Social Work Education

The International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cswe20

Envisioning the future of (techno) social work

education: perspectives of Japanese and
Lithuanian social work educators

Donata Petružytė, Violeta Gevorgianienė, Miroslavas Seniutis, Mai

Yamaguchi, Eglė Šumskienė & Laimutė Žalimienė

To cite this article: Donata Petružytė, Violeta Gevorgianienė, Miroslavas Seniutis, Mai
Yamaguchi, Eglė Šumskienė & Laimutė Žalimienė (2023) Envisioning the future of (techno)
social work education: perspectives of Japanese and Lithuanian social work educators, Social
Work Education, 42:8, 1227-1247, DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2021.2023492

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2021.2023492

Published online: 06 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 245

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cswe20
SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 42, NO. 8, 1227–1247
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2021.2023492

Envisioning the future of (techno) social work education:

perspectives of Japanese and Lithuanian social work
educators
Donata Petružytė a, Violeta Gevorgianienė a, Miroslavas Seniutis a
,
Mai Yamaguchi b, Eglė Šumskienė a and Laimutė Žalimienė a
a
Department of Social Work and Social Welfare, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania; bDepartment of
Integrated Human Studies and Graduate School of Social Work, Japan Lutheran College, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of the article is to present the perceptions of social work Received 29 March 2021
educators from Lithuania and Japan, on the role of technologies in Accepted 20 December 2021
the development of the profession. Qualitative research was based KEYWORDS
on 18 interviews. The place of technologies in the social work Social work education; social
profession and the implications that these technologies may have work practice; knowledge
on social work values, knowledge, skills and SW identity are dis­ generation practice;
cussed from the perspective of B. Latour, specifically, his two prac­ technologies; Actor Network
tices of knowledge generation—purification and translation. The Theory
article contributes to the discussion on the role and integration of
technologies into social work education and practice.

Introduction
What every human being needs most is another human being. Social relations are the
basic feature of many helping professions, including social work. However, dramatic
change in the global demographic, jeopardizes the relational aspect of social work
(hereafter SW): a changing demographic structure impairs the balance between number
of persons in need of assistance and the number of professionals who can provide it on
the basis of a direct and personal relationship. The ageing of society is a worrisome issue
for most countries today. Japan has the fastest-aging population in the world,1 with 33%
of its population aged 60 years or over in 2017. By 2050, this proportion is expected to
rise to 42% (Pozo-Rubio & Jiménez-Rubio, 2020). The rate of ageing of Lithuania’s
population is one of the fastest in Europe and by 2060 more than 26,8% of the
Lithuanian population will be older than 65 (Žalimienė et al., 2017).
Social work technologies are usually developed, piloted and funded within and by
particular governments as a national priority. However, the need for these technologies is
global, thus there is a necessity for an international collaboration and exchange. Mutual
learning contributes to the development of products, that cross national boundaries and
respond to global need (Miwa et al., 2017).

CONTACT Miroslavas Seniutis miroslavas.seniutis@fsf.vu.lt Department of Social Work and Social Welfare, Vilnius
University, 3 Universiteto St LT-01513, Vilnius, Lithuania
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1228 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

The changing demographic structure comes at the same time as a leap in new
technologies, some of which are aimed specifically at the needs of the elderly, disabled
people and other groups served by SW professionals (Čiapaitė & Vaitkevičienė, 2020;
Genienė, 2020; Vilkoitytė & Skučienė, 2020). Governmental policies that support the
independent living of persons in their own homes, increase the demand for assistive
technologies (European Commission, 2013; Sugihara et al., 2015) and for professionals
with the knowledge and skills to use them. These technologies include devices ranging
from mobile apps at one end of the scale, to sophisticated social robots at the other. As
the complexity of man-made objects grows, the ability to predict them and to predict
their impact on humans is reduced (Latour, 2012). The inevitability and the ambivalence
of the junction between human and non-human worlds, requires a re-domestication of
the world of things, so that it does not turn into the destruction of human, humanity, and
humanness. But as with every introduction of new tools (McLuhan, 1994), the introduc­
tion of new technologies into SW isn’t taken for granted, and its successful integration
into education and practice implies a reflected change of one’s own professional (and
personal) identity. The worldwide pandemic has revealed the fragility of services that are
based on human interaction: forced to stay at home, social work clients may have
experienced not only loneliness, but also lack of basic support which, we can argue,
could be at least partly compensated by modern technologies.
While technology is reshaping the landscapes of SW (Chan & Holosko, 2018) there is
a need to investigate what happens when technological innovations meet SW education
or, rather, education for SW practice. As professional identity is closely intertwined with
personal identity (Van Oeffelt et al., 2017), the questions which social workers ask
themselves personally about their attitudes to the role of technologies at large, impacts
how they integrate them professionally. Although there are many papers on the integra­
tion of technologies in SW education, research in this field does not lose its relevance, as
technological development offers new ideas for innovations in teaching and practice
despite, as Fenwick and Edwards (2016) argue, that some teachers still tend to develop
the same competencies and use the same educational materials as it did several dec­
ades ago.
Because the attitudes of SW teachers create prerequisites for the extent to which
technologies will be integrated into SW studies, the main aim of the research was to
investigate how SW educators perceive the impact of technologies on the development of
the profession. In this article we will first discuss the place of technologies in the SW
profession and further, based on interviews with SW educators in two universities of
Japan and Lithuania, we’ll reflect on the implications that these technologies may have on
SW values, knowledge, skills and identity. These two countries differ in the level of their
acceptance of technological integration into daily life (Dagienė & Kurilovas, 2009; Hsu
et al., 2020; TNS Opinion & Social, 2012). Japanese have more experience in using
various types of modern technologies in daily and professional life. For example, Japan
has more robots than any other country. Nevertheless, the Japanese are troubled about
the impact robots might have on their society and they are particularly concerned about
the emotional aspects of interacting with robots. In general, though, as the previously
mentioned research shows, the Japanese have more positive attitudes towards technol­
ogies than Europeans (Bartneck et al., 2007). Despite the fact that Lithuania is character­
ized by intensive growth in the area of technologies, the supply of innovative technologies
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1229

in various public sectors is still low. Thus, Lithuanians are more cautious and critical of
their use. For example, the absolute majority of respondents in Lithuania (53%) said that
robots should be banned in healthcare (while the EU average is only 27%; TNS Opinion
& Social, 2012). To reflect on these issues, in the first part of the article we will observe the
place of technology in the modern world and further we will analyse its place in the social
worker’s professional identity. To discuss the role of new technologies in the SW
profession we will use the lens of Latour (2005) Actor Network Theory, which somewhat
reconciles the opposition between humans and non-humans because ontologically it
‘rehabilitates’ the world of things, by integrating it into the human realm and allows
reassessment of the relationship between human and non-human being. The new con­
cept of social, offered by Latour, whereby objects (in our case technology) become no less
important actors of social reality, opens the door for discussion about the role of
technological tools for the identity of professionals whose profession is sociable at its
core. The article offers a new approach towards knowledge generation, and the integra­
tion of technological issues into social work studies which are being implemented in an
age of rapid technological changes.
As the term ‘technology’ is very broad, in the article we will focus on technologies
which can perform complex cognitive and physical tasks, such as modern communica­
tion and information technologies; robots; artificial intelligence; etc., and which in the
future may become a daily reality for social workers. The article will contribute to
academic discourse around the practice of knowledge generation in general, and in
particular to the evolution of SW education and professional competence in the context
of inclusion of technologies.

Integrating technologies into social work education and practice

The term ‘technology’ denotes artefacts, techniques, audio-visual broadcast systems,
telephones, and computer networks that are often summarized under the umbrella
term ‘ICT’ (Information and Communications technology, Chan & Holosko, 2018;
Dafoe, 2015). Moreover, the concept also encompasses such innovations as nanotechnol­
ogy, biotechnology, robotics, humtech2 and their combinations, up to the provocative
ideas of transhumanism which seek to achieve physical immortality by uploading one’s
consciousness or mind into a computer (Groff, 2015). Technologies make
a comprehensive impact on various levels of human life and social relations (Dafoe,
2015). This impact can be instrumental, it can span systems and, finally, pervade
individual psychology, society and culture, economic patterns and other systems
(Allenby, 2015). On an individual level, such technologies as locative media3 or wearable
sensors4 (Berzin et al., 2015) may contribute to self-identity, self-control and the perpe­
tuation of a personal narrative thus becoming ‘technologies of the self’ (Saker & Evans,
2016). On the macro level, by changing mentality and cultural norms, they have the
potential to ‘inevitably destabilize existing institutions, power relations, social structures,
reigning economic and technological systems, and cultural assumptions’ (Allenby,
2015, p. 33).
The attitudes to emerging technologies depend on social, economic, political and
ethical issues (Groff, 2015), psychological factors (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003),
job relevance, as well as one’s attitude and capability to learn new skills (Pybus & Gillan,
1230 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

2015). The perceived level of control and security can positively affect acceptance of new
technology (Engström et al., 2009). To some authors, technologies are not so easily
separated from humans, because ‘they participate together in practices of generating,
manipulating and curating data’ (Fenwick & Edwards, 2016, p. 123). This idea is devel­
oped in the concept of object-centered-sociality (Knorr-Cetina, 2002) and in the theory
of B. Latour (2005), who argues that objects and technologies are participants in the
creation of a social world along with humans. The social world is impossible without
a human and at the same time without things. He claims that modern humans are often
convinced that they create social reality autonomously, ignoring the influence of pre­
viously created objects. Without these objects the ‘social’ loses its permanence, form, and
direction (Latour, 2012). According to B. Latour (1990, 2012), social reality gains stability
thanks to the things that the individual mobilizes to create the social world (for example,
the economic exchange system is stabilized by a currency). In other words, social reality is
not only the sum of its individual participants. It transcends beyond what is purely
interpersonal because human made things also essentially contribute to this reality.
Thus, on the one hand, a human seems to extend himself/herself to created things by
assigning them human qualities. Yet objects do not exist as sterile objects, they affect the
subject (human) and can dehumanize the world of a person, making it more materi­
alistic. Based on the idea of Latour, we may propose that attitudes towards technologies
may depend on a perceived level of their (de)humanising effect and this may be especially
important for their integration into helping professions.
All attitudes towards technologies involve the question of ethics: can a computer or
a robot solve ethical and value based questions as a human being does? (Dafoe, 2015;
Groff, 2015). In helping professions there will always be dilemmas which will require the
competence and intuition of a professional to make morally relevant decisions. Those
moral questions will manifest in action dilemmas—to act as a human being prone to
error, as a technician using technology in a prescribed model or to take ‘a risk’ to
integrate technologies into relations-based practice? But history bears witness that
opposition to technological innovation is usually not successful. Often some social
groups gain more power and become more competitive, namely due to the acceptance
of modern technologies (Dafoe, 2015). If SW chooses ‘to travel the path of least resis­
tance’ (Napoli, 2011, p. 53) relying only on old and proven techniques, technologies
might otherwise marginalize or even exclude SW intervention in many social fields
(Fenwick & Edwards, 2016).
The role of material objects (from a photograph to a car) in SW and their impact on
the professional identity of social workers is not a widely covered issue in academic
discourse (Scholar, 2017). While some professions have particular tools which represent
a profession to the outside world (like the stethoscope in earlier medicine or
a remotoscope in this technological age; Fenwick & Edwards, 2016; Rice, 2010), SW
has no such tools, although material objects help to understand a client’s situation and
are meaningful in practice (Scholar, 2017).
In SW, technology primarily refers to information and communications technology
(ICT) and means various types of technology-supported interventions, some merely
technologically adapted, and some based on artificial intelligence systems (Chan &
Holosko, 2018). Research on technologies in SW practice is quite scarce (Singer &
Sage, 2015) and mostly focused on assistive technologies for special groups of clients:
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1231

such as people with memory disorder, young offenders, persons with disabilities (Nauha
et al., 2018) or a reliance on a computer in daily practices (Phillips, 2019; Van de
Luitgaarden & van der Tier, 2018; Westwood et al., 2017). Compared with psychology
or rehabilitation research, such scarcity is caused by limited resources, ethical and legal
considerations, lack of training, and social work’s historical reliance on face-to-face
communications (Berzin et al., 2015).
However, it is evident that new digital technologies are reconfiguring professional
practice and are transforming SW knowledge and identities. They bring opportunities for
different forms of professionalism, but professional education hasn’t yet responded
adequately to those changes (Fenwick & Edwards, 2016). Thus rather than moving
with technology and innovation, SW tends to cling to outdated practices which are no
longer relevant to the technological global universe (DePoy & Gilson, 2015).
Why is it so? For the SW profession, relations are at its core, and as such it differs from
other types of services. Due to its relational nature, educational activities in SW tend to
focus on development of self-awareness and critical reflection (Blakemore & Agllias,
2020), hence it is feared that implementation of ICTs will weaken or affect the human
aspects of a ‘social’ profession (de Lucas y Murillo de la Cueva & D’Antonio Maceiras,
2020). In spite of their positive impact—transparency, measurement of the quality of
interventions—technologies are criticized for their power to reduce responsive and
relational SW to a technical practice. However, reliance on relational SW entails more
than meeting the individual needs of a client, but the ability to balance individual and
more general societal aspirations, such as equality (Devlieghere & Roose, 2018, p. 784).
In recent years the ‘relational’ tradition of SW did not however hinder the introduc­
tion of electronic information systems or ICTs into SW education and practice, trans­
forming SW realities (Ahmedani et al., 2011; Campbell et al., 2019; Chan & Holosko,
2018; Cooner et al., 2016; Deepak et al., 2016; Garrett, 2005; Perron et al., 2010; Turner
et al., 2020; Van de Luitgaarden & van der Tier, 2018). In research on technologies in SW
education, their use in learning (online, through apps) dominates, despite the fact that
some results show it may be ‘less effective in preparing students to become social workers
than traditional, on-the-ground education’ (Levin et al., 2018, p. 784).
In terms of SW education, it is very important that social workers do not just become
users of technologies, but could reflect and think about their new roles and identities. As
Phillips (2019, p. 455) notes, ‘the complicity of social workers to fail to critically theorize
their role(s) within the various networks and institutions of power, all the while suggest­
ing they are “helping” service users and caregivers, stands in contrast to the “thinking”
aspect of doing social work’.
The task of rethinking SW identity raises a challenge to SW educators who may feel
there is a gap between practice needs and their own capabilities and resources. So the first
challenge may be to revise their own values and to develop both the scientific knowledge
and the pedagogical and technological skills related to inclusion of new technologies.
This cannot be done without the positive attitude of the faculty and institutional and
technological support (Campbell et al., 2019; Diaconu et al., 2020). However, the biggest
challenge for SW educators may be to reconceptualise new technologies not only as
means for learning, but also as an object of future SW practice—to teach students not
only to learn through technologies, but to teach to use technologies as a constitutive part
of the practice.
1232 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

Methodology
Research strategy
Qualitative research methodology, in general, and the expert opinion method, in
particular, were the base for the data collection. The expert opinion method is used
in the research for many reasons, for example, to forecast the development of a certain
phenomenon when information about the object of the research is not available, to
clarify factors influencing the development of systems, adopting innovations (Bogner &
Menz, 2009; Waissbluth & De Gortari, 1990). Meuser and Nagel (2009) define an
expert as a broad-minded individual with high qualifications and special knowledge in
the subject field having scores higher than an average respondent. Experts in this
research were teachers of SW programs from two higher education institutions who
have specific knowledge about the content and study methods of SW programs.
However, it is important to note that the authors could not find experts in Lithuania
or Japan who would have equally high-level knowledge in both fields: SW and technol­
ogy, therefore the experts’ opinion is guided by their expertise in education, not in
technologies.
The expert opinion method was selected as a research strategy for investigation of the
two practices of knowledge generation: purification and translation (based on Latour
(2005) Actor Network Theory). The purification (as knowledge generation practice)
generates new knowledge by deconstructing reality and dividing it into separate fields.
This means that the world of things and the world of humans remain somewhat in
opposition, thus technologies may be perceived as antagonistic, dehumanizing, and unfit
for their intrinsic integration. The translation (as knowledge generation practice) aims to
trace the interconnection of different, heterogeneous objects of reality while preserving
their identities at any given moment. Such an approach allows for creating new elements
of the world of things, in harmony with other elements of reality. In this case, the creator
of things, on the one hand, assumes responsibility for his or her creations and does not
leave the process ‘laissez-faire’. On the other hand, he or she does not demonize or avoid
the world of things. The bearer of such worldview has an epistemological attitude
characterized by ‘associative’ (integrative) thinking and is to develop safe and humaniz­
ing technologies.
Latour (2005) ontological and epistemological shift expands the concept of ‘social’
(integrating the world of things), and thus proposes a new paradigm for generating
scientific knowledge. It may help understand SW educators’ certain ‘technological
blindness’ (Huang & Sharif, 2017) which may follow from a particular uneasiness in
deciding on one’s attitude to technologies. It also prompts us to raise the questions:
what competencies should future social workers develop so that technologies are better
integrated into their identity, to enable their use in a humanizing and not dehumaniz­
ing role? And can we presume that the attitudes of SW practitioners and educators
towards the use of technologies in SW may be guided by one of those assumptions, or,
according to Latour,—one of the practices of knowledge generation: purification and
translation? The answers to these questions may also help to identify the direction in
which professional identity development is going, and to foresee how the ability to use
technology in practice can be embedded into professional identity.
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1233

We will bear these questions in mind while, attempting to identify which of the above-
mentioned approaches do SW educators use to reflect on technological issues. What
knowledge, skills, and values do they envision will introduce technologies into their
research and studies?

Research participants and data collection

The starting point for the research was the project ‘Technologies in Social Care:
Considering Future Directions for SW Professionals in Japan and Lithuania’ (financed
by the Research Council of Lithuania and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science).
Research participants were social work teachers and researchers from Lithuanian and
Japanese high schools, participating to this project. The main criteria for the selection of
research participants at universities were their interests in the application of innovative
technologies in the field of social work and their impact on social work practice
(identified in their publications and discussed in a joint conference which took place in
Japan). Informants were approached by email. 18 semi-structured interviews were con­
ducted, including 10 experts from Lithuania and 8 experts from Japan (4 men, 14 women,
representing various ages from 29 to 65, as well as various professional and academic
experiences).

Research instrument
The questionnaire included six questions and it was based on four main elements
prevalent in the SW study programs: the mission of the program, knowledge, skills,
and values of the profession, and additional questions on the current understanding of
technologies in SW, the prospect of using them, as well as attitudes to their impact on
studies and practice.

Data analysis
The average duration of the interviews was 40 minutes. Interviews were taped and
entirely transcribed verbatim in the language in which they were recorded. Qualitative
content analysis (Mayring, 2014) was used to analyze data. As data was gathered in
the native languages of both countries, its analysis was conducted separately and then
compared focusing on emerging themes and categories. After the transcription, the
interviews were coded using MaxQDA 10 software for qualitative research. According
to the research aims and questions, the main criteria for the definition of basic
categories were established. The main categories were as follows: understanding of
the conception of technologies and their use in SW; knowledge, skills, and values
needed for SW practitioners/students/educators when integrating technologies; chan­
ging the mission and identity of SW. Afterward, two researchers worked through the
empirical texts line by line and in parallel reformulated initial categories. Finally, all
empirical material was coded and the final system of categories was interpreted in
a theoretical lens. Authentic quotations were translated into English and used when
writing the final text.
1234 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

Research ethics
Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Institute of Sociology and Social
work at Vilnius University. An informed consent was obtained from the teachers, who
agreed to participate in the interview. Each participant was informed about the anon­
ymity of the data and that in the text of the publication each informant will be given
a code. The participants also agreed that his or her country will be indicated in citations.
Hereby, references to Japanese or Lithuanian informants’ utterances further in the text
are used as follows: ([Li]—Lithuanian informants, [Ji]—Japanese informants). Interview
records were retained on a confidential basis, using an access password.

Research results and discussion

Despite the different socio-cultural and academic realities in both countries, data analysis
revealed more similarities than differences between the opinions of the Lithuanian and
Japanese informants. Further, the opinions of SW educators about the integration of
technologies into the SW profession, and the challenges they face in transferring tech­
nology related SW knowledge to future practitioners will be discussed.

Technologies in social work

Types of technologies and their use in social work
Research participants from both countries distinguished the following types of
technologies that can be used in the SW field: modern communication and infor­
mation technologies; robotics; artificial intelligence; internet of things; virtual reality
or avatars.
However, the first difference between Lithuanian and Japanese informants was
evident in their answers to the very first question. Japanese SW educators sought to
define the kind of technology and to clarify its scope. Whereas their Lithuanian
colleagues noted that ‘technology in SW [. . .] can be very differently used and
understood’. They refrained from definitions and limited themselves to general con­
siderations. The Japanese informants continued emphasizing a larger variety of
technologies and provided details while discussing particular cases and identifying
various related problems. For example, a Japanese informant recalled a suggestion for
using an avatar for a severely disabled resident to enable his participation in the
Disability Welfare Committee. The answers of Lithuanian informants were more
abstract and generalized: they provided examples that were distant from their profes­
sional practice, far from the national context, and purely hypothetical. Moreover, the
Japanese informants referred to intense discussions around the general understanding
of technology: ‘With the rapid development of technologies, the discourse of their
definition is also continuously changing’. The reason for rather generalized
(Lithuanian) and specified (Japanese) understanding of technologies might be related
to the more developed use of technologies in SW in Japan, compared to in Lithuania,
as one Japanese research participant stated: “Using Artificial intelligence in SW is not
the future; it is already taking place in some areas in Japan (for instance, artificial
intelligence supportive care plan).
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1235

SW educators from both countries similarly indicated that technologies in SW prac­

tice can be used for:

(a) meeting the needs of clients, facilitating their everyday life, improving the quality
of their life;
(b) strengthening clients’ identity;
(c) maintaining clients’ independence as long as possible, compensating various
disabilities and preventing institutionalization;
(d) facilitating manual, physical tasks (implemented by the client and the social
worker);
(e) enabling remote SW practice;
(f) facilitating communication between specialists and with clients;
(g) facilitating service planning and administration, etc.

The need to recognize technologies as autonomous actors

Informants nevertheless, demonstrated an instrumental approach towards the integra­
tion of technologies into SW practice: in their view, technologies can be applied for the
benefit of a client, social workers themselves, or the organization, but they are not
perceived as independent actors. In Latour (2005) perspective, the agency of a thing
and its power to act is an essential precondition for the emergence of sociality. In this
sense, the effort to understand the autonomy of technologies becomes essential for their
successful integration into SW. That is, technologies are not just used, but their auton­
omous operation affects the content of SW and the identity of the profession. By
interacting with other actors, such as social workers and their clients, technologies go
beyond their initial functionality. The instrumental approach, which underestimates the
power of technology, reflects the practice of purification, according to which elements of
reality are treated as homogeneous objects lacking dynamics. Consequently, as a separate
object, technology does not contribute to the humanization of the social world: perceived
only instrumentally, technology remains partly unknown and thus may ‘act’ in an
unpredictable manner. The supposed risk of the dehumanizing impact of technologies
on the SW profession raises the question of whether SW educators are ready to introduce
innovative knowledge, skills, and values that would help technology to find its place in
the profession.

Knowledge necessary for university teachers

Informants agree that SW educators need knowledge of the wider scientific context:
acquaintance with various technologies, their opportunities, advantages, and shortcom­
ings. They need to understand the impact of technological development on a person and
society, especially on vulnerable groups, as well as understanding the impact of the use of
technologies on the identity of SW practice, how it could help the processes, and relations
with clients. SW educators need to receive constant feedback from the practice field about
the use of technology as well as knowledge about how to link clients’ needs and
technological development opportunities (positioning the social worker as a mediator
between clients, technology developers, and decision-makers).
1236 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

One informant from Japan summarized the phenomenon by stating that: ‘teachers like
us do not have enough expertise in technology and the standard curricula fails to include it.
Thus, we need to change this situation. Students as a young generation have more skills but
they do not thoughtfully understand the impact of technology on SW practice’. The lack of
technological skills is especially relevant for the informants who are in their 40s and 50s: ‘we
are at the turning point and what we were taught and experienced is different from what we
have to teach’ [Ji]. One Lithuanian informant emphasized different aspects—highlighting
‘technology policy’ and the need to get acquainted with specialized teaching methods and
tools for better teaching about technologies in SW: ‘the physical possibility to use technol­
ogies at work is needed, a technological laboratory or something. Just showing students
pictures of the possibilities of technologies will not help.’
The knowledge and skills that informants mentioned as a prerequisite for their
competence to educate technologically competent SW practitioners, are further detailed
in their reflection on what knowledge, values, and skills they should develop in their
students.

Knowledge necessary for students

Informants agree that the integration of SW and technology fields requires from the
students more than certain attitudes and personal qualities, such as openness, curiosity,
courage, creativity, and the ability to question and doubt. According to them, future
social workers need not only basic computer literacy, but also acquaintance with the
relevant (proto)types of technologies and the opportunity to test their operation/perfor­
mance. They need to understand how technology affects a person and society, what
impact it has on SW identity, a social worker’s functions, SW practice, how it helps their
process, and relations with clients. They also need to be aware of ethical dilemmas and
the risks involved, advocacy knowledge, and skills for representing clients’ interests in
communication with technology developers. Finally, students need an authentic knowl­
edge of particular client groups and general SW practice. Without it, high-quality
integration of technologies into the field of SW is not possible. The reflection of
Lithuanian informants on these issues was quite generalized, emphasizing the need to
be aware o the ‘technology policy, i.e. how the use of technology is organized and
financed in various countries’ [Li]. The Japanese informants ignored this wider policy
issue when discussing both students’ and teachers’ knowledge, emphasizing specific
problems instead. The first of these was that ‘future students would need to use both face-
to-face and online [practice] before experiencing enough face-to-face practice’ [Ji], and
the question still remained as to whether such a study method won’t impede their ability
to understand their clients. The second problem reflected their concern ‘that education
curricula and professional license exams are focused on knowledge and memorizing.
Since artificial intelligence would easily replace these, it is necessary to adapt curricula
and exams to enable future students to learn more about values and critical thinking,
etc.’ [Ji].
Both Japanese and Lithuanian informants have noted that SW students lack interest in
and openness to new technologies. The Lithuanians first linked this to the fact that the
majority of students are female, but further discussions raised the hypothesis that SW
studies are chosen by sociable persons, who choose a job that encompasses live and
extensive communication.
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1237

From purification to translation practice: overcoming isolated knowledge

Overall, the SW informants have admitted a need for more knowledge about the impact of
technology on society, SW practice, support processes, and clients. Some of them are
primarily interested in social phenomena, whereas to them the technical or material aspects
and elements of reality are significant to the extent that they affect social reality. Such an
approach is close to Latour (2005) purification practice, which follows the concept of
‘sociology of the social’. Through purification practice, the heterogeneous elements of reality
are interpreted merely from the social perspective. However, the other informants’ openness
to interdisciplinary knowledge, as well as willingness to support their knowledge through
feedback from technology users, and the personal experience of technology testing, brings
their positions closer to translation. Latour’s translation, as practice of knowledge generation,
is characterized by interdisciplinarity, and traces links between different elements of reality,
thus bridging the distance between a researcher and the investigated reality.
The expectations of informants towards their students appear disproportionate when
considering the tools that they are prepared to provide for them. It is unlikely that students
will be able to predict the impact of technology on SW identity or solve ethical dilemmas
based solely on social theories and basic computer literacy. Yet none of the participants
have mentioned the need for discourse on the integration of specific knowledge such as
social informatics into SW study programs. This indicates that technologies should
become an object of academic knowledge which informs SW practice. Afterwords, their
practical application should be accompanied by the ability to go beyond the perceived
boundaries of the profession, without endangering the mission or identity of it.

Capabilities necessary for social work practitioners

Demographic aspects of technology-friendly social work
The involvement of technology requires certain personality traits and general compe­
tencies, such as motivation, inclination, and openness to technologies. Moreover, future
professionals may need more flexibility, creativity, critical thinking, evaluation, and
decision-making than in the past.
The following areas of students’ knowledge, point to the skills they will need in
a technologically enriched SW practice. The interviews refer to two levels of abilities
necessary for SW practitioners. Firstly, these are basic skills related to the operation and
management of technology; the ability to train and consult clients about the use of
various technologies and the opportunities they provide; the ability to understand
where the direct action of a specialist is needed and where technology can be employed;
the ability to prevent dominance of technologies over human professionals. Secondly,
administrative level capabilities, such as organizing technological equipment and train­
ing social workers on their use; identifying the needs of clients and helping specialists
when purchasing technological equipment, grasping the benefits of different technolo­
gies; collaborating with technology developers.
The Lithuanian informants came up with the idea that ‘incorporation of technology
into SW practice may require or will naturally attract future specialists with different
socio-demographic characteristics’. That is, technology may affect the gender of the social
workers (‘technologization of SW might attract more men’ [Li]) as well as the age (‘older
professionals might face challenges if SW practice becomes more technologized’ [Li]).
1238 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

For the Japanese informants considering the issue of attracting future specialists,
differences of gender or age in the perspective of integration of technologies was less
relevant. This can be explained by some differences in the context of SW studies in Japan
and Lithuania. In Lithuania, SW study programs are facing decreasing numbers of
students. The Lithuanian education system faces challenges related to the demographic
crisis caused not only by the decreased birth rate but by very high rates of emigration.
Also, male students make up a lesser proportion than in Japan. This explains why
Lithuanian informants are so preoccupied with the attractiveness of the SW profession
and with SW studies for the young generation, especially male youth.

Ability to transform the network

Based on the theoretical framework of Latour (2005), a majority of the SW educators
hope that future practitioners will be capable of making an impact and changes in a SW
network that involves technology, clients, policy decisions, the technology industry and
commerce, social inequality, and more. The expressed views imply the importance of
Latour’s translation practice, which is reflected in flexibility, adaptability, creativity,
critical thinking, assessment of the situation here and now, and the ability to search for
decisions. The concept of translation refers to the exchange of power among the
members of the network: according to Latour (2005), social reality as a network comes
into being when interrelated actors leave their traces on each other. In this respect, social
workers will not only influence technologies, they will be transformed by them, and will
also be able to master their impact on themselves and all actors of the network.

Underlying attitudes towards the integration of technologies

Ethical considerations for integrating technology into social work practice
All informants agreed that specific values need to be discussed and developed in the
context of technological development in SW. Firstly, they stressed the imperative to
follow ethical standards and ensure the protection of human rights. They also stated that
the use of technology must be carefully assessed against causing harm and that technol­
ogy cannot replace or displace live relationships between clients and specialist helpers.
They stressed the importance of a social worker’s responsibilities by stating, that tech­
nologies must be human-managed and serve human beings, as well as the necessity to get
a client’s informed consent for the use of technologies. Informants stated that when
technologies are used in the helping process the following questions must be taken into
account: do technologies meet the needs of a client? Is their usage well-timed in terms of
a client’s preparation and readiness? Is there a danger to increase a client’s sense of
insecurity, to violate his or her dignity, privacy, autonomy, and control? As one Japanese
participant put it, when using technologies in SW, it is obligatory to prioritize the
perspective of the client, and particular attention must be paid to the protection of
their personal data and confidentiality. The Lithuanian informants talk about the need
for a separate code of ethics dedicated to the incorporation of technology into SW
practice, while their Japanese colleagues shared their experience in developing such
documents.
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1239

In addition, the Japanese informants emphasize concrete issues of risk management,

related to the use of technology. Many informants stated for example, that ‘pure and core
SW activity such as evaluation and understanding of human relations’ [Ji] must remain
in the area of human responsibility (not of artificial intelligence). Conversely the Japanese
informants also identified concrete areas of practice where technology can be used,
naming certain functions it can perform, for example, making a care plan for elderly
people or a social worker’s remote consultation in a rural area. The considerations of the
Lithuanian informants however, remain on the abstract, hypothetical level.
The informants’ attention to values and principles can be interpreted as an intention
to stabilize a network of actors (Actor Network in Latours’ words) in which clients and
their well-being should be the highest aim of SW activities. Another significant aim of
SW practice could be an effort to understand the potential of technologies, which may be
overlooked due to the overly strict requirements for their application, control, security, or
management, that might be based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs.

Envisioning the future of social work practice

Expanded opportunities for social work
The research participants presented several scenarios for future SW through technolo­
gical innovations. One scenario predicts a reduction of the causes of social problems (for
instance, ‘using agricultural devices connected to the internet of things to reduce or even
eliminate world hunger from one side, and waste of food from another side’ [Ji]).
Another scenario anticipates improved ways of addressing social problems (for instance,
‘enhancing the autonomy of disabled and elderly people’ [Li]) In both cases informants
insist that, the SW profession must be receptive to the application of technological
innovations in everyday practice, to ensure higher quality, expand the possibilities of
service provision, and increase the efficiency, and accuracy of services.
However, according to them, such receptivity for technologies must be accompanied
by a critical attitude, sensitive assessment of the service quality, and client satisfaction.
Taking all this into account, technological development provides opportunities to better
fulfil the mission of SW, and to expand and create opportunities for increasing its
prestige. Yet, a key question remains whether technologies will improve clients’ lives or
facilitate social workers’ practices?

Consequences of declining human participation in the provision of services

Informants believe that technologies can empower SW clients and help to maintain their
autonomy and quality of life. Technologies can also ‘become a “third party” between
a social worker and a client, mediating and cushioning negative aspects of a relationship,
“absorbing” difficult emotions’ [Li]. Thus, technologies can be employed for increasing
human well-being and helping to meet the basic needs of all people, with a special focus
on empowering the vulnerable ones, who may be living in oppression and poverty. On
the other hand, inappropriate or excessive use of technology will inevitably reduce
human participation. Today, ‘it is difficult to predict how the human psyche will change
when the level of live communication decreases significantly’ [Li]. However, it can also be
supposed that the development of technologies will increase clients’ loneliness, aliena­
tion, internal anxiety, and insecurity. Another concern, shared by a Japanese informant,
1240 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

is related to using it in the decision-making process: ‘Can a social worker be confident

with his or her judgment if AI (artificial intelligence) says differently? How to check if AI
is right?’. Undoubtedly, these emerging issues will have an impact on the mission of SW,
as it will be necessary to learn to share the provision of help with technologies. Questions
will be posed, such as the one observed by another Japanese informant: ‘how to find the
best balance between the role of future social workers and future technologies—to
preserve in social workers the essential human activity—personalized support on the
one hand, while attributing the routine administrative tasks to technologies, on the other
hand’ [Ji].

The emerging field of social work education and practice: technology-triggered social
changes
Technology is increasingly replacing and even displacing humans and, consequently,
social interactions in many areas. This brings additional complexity to the emergience of
new social problems. The main objective of SWs’ academic discipline is understanding
and suggesting ways for solving social problems, hence SW could play a leading role in
initiating: frontier research focused specifically on forecasting and preventing future
social problems caused by technological development; educating the public and respon­
sible institutions on these issues; and improving strategic directions and methods of SW,
keeping pace with the rapidly changing technological and social reality.
The Lithuanian informants were worried about potential social and technological
exclusion, which can be caused by technological development. In the future, technology
will not only be a tool for SW, but also the object of it: the profession will have ‘to address
technological exclusion and develop strategies to enable people’s participation in a digital
reality’ [Li]. As one Lithuanian informant said, this reality increasingly expands despite
limited opportunities for certain vulnerable groups to participate in it. It also limits
participation in such important social life processes as studies, work, etc., and may cause
discrimination. Technology also divides people into fragmented, individualistic virtual
worlds. In this context, the mission of SW will be to fight the exclusion, ‘to reduce the
fragmentation of communities and look for opportunities to integrate different social
groups’ [Li]. This issue was addressed in the interviews with Lithuanian SW educators,
and less apparent in the interviews of their Japanese colleagues.
The Japanese informants anticipate that the contradiction between the use of
a monitoring system and the right to privacy will be another emerging social problem.
As one respondent from Japan stated: ‘Technology enables “authorities of power” to
monitor people (sometimes without their consent).’ Moreover, the Japanese informants
claim that technologies used in birth control for abusive parents, as well as for monitor­
ing clients’ financial situation raise ethical concerns and emphasize SW’s mission to
pursue the rights of vulnerable individuals. It can reshape the mission of SW at the
societal level and link it to the pursuit of the right to privacy of vulnerable individuals.

The tension between ‘humanity’ and the growing technologization of social life
With the increasing use of technology in various areas of life, the experience of humanity,
inevitably, suffers. The experiences of human relationships, community, and belonging
gradually shrinks. People change their practices, such as joint work, communication
(which may benefit from on-line work) as well as their worldview. They are technologizing,
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1241

robotizing. The experience of loneliness grows, the ‘feeling that you are alone in the
“technology desert” increases’ [Li]. In this context, it is important for the SW profession
not only to be receptive to technological innovations, but also to remain radically human,
to preserve living, deep, and authentic human relationships. This was emphasized by most
informants and shifted the discourse to SWs’ mission in the narrower channel: to create,
develop, and maintain empowering relationships with clients. Nonetheless, one Lithuanian
informant noted the general mission of SW, which is to maintain and create spaces for the
experience of humanity in the context of expanding ‘technological deserts’. Hence the task
of SW might be “to help this world, hijacked by technology, to remain ‘social’ [Li].

Translation practice as a strategy to manage social changes

Therefore, Actor Network Theory helps to interpret the empirical data on the ability of
technology to solve social problems, as well as on the risks it poses, in particular, the risk
of dehumanization in SW practice. Each new actor in the network (in this case—
technology) influences other participants, uncovers not only their previously undisclosed
characteristics but also designs the characteristics of the emerging network as a whole. In
this sense, any new technological solution can contribute to SW practice as a separate
network with new, positive and beneficial, or problematic impacts. The characteristics
conveyed by the network actors will facilitate or complicate the interactions of technol­
ogy-based SW practice with other actors, such as other professions, disciplines or
political movements, which are also established by the formations of countless actors.
The informants’ reflections on technologies that together with other actors shape SW
practice from within, as well as determine its connection with external actors, can be
considered as a preamble for SW educators’ translation practice. According to Latour
(2005), the main task of translation practice (as a form of knowledge generation) is to
trace the power relations of actors who create the network and their coverage. In light of
Latour’s theory, our data implies that in a network of different power relations among
objects of reality, preservation of the humanity of a human world presupposes an
awareness of certain risks that arise from a power delegated to the object (in our case,
the technology). That is, a social workers’ understanding of technology as an active agent
in the actor network and their awareness that technology has the power to transform the
profession, may prepare them to tame this power in a conscious effort to preserve the
‘sociality’ of the social world and the SW profession in particular.

Conclusions
Concerning the dichotomy between the humanizing and dehumanizing impact of tech­
nologies on the social world in Latour’s perspective, the attitudes of SW educators in
Japan and Lithuania overwhelmingly reflect the latter. Informants do not perceive the
technologies as autonomous actors and therefore the dehumanizing effect of technologies
on the SW profession becomes more profuse than their potential to strengthen the
relational (humanistic) nature of the profession. Concerning the vision and identity of
the profession in general and social work studies in particular the study revealed different
knowledge generation practices. By listing the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for
the introduction of technologies into SW studies, informants remain within the frame­
work of traditional social work study and do not articulate the idea that the application of
1242 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

technologies in SW education and practice should be accompanied by the ability to go

beyond one’s perceived boundaries of the profession. Thus in the environment of
technology entrenchment, informants remain in the grip of the purification practice—
as the reality is constructed from isolated elements, technology is antagonistic to and
dehumanizes the SW field.
Meanwhile, when assessing the impact of technology on the social work profession as
a whole, the opinions of the informants reflect more the translation practice. The pre­
conditions for developing translation as a knowledge-generating practice, which are neces­
sary to be open to innovations, are formed by the SW informants’ openness to knowledge in
other fields (interdisciplinarity), their desire to connect theory with practice, expert knowl­
edge along with everyday experience. Latour’s translation practice is also reflected in the
informants’ emphasis on the importance of such skills as flexibility, adaptability, creativity,
critical thinking, assessment, and decision-making. Informants’ attention to the values and
principles on which the application of technology in SW should be based can be interpreted
as the intention to stabilize a network of actors (Actor Network in Latours’ words) in which
a client and his or her well-being should be the highest aim. Both purification and
translation practices in SW education are important and necessary, as long as they are
symmetrical. Asymmetry leads to a fragmented understanding of the role of technology in
social work, which does not contribute to the development of technology-based social work
practices that are at the same time humanizing.
Finally, in the reality affected by the pandemic, we, as social work educators, must
perceive ‘the primary importance for using this time of imposed isolation to describe,
initially one by one, then as a group, what we are attached to; what we are ready to give
up; the chains we are ready to reconstruct and those that, in our behaviour, we have
decided to interrupt’ (Latour, 2020, p. 3). More specifically, we have to take the oppor­
tunity to review our approach to technology, to recognize its potential, and to commit
ourselves to master it for the benefit of the people we serve.

Limitations and further research

The findings from the study should be considered within the limitations of the metho­
dology. Typically for qualitative research the sample was small and had inherent diffi­
culties related to representativeness and replication. Nevertheless, this study constitutes
an important step forward in documenting the attitudes of university teachers towards
innovative technologies in social work practice and education at present.
Further research could include a bigger sample representing different world regions,
thus allowing comparisons of opinions related to geographic, ethnic, gender and genera­
tional differences. Further research could apply alternative methodological solutions such
as use of a focus group or Delphi interviews, which enable exchanging opinions of
interdisciplinary experts.Considering the attitudinal changes that educators face in inte­
grating technologies into the studies, are often not easy, bolder methodological solutions,
such as collaborative autoethnography research, action, or empowerment research, may be
considered. These methods may reveal the processes that take place during a change of
educational paradigm. Regarding research topics, it may be meaningful to compare the
content of SW educators’ programs and their teaching methods, in relation to their interest
in innovative technologies and then to assess their students’ competencies in relation to the
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1243

technologies in each programme. Another task could be to explore the challenges that
teachers face in preparing students for social work practice in a new world, the relevance
and inevitability of which is particularly shaped by the pandemic.
The knowledge generation practices revealed a discrepancy between the purification-
oriented SW education and translation-oriented SW practice. The study about profes­
sional collaboration networks (Sage et al., 2021) could reveal how educators develop and
impart technology-oriented scientific knowledge that meets the needs of SW practice.
Similarly, research focused on using technologies in service provision may reveal the best
procedures for their integration into practice. The involvement of service users and their
assessment of services enriched with technology may provide valuable knowledge to SW
educators on the content and methods that the new reality requires.

Notes
1. In Japan, in 2018, about 28% of the population is aged over 65 years with 14% aged 75 or
over. Overall population is projected to decline from 126 to 88 million between 2018 and
2065 (Cabinet Office Japan, 2019).
2. Design and engineering of a human as a foundational emerging technology (Allenby, 2015).
3. Media of communication that is functionally bound to a location.
4. Sensors used to gather and monitor individuals’ physiological and movement data.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Lithuanian Research Council for funding this project. We extend our
gratitude to all research participants who have contributed to this study, and especially to the
partners from Japan for their exemplary academic and practical cooperation in the implementa­
tion of this research project.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT) under Grant No. P-LJB-
19-8.

Notes on contributors
Laimutė Žalimienė is a professor at the Department of Social Work and Social Welfare at Vilnius
University.
Donata Petružytė, Violeta Gevorgianienė and Eglė Šumskienė are assoc. professors at the
Department of Social Work and Social Welfare at Vilnius University.
Mai Yamaguchi is a professor at the Japan Lutheran College, Department of Integrated Human
Studies and Graduate School of Social Work.
Miroslavas Seniutis is a PhD Student at the Department of Social Work and Social Welfare at
Vilnius University.
1244 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

ORCID
Donata Petružytė http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-4895
Violeta Gevorgianienė http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6816-8390
Miroslavas Seniutis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8089-3341
Mai Yamaguchi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3400-0813
Eglė Šumskienė http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8645-5748
Laimutė Žalimienė http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0445-4643

References
Ahmedani, B. K., Harold, R. D., Fitton, V. A., & Shifflet Gibson, E. D. (2011). What adolescents can
tell us: Technology and the future of social work education. Social Work Education, 30(7),
830–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2010.504767
Allenby, B. (2015). Emerging technologies and the future of humanity. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 71(6), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215611087
Bartneck, C., Van Der Hoek, M., Mubin, O., & Al Mahmud, A. (2007). “Daisy, daisy, give me your
answer do!” switching off a robot. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-
Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 217–222). Arlington, VA, USA: IEEE.
Berzin, S. C., Singer, J., & Chan, C. (2015). Practice innovation through technology in the digital age:
A grand challenge for social work. Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative (Working Paper
No. 12). Cleveland, OH: American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare.
Blakemore, T., & Agllias, K. (2020). Social media, empathy and interpersonal skills: Social work
students’ reflections in the digital era. Social Work Education, 39(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02615479.2019.1619683
Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009). The theory-generating expert interview: Epistemological interest,
forms of knowledge, interaction. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts.
Research methods series (pp. 43–80). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cabinet Office Japan. (2019). Annual report on the ageing society, JPN (Report No. FY 2019).
Campbell, M., Detres, M., & Lucio, R. (2019). Can a digital whiteboard foster student engagement?
Social Work Education, 38(6), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2018.1556631
Chan, C., & Holosko, M. (2018). Technology for social work interventions. Oxford University Press.
Čiapaitė, L., & Vaitkevičienė, A. (2020). Kaip negalia turintys asmenys vertina socialiniu paslaugu
kokybe. Socialinė teorija, empirija, politika ir praktika, 21(1), 37–65. https://doi.org/10.15388/
STEPP.2020.22
Cooner, T. S., Knowles, A., & Stout, B. (2016). Creating a mobile app to teach ethical social media
practices. Social Work Education, 35(3), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.
1042361
Dafoe, A. (2015). On technological determinism: A typology, scope conditions, and a mechanism.
Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(6), 1047–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0162243915579283
Dagienė, V., & Kurilovas, E. (2009). Informaciniu ir komunikaciniu technologiju diegimo švietime
patirties lietuvoje ir užsienio šalyse lyginamoji analizė. Pedagogika 95(1) , 112–118. https://www.
lituanistika.lt/content/23321
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
de Lucas y Murillo de la Cueva, F., & D’Antonio Maceiras, S. (2020). Ict, young people and social
work: Distances and opportunities. Social Work Education, 39(6), 813–824. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02615479.2019.1691163
Deepak, A. C., Wisner, B. L., & Benton, A. D. (2016). Intersections between technology, engaged
learning, and social capital in social work education. Social Work Education, 35(3), 310–322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2016.1154661
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1245

DePoy, E., & Gilson, S. (2015). Disability as disjuncture: A theory to guide social work practice.
Social Work Chronicle, 4(1–2), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.21863/swc/2015.4.1and2.001
Devlieghere, J., & Roose, R. (2018). Electronic information systems: In search of responsive social
work. Journal of Social Work, 18(6), 650–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318757296
Diaconu, M., Racovita, L. D., Carbonero Muñoz, D., & Faubert, S. J. (2020). Social work educators’
perceived barriers to teaching with technology: The impact on preparing students to work with
younger clients. Social Work Education, 39(6), 785–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2019.
1683155
Engström, M., Lindqvist, R., Ljunggren, B., & Carlsson, M. (2009). Staff members’ perceptions of
a ict support package in dementia care during the process of implementation. Journal of Nursing
Management, 17(7), 781–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.00985.x
European Commission . (2013) Long-Term care in ageing societies–challenges and policy options.
Retrieved 2021 July 2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=
CELEX:52013SC0041&from=EN
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2016). Exploring the impact of digital technologies on professional
responsibilities and education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 117–131. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1474904115608387
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), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018305057044
Genienė, R. (2020). Decovidacija= deinstitucionalizacija. savarankiškas gyvenimas ir itrauktis
i bendruomene. Socialinė teorija, empirija, politika ir praktika, 21(21), 26–36. https://doi.org/
10.15388/STEPP.2020.21
Groff, L. (2015). Future human evolution and views of the future human: Technological perspec­
tives and challenges. World Futures Review, 7(2–3), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1946756715608956
Hsu, E. L., Elliott, A., Ishii, Y., Sawai, A., & Katagiri, M. (2020). The development of aged care
robots in Japan as a varied process. Technology in Society, 63, [101366]. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techsoc.2020.101366
Huang, Y., & Sharif, N. (2017). From ‘labour dividend’to ‘robot dividend’: Technological change
and workers’ power in south China. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 6(1), 53–78.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2277976017721284
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (2002). Wissenskulturen: Ein vergleich naturwissenschaftlicher wissensformen.
Suhrkamp.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford uni­
versity press.
Latour, B. (2020). What protective measures can you think of so we don’t go back to the precrisis
production model? AOC Media. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/853.html
Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1 suppl),
103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03350.x
Latour, B. (2012). We have never been modern. Harvard university press.
Levin, S., Fulginiti, A., & Moore, B. (2018). The perceived effectiveness of online social work
education: Insights from a national survey of social work educators. Social Work Education, 37
(6), 775–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2018.1482864
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and
software solution. SSOAR.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press.
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A.
Bogner, B. Littig., W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts. Research methods series (pp. 17–42).
London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_2
Miwa, H., Watanabe, K., Määttä, H., Ylikauppila, M., & Niemelä, M. (2017). Comparison of
japanese and finnish attitude regarding technology use in nursing-care service. In 5th interna­
tional conference on serviceology, ICServ 2017. Vienna, Austria: VTT Technical Research Centre
of Finland.
1246 D. PETRUŽYTĖ ET AL.

Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media
audiences. Columbia University Press.
Nauha, L., Keränen, N. S., Kangas, M., Jämsä, T., & Reponen, J. (2018). Assistive technologies at
home for people with a memory disorder. Dementia, 17(7), 909–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1471301216674816
Perron, B. E., Taylor, H. O., Glass, J. E., & Margerum-Leys, J. (2010). Information and commu­
nication technologies in social work. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.
18060/241
Phillips, C. R. (2019). The computer social worker: Regulatory practices, regulated bodies and
science. Qualitative Social Work, 18(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017723700
Pozo-Rubio, D., Jiménez-Rubio, D. (2020). The challenge of sustaining long-term care in aging
societies: Lessons from Japan and Spain; Comment on “Financing long-term care: Lessons from
Japan”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 9(12), 520–523. https://doi.org/
10.15171/ijhpm.2019.143
Pybus, L., & Gillan, D. J. (2015). Implicit theories of technology: Identification and implications for
performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 59 (1),
1555–1557. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
Rice, T. (2010). ‘The hallmark of a doctor’: The stethoscope and the making of medical identity.
Journal of Material Culture, 15(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183510373985
Sage, M., Hitchcock, L. I., Bakk, L., Young, J., Michaeli, D., Jones, A. S., & Smyth, N. J. (2021).
Professional collaboration networks as a social work research practice innovation: Preparing
dsw students for knowledge dissemination roles in a digital society. Research on Social Work
Practice, 31(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731520961163
Saker, M., & Evans, L. (2016). Locative media and identity: Accumulative technologies of the self.
Sage Open, 6(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016662692
Scholar, H. (2017). The neglected paraphernalia of practice? Objects and artefacts in social work
identity, practice and research. Qualitative Social Work, 16(5), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1473325016637911
Singer, J. B., & Sage, M. (2015). Technology and Social Work Practice: Micro, Mezzo, and Macro
Applications. In Social Workers’ Desk Reference (3rd ed., pp. 179–188). Retrieved from Loyola
eCommons Social Work: School of Social Work Faculty Publications and Other Works. New
York City: Oxford University Press.
Sugihara, T., Fujinami, T., Phaal, R., & Ikawa, Y. (2015). A technology roadmap of assistive
technologies for dementia care in Japan. Dementia, 14(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1471301213493798
TNS Opinion & Social. (2012). Public attitudes towards robots (Report No. Wave EB77.1).
European Commission.
Turner, D., Landmann, M., & Kirkland, D. (2020). Making ideas “app”-en: The creation and
evolution of a digital mobile resource to teach social work interviewing skills. Social Work
Education, 39(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2019.1611758
van de Luitgaarden, G., & van der Tier, M. (2018). Establishing working relationships in online
social work. Journal of Social Work, 18(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017316654347
van Oeffelt, T., Ruijters, M. C., van Hees, A. A., & Simons, R. J. P. (2017). Professional identity,
a neglected core concept of professional development. In M. Lee, K. Black, R. Warhurst, & S.
Corlett (Eds.), Identity as a foundation for human resource development (1st ed., pp. 237–252).
New York: Routledge.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
30036540
Vilkoitytė, V., & Skučienė, D. (2020). Vyresnio amžiaus asmenų nuostatos dėl darbinės karjeros
tęstinumo. Socialinė teorija, empirija, politika ir praktika, 20(1), 22–39. doi:10.15388/
STEPP.2020.16
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 1247

Waissbluth, M., & De Gortari, A. (1990). A methodology for science and technology planning
based upon economic scenarios and delphi techniques: The case of Mexican agroindustry.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 37(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-
1625(90)90047-Y
Westwood, J., Dill, K., Campbell, A., & Shaw, A. (2017). Making it ‘app’en: Service user feedback:
Developing and implementing a service user app: Reflections from northern Ireland, england
and scotland. Social Work Education, 36(8), 855–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2017.
1360857
Žalimienė, L., Blažienė, I., Miežienė, R., & Junevičienė, J. (2017). Pagyvenusiu žmoniu globos
sektoriaus transformacijos: Paslaugu, darbo jėgos poreikis ir užimtumo kokybė (Report No.
GER-012/2015). Lietuvos socialinių tyrimų centras.