See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258159029

Theoretical pathways to the future: Globalization, ICT

and social work theory and practice

Article  in  Journal of Social Work · April 2011

DOI: 10.1177/1468017310386835

CITATIONS READS

48 1,570

2 authors:

Deborah West David Heath

Flinders University Charles Darwin University
56 PUBLICATIONS   688 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   227 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Community Development Evaluation & Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deborah West on 11 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Social Work
http://jsw.sagepub.com/

Theoretical pathways to the future: Globalization, ICT and social work theory
and practice
Deborah West and David Heath
Journal of Social Work 2011 11: 209
DOI: 10.1177/1468017310386835

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/11/2/209

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Social Work can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jsw.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jsw.sagepub.com/content/11/2/209.refs.html

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

Article
Journal of Social Work
11(2) 209–221
Theoretical pathways to ! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:

the future: Globalization, sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1468017310386835

ICT and social work jsw.sagepub.com

theory and practice

Deborah West
Charles Darwin University, Australia

David Heath
Charles Darwin University, Australia

Abstract
 Summary: Society has changed substantially and rapidly with the advent of globalization
where technology is both a catalyst for and a response to globalization. Concurrently
and connected to these trends has been the advent of neo-liberalism, new manage-
rialism and postmodernism. Globalization, technological change and neo-liberalism
underpin and are driven by each other in a continual cycle. This rapidly changing,
globally connected and technologically based society is the context for clients and
social workers alike. This article explores the connections between globalization, ICT
and neo-liberalism. This forms the basis for critical reflection on theories, models and
modes of practice in light of the changing context allowing a proactive response to the
challenges that face the profession and our clients.
 Findings: Irrespective of the agency of employment, social workers are faced with
challenges that arise out of an ideology of outsourcing, reductionism, speed of response,
accountability and cost effectiveness with a decreased value on practice wisdom and
holistic approaches. However, many of our theories and models were developed at a
time when social structure, political ideology and economic underpinnings were differ-
ent. As such workers are left being reactive to situations with limited opportunities to
influence the core issues. This has contributed to the decreasing role and value of social
workers.
 Application: To remain relevant social work needs to continue to influence systems
for the benefit of society while reviewing and updating theories and models to
reflect current lifestyles, modes and patterns of communication and the impact of
globalization.

Corresponding author:
Deborah West, Charles Darwin University, Ellengown Dr., Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Australia
Email: deborah.west@cdu.edu.au

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

210 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

Keywords
globalization, information and communication technologies, postmodernism, social
work, theoretical frameworks

Introduction
As the sun sets on another decade in which the development of both information
and communication technology (ICT) and globalization have continued to gather
momentum, it seems like a pertinent time to question how social work might
respond to the inherent challenges posed. Over the past decade the authors of
this article have conducted a number of empirical studies focusing on different
elements of the relationship between ICT and social work practice in the
Australian context. The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) also
conducted a major member study in 2009, which produced some interesting results.
Each piece of evidence has brought different conclusions and new questions. Given
the nature of social work praxis, we feel it is an appropriate time to reflect more
broadly on what we have learnt from this research and think about what actions
might be taken moving forward.
As a result, this article specifically questions how well placed social work is in
light of the increasing pressures and challenges placed upon our clients, work
context and models of practice by various types of global change. Discussion
commences with a brief overview of globalization and the role of technology in
supporting globalization. It then moves into an examination of influential theoret-
ical frameworks and concepts such as ‘McDonaldization’ that help explain the
challenges that technological development and globalization have posed for
social work. From this foundation we proceed to investigate the ability of
common social work models of practice to help respond to the challenges, espe-
cially in light of the prevalence of practice models grounded in modernist thinking.
Finally, we reflect on theoretical pathways for change that might be employed to
address the current threats posed by globalization.

Globalization
Globalization can be defined in many ways. In its simplest form it can be seen as
the ‘the increasing connectedness of societies’ (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p. 42).
Contemporary populations experience the implications of this connectedness in a
variety of everyday forms. Many people have the opportunity to participate in a
global financial market, travel the world and access a world of real-time informa-
tion on the internet. More importantly, people are able to engage in all three
activities simultaneously. The impacts of this connectedness are wide ranging
and visible in health, security, culture, education, politics and finance (Cohen &
Kennedy, 2000; Giddens, 2006). In a local sense Australia is no longer the relatively
isolated island continent it once was.

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

West and Heath 211

In seeking to develop the concept of globalization and identify some of its key
features Macionis and Plummer (2008) point to: permeable borders around
economic transactions; global communication networks underpinned by ICT
networks and infrastructure; the rise of a ‘global culture’ or ‘global village’
where urban areas look similar; the ways in which the media and popular culture
transcend national borders; a growing awareness of common problems such as
environmental and security issues; a growing sense of risk; and the rise of trans-
national corporations and actors who move influentially outside of local bound-
aries (Bryman, 2004; Cohen & Kennedy, 2000; Hawkins, 2006). Holmes, Hughes,
and Julian (2007, p. 454) provide a definition of globalization that encapsulates
these key themes, referring to: ‘A complex set of social, economic, political and
cultural processes that cut across national boundaries, increasing levels of inter-
connectedness such that the world is reconstituted as a single social space.’ It is in
this broader globalized context that we live and work.

The impact of ICT

Although ICT is seen as a key theme in globalization discourses, its relationship to
the concept goes much deeper (Castells, 2000). ICT provides both infrastructure
for, and key propulsion of, the phenomenon of globalization. Broadly speaking,
ICT is the term applied to a range of tools and media that provide the infrastruc-
ture for communication and includes devices such as telephones and computers
with all of their applications including internet, email, mobile telephones, instant
messaging and social networking. In a generic sense ICT allows users to commu-
nicate more quickly and efficiently across the globe, to access an often overwhelm-
ing amount of real-time information, to gain access to services remotely and to
build relationships with people (Castells, 2000; Department of Communication
Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA), 2004; West, 2003).
ICT also underpins contemporary economic systems. This has precipitated the
concept of a ‘digital economy’ (or what was often previously referred to as an
information economy). The Australian Department of Broadband,
Communication and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) (2009: 2) defines the digital
economy as: ‘the global network of economic and social activities that are enabled
by information and communications technologies, such as the internet, mobile and
sensor networks’. With the continuing influence of both the political economy
(Macionis & Plummer, 2008) and social justice (AASW, 2002) perspectives in
social work, such significant changes to the nature and functioning of global
economic systems must impact strongly on the profession at the research, policy
and practice levels.
Whilst the practical applications of ICT are significant in themselves, if we delve
further, it can be argued that ICT has also fundamentally changed many people’s
relationship to time and space (Wellman, Quan-Haase, Boase, & Chen, 2002).
The pace of action and change is now much quicker with email, real time and

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

212 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

instant messaging representing the new cornerstones of human interpersonal

communication. The idea of the appropriate duration one should wait for a
response is quite different now than what it was even 10 years ago. Evidence of
this change confronts us daily in airports, coffee shops and on public transport,
where mobile telephone conversations compete with the frantic tapping of laptop
computer keyboards as insistent reminders of the ever burgeoning influence of ICT
on the work and social lives of society.
In relation to space, people are decreasingly tied to a specific location. The
ability to communicate with other people and access information travels with
people and their portable devices. Access to goods and services from locations
removed from the point of service is commonplace (Wellman et al., 2002). The
virtual realm is now a reality, changing how we think about society and our
communities. Online communities are quite legitimate and have dissolved into
some definitions of community (DCITA, 2005; Gurstein, 2003; Quan-Haase &
Wellman, 2002; Wellman et al., 2002).
As an example, with the click of a button the AASW can send an instant
message to its membership community across Australia and the globe. This ability
proved useful recently when policy changes were announced, making fragile the
position of social workers as mental health professionals in Australia. The use of
e-mail led to swift feedback from AASW members and a response from the AASW
that was quick, decisive and transmitted immediately back to members so that
they could follow progress. What might the AASW response have looked like
20 years ago?
The losses and gains to society as a consequence of the growing influence of ICT
have naturally drawn the attention of social scientists and conclusions drawn have
spanned dystopian and utopian perspectives (Cohen & Kennedy, 2000; Dicken,
1998). In summarizing work around the impact of ICT – specifically the internet –
on social capital, Wellman et al. (2002) provide a concise synopsis of three main
points of view which are evident in the literature:

1. The internet diminishes social capital as it draws people away from family and
friends. An accompanying hypothesis to this perspective is that as global
communication and involvement increases, interest in local community and
politics decreases.
2. The internet supplements social capital as it ‘blends’ into people’s lives. An under-
pinning assumption of this perspective is that the internet is another means of
communication to facilitate existing social relationships while still following
existing patterns of civic engagement and socialization (Quan-Haase &
Wellman, 2002; Wellman et al., 2002).
3. The internet transforms social capital by providing ‘means for inexpensive and
convenient communication with far flung communities of shared interest’
(Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2002, p. 3). Taken further, the broadening accessibil-
ity and flexibility of the internet ‘leads to a major transformation in social
contact and civic involvement away from local and group-based solidarities

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

West and Heath 213

and towards more spatially-dispersed and sparsely-knit interest based social

networks’ (Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2002, p. 3).

In relation to social work, broadly speaking the social milieu in which we oper-
ate is changing. Regardless of which view one subscribes to across this continuum,
social capital and the links between people are now different. Therefore social work
needs to be aware of and harness such resources where they are available.

The technological divide

ICT is prevalent but not universal. Clearly, there are large segments of the popu-
lation who do not have access to such technology and this places them in a disad-
vantaged position insofar as the benefits of a globalized and a connected economy
and society are only available to those who have the means of access (ABS, 2009;
Castells, 2001; National Office of the Information Economy, 2002; West, 2006;
West & Heath, 2009). Although a full discussion of technological inclusion is
beyond the scope of this article it is important to note that technological access
varies significantly in Australia depending on income and education levels, age and
location (ABS, 2009).
Statistics produced by the Australian Government remain chiefly focused upon
physical access to mobile phones, computers and the internet (ABS, 2006, 2006/
2007). However, this does not cover the range of factors related to digital inclusion.
As the authors have previously argued comprehensive notions of technological
inclusion should be seen to include knowledge of how to apply ICT, access
to appropriate training, freedom to apply ICT knowledge and levels of literacy
(particularly English literacy as English is largely the language of the World Wide
Web) (DCITA, 2004; DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Heath, 2008; West, 2003, 2006;
West & Heath, 2009).
The compounding nature of multiple social inequality faced by particular
groups that social workers often work with, such as the aged (West, 2003),
people in the criminal justice system (Roach-Anleu, 2006) and Indigenous
Australians (Australian Government SCRGSP, 2007) leads one to conclude that
many social work clients might not have the means to participate fully in the digital
economy (Heath, 2008; Irizarry et al., 2002; West, 2003). This raises some inter-
esting dilemmas in terms of client needs and how these might fit with the broader
political, social and economic expectations that form the context of our work and
lives. This is particularly relevant if we consider the inherent link between an econ-
omy based on capitalism and related to ICT and globalization.

Capitalism and globalization

The values of capitalism are firmly entrenched and expanded upon in processes
of globalization. For some, globalization is conceptualized as a natural progres-
sion in the order of capitalism where the main principles are applied beyond

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

214 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

national borders. Of course, trade has virtually always taken place across borders
but current levels of globalization transcend historical boundaries in terms of trans-
action speed and impact (Dicken, 1998; Macionis & Plummer, 2008).
Ritzer (1996) also observes that the idea of globalization is built on the work of
Max Weber and the concept of the iron cage of capitalism. From this perspective it
is seen as inevitable that capitalization will continue to tighten its hold on all
economic processes and sectors and increasingly extend its reach. One conclusion
that follows is that globalization is the continuing extension of industrialization as
reflected in modernist ideas and concepts.
Within this discourse, there are both utopian and dystopian views of the general
impact of globalization (Cohen & Kennedy, 2000; Held, 2004). Visioned in a
positive light globalization promotes economic benefits and opportunities globally,
allowing people to access a range of goods and services that they would otherwise
be unable to access, including health, social services and education (Holmes et al.,
2007; Macionis & Plummer, 2008). Conversely, there are fears that globalization
will overtake and subsume local cultures and language, that smaller businesses will
no longer be viable and that the world will continue to homogenize (Bryman, 2004;
Holmes et al., 2007; Macionis & Plummer, 2008).

The McDonaldization of human services

An increasing emphasis on economic rationalist, managerial and neo-liberal
discourse as part of globalization (Ritzer, 2004) can be connected to George
Ritzer’s (1996) McDonaldization theory, which argues that the key principles
and practices that shaped the rise of the fast food industry have provided the
blueprint for development in a range of industries, including human service indus-
tries. Guiding principles recognized in McDonaldization theory include efficiency,
calculability, predictability, control over the actions of workers and irrationalities
of rationality (e.g. long queues which result in de-humanization) (Ritzer, 1996).
In practice settings, McDonaldization and the accompanying economic ratio-
nalist, managerial and neo-liberal perspectives variously emphasize compartmen-
talization of tasks, deskilled labour, mechanization and evaluation of outcomes
featuring economic effectiveness and cost efficiency as central tenets. When changes
are made according to these principles individual workers lose control of the over-
all process and their discretion is limited, something Marx referred to as alienation
in the context of the emergence of the industrial revolution (Meszaros, 2005).
These conditions have filtered into specific fields of practice in which social
workers are commonly employed, such as health, justice, housing, aged care and
child protection. For example, work is often divided up into teams such as intake,
assessment and intervention. Tightly controlled inter-agency protocols, risk
management strategies and statutory regulations are commonplace (Jones, 2006).
Service provision is based on efficiency and effectiveness and in many agencies there
is what could be viewed as a production line of service to clients aimed at assisting
them to achieve a desired, measurable outcome (Jones, 2001). For people accessing

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

West and Heath 215

services this can lead to a confusing accumulation of agencies and workers, whilst
for social workers this can translate into a feeling of being on the assembly line of
a factory (Jones, 2001).

Models of practice
Given social work’s ethical foundations, traditional practice modalities and person-
centred focus, the impact of modernization (and globalization) presents some inter-
esting challenges and opportunities. Many of our social work models, such as the
task-centred and problem solving models, were developed on the basis of modernist
thinking, incorporating traditional sociological perspectives which emerged during
the industrial revolution (West, 2007a, 2007b). While conventional wisdom, theory
and perspectives have to some degree moved on from there, the theoretical basis for
direct practice models largely remains largely unchanged. For example, the vast
majority of community development models start from the premise of place-based
communities which at best only provide part of the picture. While individual prac-
titioners can expand their applications to other types of communities, such appli-
cations are not explicitly stated.
Looking at the most recent survey of AASW members, we can see some of the
impacts of modernization in terms of practice modalities. In this survey, 37 percent
of members who responded indicated that their major modality was individual
counselling (AASW, 2009). While it is hard to get a complete picture from this
data, the idea that only 17 percent indicated that they worked in family, group or
community modalities is somewhat telling given the supposed increasing intercon-
nectedness generated via the processes of globalization (AASW, 2009).
Somewhat ironically, while social work continues to work within the modernist
systems, the profession has not proactively harnessed much of the technology
which has been integrated in various fields of practice. We have for many years
offered a range of telephone counselling and this continues to exist but opportu-
nities in the online realm have scarcely been explored (Heath, 2008; Marziali,
Damianakis, & Donohue, 2006a; Marziali, Dergal, & McCleary, 2006b; West,
2003). 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.
While we do see a range of applications being taken up on the internet such as
social action on key public issues and online communities supporting various issues
(see DCITA, 2004, 2005), these are often initiated, operated and/or supported by
volunteers. Where professionals are involved, they are often from a variety of
disciplines other than social work.
Findings from the national member survey carried out by the AASW (2009) also
suggest a relative lack of engagement in the online realm. The survey was distrib-
uted online and had a 27.6 percent response rate which is quite reasonable. While
members indicated that they used the internet to book online conferences, pay
membership and look for job opportunities, there was no mention of the use of

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

216 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

ICT in practice. Additionally, there were no questions relating to technology use

with clients included in the survey which perhaps reflects the lack of prevalence that
this has in Australia. However, in a survey undertaken in the Northern Territory
which did seek such information, findings indicated that practitioners made only
limited use of the technology (West, Heath, & Ennis, 2009). This is surprising given
the role that ICT can play in overcoming distance particularly in areas that are
sparsely populated and lack many services such as the Northern Territory and
many other parts of Australia.
Most likely as a corollary to the trends above, little work has been done on
translating and testing models of intervention using ICT as a modality. A search of
various data bases undertaken in 2009 revealed few journal articles on the use of
technology in direct practice. Those that do exist tend to focus on managerialist
applications of ICT (Burton & van den Broek, 2008; Tregeagle & Darcey, 2007)
such as the use of databases (Burton & van den Broek, 2008; Garrett, 2005) and
electronic assessment tools (Pithouse, Hall, Peckover, & White, 2009). It is also
interesting to note that these are predominantly based on British experiences while
Australian work in this area was limited.
While it is likely that such managerialist functions dominate the use of ICT in
other professions, we can see the more direct applications in psychology, pharmacy
and medicine with online counselling tools (Marziali et al., 2006a; Sanders &
Rosenfield, 1998), the investigated use of video links and remote medicine (Gath,
2004; Marziali et al., 2006a). Why this might be the case is questionable. Findings
in Heath’s (2008) study found that many practitioners believed that many cli-
ents did not have access to such technology based on the digital inclusion data
and therefore resources should not be invested in moving in that direction.
However, the alternative argument is that we can harness ICT to help our clients
overcome powerlessness, social and economic exclusion (Parrott & Madoc-Jones,
2008).
The underpinning tenets of globalization along with the general lack of response
from social work to such changes have contributed to the devaluing of the profes-
sion. Such changes allow and support tasks to become divided and mechanized and
therefore be conceptualized as much simpler tasks which can be undertaken by a
range of people from various professional backgrounds and in some cases by those
who are untrained (Jones, 2001; McDonald & Jones, 2000).
While Ritzer (1996) sees Weber’s ‘iron cage’ argument as valid he also envisions
potential possibilities to break out of such a cycle. It is within this frame of refer-
ence that we can look to the ideas of postmodernism in an effort to move forward.

Moving forward
Whilst the models and systems continue to help support and sustain the ‘iron cage
of capitalism’ one must question whether many of our existing models are able to
move us forward to challenge the systems that support and perpetuate inequalities.
As they are constructed according to modernist values, concepts and frameworks,

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

West and Heath 217

there is little opportunity provided to critically address the issues at the practice
level. While much has been written about postmodernism and associated perspec-
tives on practice, little of this thinking has been subsequently built into our practice
models.
A content analysis of commonly utilized social work models suggests that very
few clearly identify postmodernist theories as influencing their development (West,
2007a). This is likely because relatively few models used in current practice have
been developed in recent years. While there are a few, such as Narrative Therapy,
that do explicitly identify postmodernism as a key underpinning and are used, these
are in the minority. Even our ethical frameworks that are included in our practice
and teaching are based on modernist ideologies of individualism, rationalism and
universalism (Lyon, 1994, in Hugman, 2003).
There are likely a number of reasons for the prevalence of modernist based
models. First, many social workers who were trained pre-1990s are more likely
to utilize models predicated on modernism as that is what they have been trained
in. Additionally, with few models available with postmodernist underpinning, we
tend to continue teaching the more traditional models at least to some extent.
Another good reason to teach such models is that social work graduates will be
required to work in systems that operate in such ways and have little opportunity
to step outside of this framework. As a result we tend to perpetuate the cycle.
Overall, this discussion suggests the need to have a major re-think regarding our
models and modalities of practice to challenge such systems. As postmodernism
supports a diversity of views it may well be possible to link such ideas to the
‘glocalization’ framework which is manifested within the existing social system.
Glocalization is defined as ‘the ways in which global phenomena are responded
to differently in local cultures’ (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p. 148). In this sense we
can harness the trends of globalization and contextualize them to our models and
values of professional practice. This links to principles of postmodernism and how
these principles can be utilized to drive local systemic changes under the framework
of glocalization.
Stones (1996, in Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p. 39) suggests that:

post-modern sociology has three main concerns, post-modernists argue . . . for respect-
ing the existence of a plurality of perspectives, as against a notion that there is one
single truth from a privileged perspective; local, contextual studies in place of grand
narratives; an emphasis on disorder, flux and openness, as opposed to order, conti-
nuity and restraint.

Focusing on this macro-level, postmodernist thinking has certainly developed

and evolved, however, it could be questioned whether it has actually made any
impact on the social and political systems which are expanding under a globalized
system. One possible reason for this is the idea that those that think in such ways
(social workers, social commentators and sociologists) appear to have little influ-
ence on the major systems.

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

218 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

Social work needs to find new ways to influence systems and reviewing and
updating models to reflect the global context could provide this opportunity.
First, there is a need to both identify existing models that suit our needs and to
develop new models based on postmodernist thinking to work toward more
systemic changes. We also need to harness the key drivers of globalization, parti-
cularly ICT and utilize them to extend our reach to our clients. However, in order
to do this we need to look at ensuring that practitioners can translate their skills to
such a modality. Within this context we need to provide evidence that such an
approach is effective. With such tools in our repertoire and evidence to argue for
such approaches we are likely to gain more opportunity to tailor our services to the
variety of needs that currently exist. Finally, as Hugman (2003) argues, we need to
look to our own profession and examine ethical frameworks for practice that fit
within a postmodernist perspective.

Conclusion
For various reasons it appears that the social work profession is finding it difficult
to be proactive and decisive in its response to the complex interlinked issues of
globalization and ICT. Research cited throughout the article illustrates the barriers
to effective ICT use by social workers engaged in direct practice roles. At the
pedagogical level, we have also presented examples of teaching constraints that
might hinder the ability of future social workers to responds to the challenges
discussed.
From a research perspective, perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of research.
This can be attributed to a cruel paradox. Given that many social workers are
trying to work effectively in roles shaped by economic rationalist policies of
deskilling, quantitative outcome measures and production line mentality, it appears
that very little research is coming directly from social workers working in human
service organizations, perhaps because such research is seen as costly or not
necessary. In essence then, barriers are in place to keep social workers from
improving their practice (and disseminating such information) through research,
whilst remaining at risk of being perceived as uninformed if demand for ICT based
practices such as internet counselling increases – a possible scenario given the
potential cost savings.
Whilst the outlook can appear fairly grim, the reality is that anecdotal evidence
suggests that many social workers and human service organizations are embracing
ICT and utilizing its benefits in work with clients. In some ways the main purpose
in writing this article was to draw attention to the very real need for social workers,
whether involved in research, policy, practice or education, to question the influ-
ence of globalization and promote quality local, regional, national and interna-
tional discussions about how ICT and globalization can actually improve practice.
These discussions might take the form of training staff in ICT use, carrying out
research about use of ICT, piloting ICT based interventions, facilitating clients’
own utilization of ICT or helping social work students plan to work effectively in

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

West and Heath 219

this challenging context. In essence, there are a variety of ways that one might
develop their practice in conjunction with globalization. The one certainty though
is that existing ideas alone are not enough and that new ideas, innovation and a
willingness to move with the changes must be the cornerstones of our professional
responses.

References
Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). (2009). The 2009 AASW Membership
Survey. National Bulletin: Newsletter of the Australian Association of Social Workers,
19(2), 13–17.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2006). Patterns of internet access in Australia (Cat
no. 8146.0). Retrieved February 2008 from: http://www.abs.gov.au.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2006/2007). Household use of information technology
in Australia (Cat no. 8146.0). Retrieved February 2008 from: http://www.abs.gov.au.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2009). Household use of information technology in
Australia (Cat no. 8146.0). Retrieved December 2009 from: http://www.abs.gov.au/aus-
stats/abs@.nsf/lookupMF/ACC2D18CC958BC7BCA2568A9001393AE.
Australian Government Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service
Provision (SCRGSP). (2007). Overcoming indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2007.
Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Bryman, A. (2004). The Disneyization of society. London: SAGE.
Burton, J., & van den Broek, D. (2008). Accountable and countable: Information manage-
ment systems and the bureaucratization of social work. British Journal of Social Work,
39(7), 1326–1342.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business and society.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, R., & Kennedy, P. (2000). Global sociology. New York: New York University Press.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE).
(2009). Australia’s digital economy: Future directions. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). (2004).
Australia’s strategic framework for the information economy 2004–2006: Opportunities and
challenges for the information age. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). (2005).
The role of building communities and social capital. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Dicken, P. (1998). Global shift: Transforming the world economy. London: Paul Chapman.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 307–336.
Garrett, P. M. (2005). Social work’s ‘electronic turn’: Notes on the deployment of informa-
tion and communication technologies in social work with children and families. Critical
Social Policy, 25(4), 529–553.
Gath, S. (2004). Electronic health records for Australia: Some legal and policy issues. Future
challenges for e-government (Vol. 2). Canberra: Australian Government Information
Management Office.
Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology (5th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

220 Journal of Social Work 11(2)

Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital
divide. First Monday, 8(12), 1–27.
Hawkins, M. (2006). Global structures, local cultures. South Melbourne: Oxford University
Press.
Heath, D. (2008). Foundations for ICT in dementia care in the top end. Honours Thesis, SA
NT Dementia Training Study Centre. Retrieved February 2009 from: http://
www.santdtsc.edu.au/media/docs/davidheath_final_report_nov08.pdf.
Held, D. (Ed.) (2004). A globalizing world? Culture, economics and politics (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Holmes, D., Hughes, K., & Julian, R. (2007). Australian sociology: A changing society.
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Longman.
Hugman, R. (2003). Professional ethics in social work: Living with the legacy. Australian
Social Work, 56(1), 5–15.
Irizarry, C., Downing A., & West. D. (2002). Promoting modern technology and internet
access for under-represented populations. Journal of Technology in Human Services,
19(4), 13–30.
Jones, A. (2006). Working in human service organisations. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson
Education.
Jones, C. (2001). Voices from the front line: State social workers and New Labour. British
Journal of Social Work, 31, 547–562.
Macionis, J., & Plummer, K. (2008). Sociology: A global introduction. London: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Marziali, E., Damianakis, T., & Donahue, P. (2006a). Internet-based clinical services:
Virtual support groups for family carers. Journal of Technology in Human Services,
24(2/3), 39–54.
Marziali, E., Dergal, J., & McCleary, L. (2006b). A systematic review of practice standards
and research ethics in technology-based home health care intervention programs for older
adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 17(6), 679–696.
McDonald, C., & Jones, A. (2000). Reconstructing and reconceptualising social work in the
emerging milieu. Australian Social Work, 53(3), 3–11.
Meszaros, I. (2005). Marx’s theory of alienation. Pontypool: The Merlin Press.
National Office for the Information Economy (2002). The digital divide. Canberra:
Australian Government Printing Service.
Parrott, L., & Madoc-Jones, I. (2008). Reclaiming information and communication
technologies for empowering social work practice. Journal of Social Work, 8(2),
181–197.
Pithouse, A., Hall, C., Peckover, S., & White, S. (2009). A tale of two CAFs: The impact of
the Electronic Common Assessment Framework. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4),
599–612.
Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2002). How does the internet affect social capital?
In M. Huysman & V. Wulf (Eds.), Social capital and information technology
(pp. 113–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization thesis: Is expansion inevitable? International
Sociology, 11(3), 291–308.
Ritzer, G. (2004). The globalization of nothing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Roach-Anleu, S. L. (2006). Deviance, conformity and control (4th ed.). NSW: Longman
Pearson.

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

West and Heath 221

Sanders, P., & Rosenfield, M. (1998). Counselling at a distance: Challenges and new initia-
tives. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26(1), 5–11.
Tregeagle, S., & Darcy, M. (2007). Child welfare and information and communication
technology: Today’s challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1481–1498.
Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., & Chen, W. (2002). Examining the internet in
everyday life. In Proceedings from the Euricom Conference on e-Democracy. Nijmegen,
The Netherlands.
West, D. (2003). Is computer access enough? A multilevel analysis of the barriers to engage-
ment. Southern Review: Communication, Politics and Culture, Special Issue: Wired
Communities: Information Policy at the Local and Regional Level, 36(1), 22–33.
West, D. (2006). Lenses for digital inclusion: A social work framework for research, policy
and practice. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 2(1), 121–129.
West, D. (2007a). Social work contexts: Looking beyond our ‘environment’. International
Journal of the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1(4), 93–98.
West, D. (2007b). Building a holistic environmental model for global social work.
International Journal of the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(4), 61–65.
West, D., & Heath, D. (2009). Moving forward on digital inclusion: A framework for inte-
grating research, policy and practice. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice,
18(2), 5–28.
West, D., Heath, D., & Ennis, G. (2009). Northern Territory social work: Views and
approaches. Australian Social Work, 62(1), 74–89.

Downloaded from jsw.sagepub.com at Charles Darwin University on May 23, 2011

View publication stats