COMMENTARY

Virtual Boundaries: Ethical Considerations forUse of Social Media in Social Work

Ericka Kimball and JaeRan Kim

S ociety has become more interactive throughincreased access and use of the Internet andsocial media tools. Web 2.0 moved the

Internet beyond information storage to a placewhere discourse takes place (Sawmiller, 2010).Social media, Internet tools that facUitate onlineinteractions, have the potential to further expandsuch discourses. Social networks (for example,Facebook, Google + , Linkedin), blogs (for exam-ple, Wordpress, Typepad), and microblogs (forexample. Twitter, Tumblr) are types of socialmedia tools that allow people to connect and shareinfomiation in an onhne space. People use socialmedia tools to report information, present opin-ions, and solicit convenation through their owndomains or dedicated websites. All of this onlineinteraction, enabled further by increases in smart-phone and networked tablet devise usage, posesthe potential for personal and professional lives tocross in social media spaces.

Existing literature has focused on the ethicalchallenges of social media in professional practicewith clients, use of social media as an expansion ofresearch, and for online learning (Eccles, 2010;Giffords, 2009; NASW & Associarion of SocialWork Boards [ASWB], 2005). However, the con-versation around ethical use of social media, out-side the client—professional relationship, is missing.Areas in which greater discussion is needed includeadvising students and setting agency pohcies onethical uses of social media and on the effects ofpersonal use of social media among professionalrelationships.

This article is about creating virtual boundaries—the limits social workers place to guide their socialmedia use—to create intentional online personasand about the effects of social media use in theintemiingling of personal and professional lives.Social workers need to be aware of the identities

they create and maintain in the realm of socialmedia because of ethical codes and policies. Thevarious forms and uses of social media are discussedto provide an understanding of the benefits andconsequences of social media. An overview of eth-ical considerations is presented along with recom-mendations on creating virtual boundaries forpersonal and professional use of social media.

FORMS AND USES OF SOCIAL MEDIAAlthough the forms and uses of social media areconstantly changing, blogs, microblogs, and socialnetworking sites have proved to be some of themore popular social media tools over the last sev-eral years. Other social media tools, such as virtualworld games, photo sharing, and informationmanagement sites, may be lesser-used tools but areStiU important to consider when setting virtualboundaries.

Blog and MicroblogA blog (or Weblog) is defined as an online journal ofpersonal reñections, opinions, and comments.Microblog content may also include personal reflec-tions, opinions, and comments but in a condensedformat. Twitter, for example, limits content to140-character posts and focuses on real-time inter-actions with others in users' networks. Blogs are usedprofessionally and personally to express personalopinions, market products and services, providepohtical commentary, or share and disseminateinfomiation for educational purposes (Qian & Scott,2007). Blogs can be made pubhc or private to selectpeople or groups. The author or authors of the blogmay use their real names or pseudonyms.

Social NetworkA social network site (SNS) is an online space wherepeople build a personal profile allowing them to

doi: 10.1093/sw/swt005 © 2013 National Association of Sociai Workers 185

share content and build cotmections (Boyd &Ellison, 2007). SNS sites such as Facebook orGoogle+ facilitate the opportunity for networkingby exposing a user to broader networks and creatingconnections that may not otherwise occur. Untilrecendy, networking within an SNS was mosdylimited to predetermined relationships rather thanbuilding new networks with strangers because peo-ple have to invite or accept requests to connectnetworks (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

Other Social Media ToolsMany other tools that social workers and othersuse to interact via the Internet exist. To describethem all would be beyond the scope of this article,so a few tools are highlighted to provide additionaldepth in understanding the extent of social mediatools in creating interactive communities. Interac-tive games such as Second Life provide virtualworlds where people interact and build communi-ties. These virtual worlds are often open, and largesocial networks may be created. Photo-sharingsites such as Flickr allow people to post and sharepictures. Photos can be shared broadly or onlywith specific people. Social bookmarking sitessuch as Diigo and Evemote allow people to storeand share favorite websites or other materials in arestricted or larger social network.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Social media tools allow social workers to continu-ally build social networks. Online networks ofteninclude colleagues, former classmates, friends, andfamily. In real life, these networks may be separate,but online these worlds collide in unforeseen ways(see Figure 1) (Houghton &Joinson, 2010). Thisis especially true with sites such as Facebook orTwitter, which were created to integrate socialnetworks. Therefore, social workers are in needof policies and guidelines that assist in the ethicaluse of social media tools, including interactionswith clients in social network arenas.

The NASW Code of Ethics (2008) does notinclude guidance on the use of technology. In2005, the NASW and the ASWB published stan-dards specifically to guide the use of technology insocial work practice, highlighting the importanceof maintaining knowledge and understanding ofhow technology may aiFect social workers' serviceprovision to clients (NASW & ASWB, 2005).This guide provides a starting point in considering

Figure 1: The Way Networks Intersect toinclude Professional and Personal

Connections

Virtual Boundary

Note: This diagram shows the Viiay sociai media integrate isoiated sociai networks toconnect vt/ork or schooi coileagues, famiiy and friends, and community contacts.

ethical guidelines for the use of social media inprofessional contexts but lacks guidance on theeffects of personal use of technologies within theprofessional community. Given the rapid growthof personal use of social media tools since 2005, inparticular with the increased use of smartphonesand tablet devices, there is a need for further devel-opment of personal and professional considerationsin technology use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Social media are being used within various socialwork circles (that is, personally and professionally).Organizations—including academia—need to beproactive in setting acceptable use policies forsocial media to prevent ethical and legal violations.One common response is to ban social media usewithin an agency, a practice that creates obstacles ifthe agency later wants to create a social networkprofile to promote its services. Policies and guide-lines must be more nuanced than a straight yes orno to social media use within the agency or organi-zation. A committee of social media users, ratherthan top-level administrators who may not under-stand the nuances of social media, should help cre-ate policies and guidelines. In addition to socialmedia users, it is important to have informationtechnology specialists, legal representatives, andhuman resources involved in shaping social mediause policies (Schwartzman, 2010).

The Sodal Media Governance Web site providesvarious templates and examples to help organizations

186 Social Work VOLUME 58, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2013

create social media policies (http://www.socialmediagovemance.org). When setting policies and guide-lines, it is important to clearly identify the differencebetween personal and professional representadon ofyour organizadon. One strategy is to use disclaimerlanguage stating whether you are represendng your-self or your organization. It is also important to beclear about expectadons of the NASW Code of Ethicsand other organizational policies when setting rulesregarding the types of material that can be posted.This includes clearly written language about theincorporadon of clients into social networks. Thereare some areas of social work pracdce in which itmay be perfecdy acceptable to engage clientsthrough social media, yet it is important to make aclear distincdon between personal and professionalrepresentadon.

Many social workere underetand the ethical con-siderations around protecting client confidentiality,but the guidelines around respecting colleagues,the social work profession, and other professionalrelationships are less stressed in ethics trainings.In addidon, concerns about setting boundariesregarding clients' personal social media sites exist.For example, social workers maintaining publicblogs or microblogs such as Twitter wül need todecide whether and how they respond to com-ments written by cHents on their sites.

The following five questions provide a guide forsocial work professionals when making decisionsabout sharing information on their social network-ing sites:

1. Wliat information do you want to share? Use

the inherent reflective nature of social workto think about the information you are put-ting forward. Is this information important,hannful, protected, and so forth?

2. Why do you ivant to share this information?

Reflect on the purpose of sharing this infor-madon. What are the benefits of sharing? Isthere an expected outcome from sharing thisinformation?

3. Who needs to see this information? After consid-ering the puipose of sharing this infonnation,think about the role of your audience. Whoare the people who will benefit or need toknow about this information? WOl clients seethis information?

4. Where do I want to share this information? After

determining who needs to see this informarion,

the quesdon of where to share this informadonfollows. There are various social media toolsthat may have different or overlapping pur-poses. Where you share information dependson your answers to the three precedingquestions.

5. How does the NASW Code ofEthia or other orga-

nizational policies gtiide sharing this itiformation?

After determining that you are going to sharethis information, examine and reflect on theNASW Code of Ethics and other policies thatmay affect the sharing of this infonnation.

For example, if you want to share an action alertabout domestic violence policy to raise awarenessin the general popularion, you may post such anitem to Twitter with an understanding of theNASW (2008) Code of Ethics Ethical Standard 6:Social Workers' Ethical Responsibihty to theBroader Society, which specifically calls on socialworkers to promote social justice by shaping publicpolicies and engaging in social and political action(NASW, 2008). However, when participating inonline political organizing and advocacy, cautionshould be taken to do so in a respectful manner.A contentious political atmosphere may disruptprofessional and pereonal relationships. In addition,as professional and pereonal circles are increasinglyoverlapping in SNS, complaints about your work-day or clients may be seen by colleagues and mayjeopardize your professional reputation.

SUMMARYIn real ufe, we often use physical cues to help usidentify our role and put the appropriate boundariesin place, but online it is more difficult to determinewhere our boundaries lie. This article provides anoverview of various social media tools and usesalong with pereonal and professional consideradonsto help in guiding the ethical use of social mediatools. As the use of social media continues to grow,the importance of virtual boundaries wül also rise.Therefore, proacdve consideradons that includepolicies and guidelines that encourage responsibleand ethical use of social media are needed to helpsocial workere mediate pereonal and professionalboundaries,

REFERENCESBoyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites:

Definition, history, and scholarship. Joiíníii/ ofComputer-Mediated Communications, 13, 210—230.

KiMBALL AND KIM / Virtual Boundaries 187

Eccles, A. (2010). Ethical considerations around the imple-mentation of telecare technologies. Jonma/ of Technol-ogy in Human Services, 28, 44—59.

Giffords, E. D. (2009). The Internet and social work:The next generation. Families in Society, 90, 413—419.

Houghton, D. J., &Joinson, A. N. (2010). Privacy, socialnetwork sites, and social relations. JoHma/ of Technologyin Human Services, 28, 78—94.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of eth-ics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrievedfrom http : //virww.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp

National Association of Social Workers & Association ofSocial Work Boards. (2005). Standards for technology andsocial work practice. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/standards/NASWTechnologyStandards.pdf

Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on wehlo^. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 12, 1428—1451.

SawmiUer, A. (2010). Classroom blogging: What is the rolein science learning? Clearing House, 83(2), 44—48.

Schwartzman, E. (2010). Social media policy template.Retrieved from http://encschwartzman.com/pr/schwartzman/social-media-poHcy-template.aspx

Ericka Kimball, PhD, MSW, is assistant professor, AugsburgGollege, 2211 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55454,e-mail: kimballe@augshurg.edu. JaeRan Kim, MSW, is a doc-toral candidate. University of Minnesota-Tunn Gities, St. Paul.

Originai manuscript received November 29, 2011Finai revision received January 31, 2012Accepted February 2, 2012Advance Access Publication March 27, 2013

LETTERS

; This space is for you!

We welcome brief comments on issuescovered in the journal and other

points of interest to the profession. Althoughspace constraints limit the number we canpublish, each letter is carefully read andconsidered. Optimum length is one or twodouble-spaced pages. Send your letter as aWord document throtigh the online portalat http://swj.msubmit.net (initial, one-timeregistration is required).

EconocideElimination of the Urban PoorAlice Skirtz

Econocide: Eliminaiion of the Urban Poor tells the storyof how an overweening focus on economic

development, in concert witli biased housing poli-cy practices, and a virtual abandonment of civic re-sponsibility, has forsaken tlie urban poor in Cincin-nati, Ohio. Alice Skirtz shows how the city has usedlegislation and die administration of public policyto serve the ends of privatizing public assets anddisplacing people who are perceived as undesirablebecause they lack economic power and privilege.

Skirtz argues diat enactment and implementa-tion of legislation grounded in contempt foreconomically disadvaiitaged and schemes comto keep añbrdable housing off tlie market andreduce or devolve essential social services have re-sulted in gross economic inequities, manifest in acollectivity she identifies as "economic others."

ISBN: 978-0-87101-424-5 2012 Item #4245^182 pages $24.99

1-800-227-3590 www.naswpress.org

#NASWNASW PRESS

188 Social Work VOLUME 58, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2013

Copyright of Social Work is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.