies (ICTs) and those who do not’ (Stoiciu, 2011). Digital divide is a

multidimensional phenomenon. In the post industrial societies, patterns of household income,

education, and occupational status are factors in promoting this inequality. Norris (2001)

discusses three aspects of this concept. There are:

‘…The global divide refers to the divergence of Internet access between

industrialized and developing societies. The social divide concerns the gap

between information rich and poor in each nation. And finally within the

online community, the democratic divide signifies the difference between

those who do, and do not, use the panoply of digital resources to engage,

mobilize, and participate in public life. …’ [italics in original] (Norris, 2001,

p. 4)

A fact is that the cost of digital technologies is decreasing substantially. Now many people

from all social groups have some of these gadgets as they become affordable. With these

increased presence of ICTs in society, it would be wise to explore the ‘opportunities and

challenges presented by ICT a significant contemporary issue for the social work profession’

(Parrott & Madoc-Jones, 2008, p. 184). As in the social model of disability, it is assumed that

access is socially conditioned and is regarded as the failure of a society. The barriers originate

in the social environment, not in the socially excluded. This theory can be equally applied to

6

6

social exclusion and digital divide. Accordingly, ‘the social work profession is not only

bearing witness to a new category of social exclusion but also to new structures of digital

disability’ (Watling, 2012, p. 129). This perspective has a greater relevance for social work

practitioners.

Those who are socially excluded are also digitally excluded. Digital inclusion would demand

social inclusion. As it is observed, the digital divide is ‘another facet of social exclusion’

(Rafferty & Steyaert, 2007, p. 167). There are many socio-demographic factors that

accentuate social exclusion. Important among them are: income, educational level, gender,

age, employment status, ethnicity and caste, type of household (e.g., single-parent) and the

like (Rafferty & Steyaert, 2007). As commonly seen in society, women have less access to

ICT services. This is mainly because of ‘poverty, illiteracy and social and cultural barriers,

and thus have difficulty availing themselves of these potentially empowering technologies’

(Best & Maier, 2007, p. 143). Another similar perspective is that ‘women are ‘information

poor’ because of the disabling effects of their income levels, socioeconomic situations and

traditional cultures’ (Törenli, 2006, p. 435).

Digital divide as a phenomenon occurs not in isolation, but within the existing socioeconomic

realities. It is a ‘symptom of deeper, more important divides: of income, development and

literacy. ... [It] is between those with access to a mobile network and those without. The good

news is that the gap is closing fast’ (Economist, 2005, p. 11). Failure to engage with ICTs

may exclude some of these social groups. It manifests from household to global levels. The

concerns inherent in this context, especially the socially excluded have been summarised

below.

‘This is where the concept of the ‘digital divide’ becomes pivotal: the risk of

less access to services as well as less choice and possibly greater costs may

result in social exclusion because the person does not have access to new

technology or skills to use that technology. This is also where social work

becomes involved, as one of the professions fighting social exclusion. ...’

(Steyaert & Gould, 2009, p. 742)

Access to information is one aspect. Finding and making sense of available is another.

Similarly, ‘the ability to make sense of generic information that is relevant to one’s own

circumstances’ is also important (Wyatt, Henwood, & Hart, 2005, p. 213). Potter (2006) goes

7

7

beyond the simplistic meaning of digital divide – the binary opposite of haves and have-nots.

There are individuals and groups within developed and developing world whose voices are

not heard, who are outside their immediate community and within the unconnected. They live

in abstract zones of silence. Zones of silence framework broadens ‘the dialogue on global

communication and information access beyond a discourse of need, to one of mutual

questioning, sharing, and learning’ (Potter, 2006, p. web).

Provision of technology is itself not a solution. That would not lead to greater equality,

inclusion, and access. Therefore, it requires ‘the mobilization of learners, educators, and

communities to demand that technology be used in ways that serve their interests’

(Warschauer, 2003, p. 152). Wong et al put emphasis on the ‘promotion of community-based

ICT user networks for certain disadvantaged groups is crucial to enhance their participation

in the information society’ (Wong, Fung, Law, Lam, & Lee, 2009, p. 754).

Use of ICT and Social Work Practice

Use of ICT in social work is not very much established. It is at its nascent stage, though it is

gradually increasing (Menon & Miller-Cribbs, 2002; Payne & Askeland, 2008). In western

countries, introduction of use of ICT started early as late 1980s to early 1990s (Van Lieshout

& Schrijen, 1999). In India, however, there is no such explicit articulation to promote e-

competencies, though it can make certain contributions in this area (NAAC, 2005; UGC,

2001). At present, registration and data recording and processing are becoming important.

The authors broaden the data recording to contribute to understanding social problems (Bradt,

Roose, Bie, & Schryver, 2011).

Waldman and Rafferty (2008) critically looked at technology supported teaching and learning

in the UK. ICTs in social work may include e-mails, listservs, bulletin boards, chat rooms,

interactive websites, one-way web casts, CD-ROMs, interactive television, desktop

videoconferencing and the like and the combinations of these (Wasko, 2008). These

technologies transcend geography and can empower people who live at a distance from the

physical resources (Parrott & Madoc-Jones, 2008). As ICTs develop, there will be more

scope for interpersonal practices such as social work and its education. But, an important

8

8

concern is how this technology would discriminate between rich and poor. The poor would

have less access to this technology (Payne & Askeland, 2008).

As the compilation of use of ICT in social work reveals, till 1999, it was quite less. During

the five year phase from 1995 to 1999, about 55 related articles appeared in 22 different

journals (Biebelhausen, Dakin, & Gavrilovici, 2000). The changing contexts can be an

opportunity for social work profession to ‘re-examine traditional knowledge and direct

practice skills at both the micro and macro levels of practice’ (Wasko, 2008, p. 61). Morgan

(2011) suggests that social workers should ‘identify and maximize the opportunities that

these technologies and developements offer to them as professionals and to the people who

use their servieces’ (p. 126). Rafferty and Steyaert (2007) see that social work is now taking

place within the 'digital society' and therefore has imperatives to understand, internalise its

various dimensions in social practice. ICTs do have impacts on the society – individuals,

families and communities – and, therefore, there is a need to know how, the extent and form

of its impact. An understanding on this would help in analysing the inequality, issues of

exclusion, areas of support and enabling people may require.

On the part of social worker, there has been reluctance to use technology as part of

professional practice. However, there is always a scope to form partnership in developing and

shaping a technology that would cater to the needs of the profession (Rafferty & Steyaert,

2007). Therefore, the suggestion is that social workers need to get ‘involved in the ways in

which new technologies are used within organizations … to influence its impact upon their

clients’ (Sapey, 1997, p. 803). With necessary animation, these technologies can be used as

tools for ‘reconnecting individuals and groups within these disadvantaged and hard-to-reach

communities in a number of ways’ (Shearman, 2003, p. 14).

A social worker need to have competence in the disciplinary research and knowledge along

with practice learning comprising of experiential and action-based activities. Communication

skills and information sharing is an important aspect of practice (Higham, 2006). The

important question is ‘how ICTs may be used to further the aims of social work in ways that

accord with the values of the profession’ (Hill & Shaw, Social work & ICT, 2011, p. 9). ICT

in social work implies ‘the ways in which social work students, programme staff and agency-

based practice educators can engage with ICTs to develop social work understanding,

knowledge and skills’ (Hill & Shaw, ICT and Social Work Education, 2012, p. 115). Kirst-

9

9

Ashman and Hull (2009) discussed the advantages in the use of ICT in the context of

recording in generalist social work practice.

Knowledge and application of ICT is becoming one among many expected competencies.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has spelt out standards, especially standard

2 and 4, to have technical competencies for use of digital technology in social work practice

(NASW & ASWB, 2005). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK

specifies the level of required competencies in the understanding and use of ICTs (QAA,

2008). In Millersville University in USA, one of the foundational objectives of Social Work

Practicum is to acquire skills in the ‘use of modern technology, especially the Internet, e-

mail, and videoconferencing to be used in service to communities’ (Gregoire, Jacobs, Girvin,

& Clements, 2010, p. 7). Considering the level of ICT use by the welfare agencies, service

users, government and their education system, the students are expected to demonstrate

proficiency in the use of new ICTs and apply them in problem situations.

There are pros and cons in the use of ICT in social work, but the practitioners need to be

‘neither optimists nor ‘doomsayers’ regarding technology, but critical participants’ (Hill &

Shaw, ICT and Social Work Education, 2012, p. 115). The technological environment is

changing rapidly and the practitioners need to be regularly updated on these changes (Perron,

Taylor, Glass, & Margerum-Leys, 2010). The social workers need to have practice-oriented

and service user-focused outcomes and should actively challenge and resist the limited use of

ICT to empower the service users (Parrott & Madoc-Jones, 2008). Nix (2011) summarises

these concerns as:

As technological tools for learning and practice evolve, practitioners will need

to keep abreast of change and be open-minded about future innovations.

Involvement with and evaluation of such tools will ensure that new systems

and approaches are fit for purpose, including for social work practice, and are

neither inappropriate nor imposed. Such ongoing appraisal is crucial to ensure

technology is indeed enhancing practice. (p. 156)

In the use of ICTs, some service users fail to make best use of the system. Some of them

experience and suffer digital exclusion. In this situation, social workers can help them to

overcome some of the ‘barriers to digital inclusion, barriers such as difficulties with access,

problems with motivation to use ICT, and limited opportunities to improve ICT skills and

10

10

confidence’ (Morgan, 2011, p. 130). The social service of environment is changing.

Technology is part of micro, meso and macro level systems in the social ecology of an

organisation. Social service agencies, government organisations, and communities have

already adopted modern ICTs, though the degree varies. It is making geographic distance less

meaningful and compensates the necessity to travel.

Evaluative studies on the use of ICT in social work are not many in number. There is a need

to get proper feedback on the performance of technology in social work education (Roberts-

DeGennaro, 2002; Roberts-DeGennaro & Clapp, 2005). However, there are indications of

mixed results as regards the use of ICT (Roberts-DeGennaro, 2002; Bogo, 2010; Noble &

Irwin, 2009). In a study, students reported the usefulness of timely online announcements on

their field practicum (Roberts-DeGennaro, Brown, Min, & Siegel, 2005). Feedback from the

students increased in quantity and quality. Sometimes, supplementing ICT in social work

practice brings in better results and furthers educational goals. E-seminars have the

potentiality to easily involve the students in their practicum and field seminars. Use of

technology can ‘increase supervision and supportive resources for practicum students without

increasing the burden on faculty, and increase the ease with which students can obtain field

information and resources’ (Birkenmaier, et al., 2005, p. 7).

The process of practice can be effective if social work education, with support from the state

agencies, caters to the concerns of the individuals, families, groups, communities and small

organisations. The state has to fulfil the supply side of system in providing adequate

infrastructure and network services accessible to general public including the areas and

communities hard to reach. This infrastructural development is essential in promoting ICT

services for the mass and the needy. The professionals in the social work fraternity need to

develop skills and competencies as well as aptitude for the latest technologies. Educational

set ups need to have adequate resources for this purpose. They can create demand on the type

of infrastructure needed and critically question the framework of operation of the state

apparatus. As regards the service users, there are two categories: those who are familiar with

the technology and those who are not. For the users who are familiar, plans and strategies

could be developed to address their well-being issues. A different approach is needed for

those who are not familiar with the technological developments. It can be simple awareness

to making them learn to use the technology. Some of them would have certain economic,

social, psychological and physical disadvantages which need to be addressed. The so called

11

11

problem can be converted to an opportunity for the development and redesigning of

technology and framework of operation. The following figure tries to depict these concerns

here.

Figure: The dynamic relations between social work education, state and the service

users.

ICT, Social Work Practice, and the Critical Questions

There is a tendency on the part of welfare agencies and e-technicians to dilute the very

process of social work practice. Social workers often concentrate on the informational aspects

instead of the traditional relational aspects while dealing with the service users. This happens

to be a shift from a narrative mode to a database mode of operation. However, it is quite

important that the social and relational aspects of social work are not compromised (Parton,

2008).

While applying ICTs, ‘it is often the case that the tasks themselves are changed in significant

ways, regardless of whether or not any improvement is achieved’ (Hill & Shaw, Social work

& ICT, 2011, p. 9). ICTs in agencies establish a kind of surveillance monitored through

electronic forms of audit. These technologies also ‘institutionalize particular discourses in the

Concerns of the individuals, families, groups, communities

and small organisations:

Education and awareness; Individualised Choices; Entitlements

and capabilities; Accessibility and affordability to ICT

Educational institutions and Welfare agencies :

Acquirng relevant ICTs; Developing competencies and ethics on ICT use;

Updaing education curriculla on scope and use of ICT in a profession

State and the development of ICT infrastructure :

Telecommunication Network; Mobile telephony; Broadband

infrastructure; Internet services; Availability of ICT for the people in

general

12

12

very operation of the system through the nature and types of questions asked’ (Gilbert &

Powell, 2010, p. 10). As Garrett (2005) observes:

. . . Social work is increasingly being ordered, devised and structured by

academics, policy makers and e-technicians far removed from the day-to-day

encounters, which practitioners have with the users of services. This is

reflected in the emerging software architecture and in the greater use of

centrally devised e-assessment templates which attempt to map contours of

social work engagements and which construct new ‘workflows’. (Garrett,

2005, p. 545)

This would lead to a technology-led approach having some inherent dangers. In the case of

online social work, ‘building trust and expressing sympathy and understanding without the

usual body language clues; dealing with asynchronous flows of communication; the shift in

power and control in the relationship from the worker to the young person’ (Rafferty &

Steyaert, 2007, p. 171). A practice-led approach, in this context, becomes imperative and

needs emphasis. Social work practice progresses with the pace of the service users; rather, it

should be service-user-led. The present ICTs are appreciated for their speed and efficiency in

handling information. Therefore, there are ‘inbuilt tensions between the drive for efficiency

and the need, for example, to respect the individuality of service users and to work at their

pace (Hill & Shaw, 2011, p. 9). However, technology is socially constructed and shaped

(Bijker, 2010). So, the technology could be made to serve the purpose of social work.

Therefore, a holistic thinking and an integrated approach is necessary for an adequate and up

to date professional education (Van Lieshout & Schrijen, 1999).

Social work has always been a value-based profession. A social worker adheres to maintain

the sanctity of the professional values. Trust with the service users and confidentiality of their

information are core values, more so while using digital technology (Congress & McAuliffe,

2006; NASW, 1999). Social workers should value confidentiality and maintain ‘the

relationship of trust with the people using their services, recognizing the boundaries between

personal and professional life’ (Blok, 2012, p. 26).

As regards confidentiality, the service users decide as to ‘what information may be shared,

and with whom. Social workers should not provide confidential information to other

professionals and should not receive confidential information from other professionals, unless

13

13

the client has provided consent for such sharing’ (Barsky, 2010, p. 171). There is a critical

concern with regard to technology. One is about trusting the technology for its use and

efficiency. But, the real contentious issue is having trust on the persons behind the technology

(Baggio & Beldarrain, 2011). The agenda can be hidden; it may not be as transparent as

expected. With the use of ICT, ‘all of the information in all of the files is potentially available

to anyone with a computer terminal – all without the consent of the clients’ (CMHSU, n.d., p.

43). This demands proper safeguarding of the information of the service users. In this context

McCarty and Clancy (2002) discuss ethical issues in the context of telehealth. Online therapy

and counselling creates another form of disconnection.

As we have discussed, there are merits and demerits regarding the use of modern information

communication technologies. However, the globalization and postindustrial forces make it

imperative to make use of technology. In short, it would be quite difficult to escape from

using the technology. In this context, ‘the pedagogical shift [is] needed to keep up with

advancements in technology, especially taking into consideration the anonymity inherent in

digitally mediated communications’ (Baggio & Beldarrain, 2011, p. xvi).

References

Aveyard, H., & Sharp, P. (2009). A Beginner's Guide to Evidence Based Practice in Health and Social Care. London: Open University Press.

Baggio, B., & Beldarrain, Y. (2011). Preface. In B. Baggio, & Y. Beldarrain, Anonymity and Learning in Digitally Mediated Communications: Authenticity and Trust in Cyber Education (pp. ix-xix). Hershey: Information Science Reference .

Barsky, A. E. (2010). Ethics and Values in Social Work: An Integrated Approach for a Comprehensive Curriculum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Best, M. L., & Maier, S. G. (2007). Gender, Culture and ICT Use in Rural South India. Gender, Technology and Development , 11 (2):137–155.

Biebelhausen, L., Dakin, E., & Gavrilovici, O. (2000). Information Technology in Social Work Education & Practice: An Annotated Bibliography. The Lillian F. & Milford J. Harris Library, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University,Cleveland, Ohio.

Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made?—That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics , 34(1): 63–76.

14

14

Birkenmaier, J., Wernet, S. P., Berg-Weger, M., Wilson, R. J., Banks, R., Olliges, R., et al. (2005). Weaving a Web: The Use of Internet Technology in Field Education. In R. Beaulaurier, & M. Haffey, Technology in Social Work Education and Curriculum: The High Tech, High Touch Social Work Educator (pp. 3-19). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.

Blok, W. (2012). Core Social Work: International Theory, Values and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving Competence in Social Work through Field Education. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.

Bradt, L., Roose, R., Bie, M. B.-D., & Schryver, M. D. (2011). Data Recording and Social Work: From the Relational to the Social. British Journal of Social Work , 41: 1372–1382 .

Chandrasekhar, C. (2000). ICT in a Developing Country Context : An Indian Case Study. Background Paper for Human Development Report 2001, UNDP, New York; [http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2001/papers/chandrasekhar-1.pdf].

Chandrasekhar, C., & Ghosh, J. (2001). Information and Communication Technologies and Health in Low Income Countries: The Potential and the Constraints. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 79 (9): 850-855.

CMHSU. (n.d.). Confidentiality. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA (CMHSU) [http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu] [accessed on April 10, 2012].

Congress, E., & McAuliffe, D. (2006). Social Work Ethics: Professional Codes in Australia and the United States. International Social Work , 49(2): 151–164.

Economist. (2005). The Real Digital Divide. Economist , 374 (8417):11 [The Economist, 10th March 2005] [http://www.economist.com/node/3742817 accessed on 19.11.2010].

Fafchamps, M., & Minten, B. (2012). Impact of SMS-Based Agricultural Information on Indian Farmers. World Bank Eeconomic Review , 1-32, first published online February 27, 2012 doi:10.1093/wber/lhr056.

Ganesh, S., & Barber, K. F. (2009). The Silent Community: Organizing Zones in the Digital Divide. Human Relations , 62(6): 851–874.

Garrett, P. M. (2005). Social Work’s “Electronic Turn”: Notes on the Deployment of Information and Communication Technologies in Social Work with Children and Families. Critical Social Policy , 25(4): 529–53.

Gilbert, T., & Powell, J. L. (2010). Power and Social Work in the United Kingdom: A Foucauldian Excursion. Journal of Social Work , 10(1): 3–22.

Government of India. (2011). Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1475, dated on 30th November 2011. Governement of India [as described in Telecommunication Page - http://www.indiastat.com/telecommunication/28/stats.aspx].

15

15

Government of India. (2011). Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.303, dated on 23rd February 2011. Governement of India [as described in Telecommunication Page - http://www.indiastat.com/telecommunication/28/stats.aspx].

Government of India. (2010). Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3193, dated on 26th August 2010. Government of India [as described in Telecommunication - http://www.indiastat.com/telecommunication/28/stats.aspx].

Greenberg, A. (2005). ICTs for Poverty Alleviation: Basic Tool and Enabling Sector. Stockholm: Sida.

Gregoire, K. A., Jacobs, D. F., Girvin, H., & Clements, J. (2010). Field Practicum Manual: Master of Social Work Program (2010-2011 Academic Year): Millersville University – Shippensburg University. Millersville, USA: Millersville University.

Gulati, A. G. (2012). Role of ICTs in Rural Development. Kurukshetra: Journal Rrual Development , 60 (3): 3-7.

Hacking, I. (1982). Language, Truth and Reason. In M. Hollis, & S. Lukes, Rationality and Relativism (pp. 48–66). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hazra, A. (2012). ICT: A Catalytic Intervention for Empowering Rural India. Kurukshetra: Journal Rrual Development , 60 (3): 9-11.

Higham, P. (2006). Social Work: Introducing Professional Practice. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hill, A., & Shaw, I. (2012). ICT and Social Work Education. In J. Lishman, Social Work Education and Training (pp. 115-129). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Hill, A., & Shaw, I. (2011). Social work & ICT. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Jensen, R. (2007). The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance and Welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 122 (3):879-924.

Jung, J.-Y., Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y.-C., & Matei, S. A. (2007). ICTs and Communities in the Twenty-first Century: Challenges and Perspectives. In R. Mansell, C. Avgerou, D. Quah, & R. Silverstone, The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies (pp. 561-581). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H. (2009). Understanding Generalist Practice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

McCarty, D., & Clancy, C. (2002). Telehealth: Implications for Social Work Practice. Social Work , 47(2): 153-161. [doi:10.1093/sw/47.2.153].

Menon, G. M., & Miller-Cribbs, J. (2002). Online Social Work Practice: Issues and Guidelines for the Profession. Advances in SocialWork , 3 (2): 104-116.

Monga, A. (2008). E-government in India: Opportunities and Challenges. JOAAG , 3 (2): 52-61.

16

16

Morgan, A. (2011). People who use Services: Finding a Voice through ICT. In J. Seden, S. Matthews, M. McCormick, & A. Morgan, Professional Development in Social Work: Complex Issues in Practice (pp. 126-131). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

NAAC. (2005). Manual for Self-study of Social Work Institutions. Bangalore: National Assessment and Accreditation Council.

NASW & ASWB. (2005). Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice. Washington, D. C.: National Association of Social Workers.

NASW. (1999). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Nix, I. (2011). Technology-enhanced Learning for Social Work Education and Practice. In J. Seden, S. Matthews, M. McCormick, & A. Morgan, Professional Development in Social Work: Complex Issues in Practice (pp. 150-156). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Noble, C., & Irwin, J. (2009). Social Work Supervision: An Exploration of the Current Challenges in a Rapidly Changing Social, Economic and Political Environment. Journal of Social Work , 9(3): 345–358.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parrott, L., & Madoc-Jones, I. (2008). Reclaiming Information and Communication Technologies for Empowering Social Work Practice. Journal of Social Work , 8(2): 181–197.

Parton, N. (2008). Changes in the Form of Knowledge in Social Work: From the ‘Social’ to the ‘Informational’? British Journal of Social Work , 38: 253–269.

Pathak, R. (2008). Enabling Efficient Administration at the District Leverl through ICT: A Study of Lokavani Project in Uttar Pradesh. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

Payne, M., & Askeland, G. A. (2008). Globalization and International Social Work: Postmodern Change and Challenge. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Perron, B. E., Taylor, H. O., Glass, J., & Margerum-Leys, J. (2010). Information and Communication Technologies in Social Work. Advances in Social Work , 11(1): 67-81.

Planning Commission, Government of India. (2008). Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007–2012): Agriculture, Rural Development, Industry, Services and Physical Infrastructure, Volume III. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Potter, A. B. (2006). Zones of Silence: A framework beyond the digital divide. First Monday , 11 (5): available online at: [http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_5/potter/index/html], accessed 12 November 2006.

QAA. (2008). Subject benchmark statement: Social work 2008. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK. [http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/socialwork08.pdf].

17

17

Rafferty, J., & Steyaert, J. (2007). Social Work in a Digital Society . In M. Lymbery, & K. Postle, Social Work: A Companion to Learning (pp. 165-175). London: Sage.

Roberts-DeGennaro, M. (2002). Constructing and Implementing a Web-based Graduate Social Policy Course. Social Policy Journal , 1 (2): 73–90.

Roberts-DeGennaro, M., & Clapp, J. (2005). Assessing the Virtual Classroom of a Graduate Social Policy Course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work , 25 (1 &2): 69-88.

Roberts-DeGennaro, M., Brown, C., Min, J. W., & Siegel, M. (2005). Using an Online Support Site to Extend the Learning to a Graduate Field Practicum in the United States. Social Work Education , 24(3): 327-342.

Sapey, B. (1997). Social Work Tomorrow: Towards a Critical Understanding of Technology in Social Work. British Journal of Social Work , 27(6): 803-814.

Shearman, C. (2003). Strategies for Reconnecting Communities: Creative Use of ICTs for Social and Economic Transformation. In S. Marshall, X. H. Yu, & W. Taylor, Closing the Digital Divide: Transforming Regional Economies and Communities with Information Technology (pp. 13-26). Westport: Praeger.

Singh, N. (2006). ICTs and Rural Development in India. Santa Cruz: University of California [MPRA Paper No. 1274, posted 07. November 2007; http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1274/].

Steyaert, J., & Gould, N. (2009). Social Work and the Changing Face of the Digital Divide. British Journal of Social Work , 39: 740–753.

Stoiciu, A. (2011). The Role of E-Governance in Bridging the Digital Divide. UN Chronicle , 48 (3) [http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/lang/en/home/archive/issues2011/thedigitaldividend/theroleofegovernanceinbridgingthedigitaldivide] [10-06-2012].

Tiwari, M. (2006). An Overview of Growth in the ICT Sector in India: Can This Growth be Pro-poor? World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development , 3 (4): 298-315.

Törenli, N. (2006). The 'Other' Faces of Digital Exclusion: ICT Gender Divides in the Broader Community. European Journal of Communication , 21(4): 435–455.

TRAI. (2008). Annual Report 2007-08 (11th Annual Report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). New Delhi: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [http://www.trai.gov.in.

TRAI. (2009). Annual Report 2008-09 (12th Annual Report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). New Delhi: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [http://www.trai.gov.in].

TRAI. (2010). Annual Report 2009-10 (13th Annual Report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). New Delhi: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [http://www.trai.gov.in].

18

18

TRAI. (2011). Annual Report 2010-11 (14th Annual Report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). New Delhi: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [http://www.trai.gov.in].

UGC. (2001). UGC Model Curriculum: Social Work Education. New Delhi: University Grants Commission.

UNDP. (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Lieshout, H., & Schrijen, H. (1999). Integration versus Isolation? Implementation strategies for ICT Teaching in Social Work Curricula. New Technology in the Human Services , 12 (3&4): 38 – 46.

Vijaybaskar, M. G. (2003). ICT and Indian Development: Processes, Prognoses, Policies. Economic and Political Weekly , 38 (24): 2360-2364.

Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing Technological Change: The Challenge to Social Theory. Current Sociology , 50(3): 347–363.

Waldman, J., & Rafferty, J. (2008). Technology‐Supported Learning and Teaching in Social Work in the UK—A Critical Overview of the Past, Present and Possible Futures. Social Work Education: The International Journal , 27 (6): 581-591.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wasko, N. H. (2008). Wired for the Future? The Impact of Information and Telecommunications Technology on Rural Social Work. In N. Lohmann, & R. A. Lohmann, Rural Social Work Practice (pp. 41-72). New York: Columbia University Press.

Watling, S. (2012). Digital Exclusion: Potential Implications for Social Work Education. Social Work Education: The International Journal , 31(1): 125-130.

West, D., & Heath, D. (2011). Theoretical Pathways to the Future: Globalization, ICT and Social Work Theory and Practice. Journal of Social Work , 209-221.

Wong, Y. C., Fung, J. Y., Law, C. K., Lam, J. C., & Lee, V. W. (2009). Tackling the Digital Divide. British Journal of Social Work , 39: 754–767.

World Summit on the Information Society. (2006). Report of the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, Tunis, Kram Palexpo, 16-18 November 2005, Document WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/9(Rev.1)-E. Tunis.

Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., & Hart, A. a. (2005). The Digital Divide, Health Information and Everyday Life. New Media & Society , 7(2):199–218.

19

19

Appendix – Selected Tables

Growth of Public Sector Telephone Subscribers in India (in millions) (as on 31st March of each financial year)

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Number 300.49 429.72 621.28 846.32 926.53

% growth - 30.07 30.83 26.59 8.66 Urban Number - 309.43 420.47 564.08 611.19

% growth - - 26.41 25.46 7.71 Rural Number - 120.29 200.81 282.23 315.33

% growth - - 40.10 28.85 10.50 Wireless Number 261.07 391.76 584.32 811.59 893.84

% growth - 33.36 32.95 28.00 9.20 Wireline Number 39.42 37.96 36.96 34.73 32.69

% growth - -3.85 -2.71 -6.42 -6.24 Compiled from Annual Reports of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [(TRAI, 2012); (TRAI, 2011); (TRAI, 2010); (TRAI, 2009);(TRAI, 2008)]

Growth of Teledensity (Public Sector) in India (as on 31st March of each financial year)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total 26.22 36.98 52.74 70.89 76.86 Urban 65.22 88.11 119.73 157.32 167.85 Rural 9.20 15.02 24.29 33.79 37.48 (Teledensity refers to the number of telephones in use for every 100 individuals living within an area) Compiled from Annual Reports of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [(TRAI, 2012); (TRAI, 2011); (TRAI, 2010); (TRAI, 2009);(TRAI, 2008)]

Growth of Internet & Broadband Subscribers in India (in Millions) (as on 31st March of each financial year)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Internet Subscribers 6.94 9.27 11.09 13.54 16.18 19.67 22.39 Broadband Subscribers 1.35 2.34 3.87 6.22 8.77 11.89 13.35 Compiled from Annual Reports of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [(TRAI, 2012); (TRAI, 2011); (TRAI, 2010); (TRAI, 2009);(TRAI, 2008)]

Number of Mobile Telephone Connections/Subscribers in Rural and Urban Areas of India

(as on 31.12.2010)

Companies/ Mobile Telephones

Rural Urban Total Private Total 220109564 439977180 660086744 PSU Total 30790563 61322728 92113291 India 250900127 501299908 752200035 Source : Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.303, dated on 23.02.2011. (Government of India, 2011)

20

20

Selected State-wise Number of Colleges Connected with Broadband Facility

under National Mission on Education through Information and Technology (NMEICT) Scheme in India

(As on 31.10.2011) A. and N. Islands 4 4 100.00 Goa 36 36 100.00 Bihar 600 517 86.17 Nagaland 40 34 85.00 Mizoram 29 23 79.31 Manipur 73 57 78.08 Tripura 36 26 72.22 Rajasthan 1128 716 63.48 Kerala 1050 654 62.29 Punjab 664 407 61.30 Odisha 1242 725 58.37 Assam 405 230 56.79 Andhra Pradesh 3086 1732 56.12 Delhi 118 65 55.08 Jharkhand 222 116 52.25 Meghalaya 74 36 48.65 West Bengal 935 453 48.45 Karnataka 4094 1917 46.82 India 28616 13371 46.73 Maharashtra 3229 1483 45.93 Madhya Pradesh 1559 697 44.71 Uttarakhand 343 150 43.73 Arunachal Pradesh 15 6 40.00 Sikkim 10 4 40.00 Gujarat 1762 691 39.22 Jammu and Kashmir 378 144 38.10 Chhattisgarh 394 145 36.80 Uttar Pradesh 3544 1273 35.92 Chennai 398 138 34.67 Haryana 1100 374 34.00 Himachal Pradesh 223 74 33.18 Puducherry 90 27 30.00 Tamil Nadu 1735 417 24.03 States/UTs Total No. of

Colleges No. of Colleges

Connected Percent covered

Source : Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1475, dated on 30.11.2011 (Government of India, 2011)

21

21

Free Helpline numbers related to care and welfare service concerns in India Service Number Police 100Fire 101Ambulance 102Emergency Relief Centre on National Highways 1033Relief Commissioners of Central/State/Union territory 1070Women crisis response 1091Earth-quake Help line service 1092Natural disaster control room 1096AIDS help line service 1097Children in difficulty/ Child Distress Service 1098Catastrophe & Trauma service 1099Kisan Call Center 1551Blood bank information Service 1910Dial a doctor 1911Eye bank information service 1919