Ethics Inf Technol (2013) 15:35–43 DOI 10.1007/s10676-013-9312-7 ORIGINAL PAPER Considering the ethical implications of social media in social work education Rana Duncan-Daston • Maude Hunter-Sloan Elise Fullmer • Published online: 6 February 2013  Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract The ethical implications of the explosion of social media outlets for social work education are explored in this paper. Given that social work education has a dual focus, both of educating students and of socializing practitioners into the profession, the issue of the blurring between what is social and what is professional gains particular salience for both educators and students. Recommendations for educators to ethically address the need to maintain a consistent professional presence online and to avoid potentially harmful dual relationships with students are presented. These recommendations include: abstain from using social media or use only a static professional profile; use only university protected sites to promote collaboration with students in the classroom including all students to avoid any appearance of impropriety; use social media with the utmost discretion mindful of all the risks by creating a very select circle of friends, separating one’s personal site from one’s professional site; develop policies which include not friending any individual student or any current student and inform students about the policies. Keywords Social media
Dual relationships
Social work education
Ethical dilemma
Professional presence R. Duncan-Daston (&)
M. Hunter-Sloan
E. Fullmer School of Social Work, Radford University, Box 6958, Radford, VA 24142, USA e-mail: rduncan-@radford.edu M. Hunter-Sloan e-mail: mclemenson@radford.edu E. Fullmer e-mail: efullmer@radford.edu Our lives in the current social media drenched culture increasingly include both our face-to-face worlds and our virtual worlds. In the past social communication happened in private; however, the online environment has created a context where personal social communication is shared in a public space (Cain and Fink 2010). Since the origin of social media, notably Facebook 2004 (Facebook Key Facts 2012), and Twitter 2006 (How Twitter was Born 2009), use of the Internet has evolved from a resource for finding information to a virtual meeting place where people interact with others (Judd and Johnston 2012). According to the latest figures accessible, Facebook now has one billion users (Facebook Key Facts 2012) and that number grew by twenty-nine percent in the past year alone. We must assume that social work professionals are included in the fifty-six percent of the United States population who have a social networking profile page (Webster 2012). Addressing the ethical issues that emerge from this ‘‘public display of connection’’ (Donath and Boyd 2004, as cited in Boyd and Ellison 2007, para. 39) has become an urgent priority for the profession. These ethical issues assume priority in the profession because social work educators must hold students accountable for competent professional behavior. (Council on Social Work Education Educational Policy Standards 2008), in addition to addressing the academic curriculum. The definition of competent professional behavior online is currently hotly debated among social work professionals. Cain and Fink (2010) make the point that ‘‘the crux of the social media ethical dilemma is that social media was designed for social communication…; however, the inherent nature of social media makes those communications available to a wider public’’ (para. 42). Despite the new challenges that the virtual world provides, faculty and staff are expected to provide a learning environment which 123 36 appropriately socializes students into the profession with proper exposure to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) values and ethics (Judd and Johnston 2012). The problem is that out of the one hundred fifty-five standards in the current NASW Code of Ethics (2008) only three specifically mention computers or electronic records and social media are not mentioned at all. Reamer suggests that the Code provides guidance for the current dilemmas through the long-standing standards, including but not limited, to confidentiality and privacy, informed consent, and avoiding conflicts of interest (2010–2012). Application of these standards is not necessarily straight-forward and may not provide enough specific guidance to many social work educators, so this article seeks to address this gap in the literature. Literature review Social networking sites can be defined ‘‘as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile… (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections…’’ (Boyd and Ellison 2007, para. 4). Further these profiles allow people to ‘‘type themselves into being’’ (Sunden 2003, as cited in Boyd and Ellison 2007, para. 7). Gross and Acquisti (2005) suggest that online social networks ‘‘contain friends in the hundreds and additional friends within three degrees of separation possibly measuring in excess of 100,000’’ (as cited in Judd and Johnston 2012, p. 8). Most people tend to underestimate their exposure (Judd and Johnston 2012). Fletcher, writing in Time magazine blithely states, ‘‘As powerful as each piece of Facebook’s strategy is, the company isn’t forcing its users to drink the Kool-Aid. It’s just serving up nice cold glasses, and we’re gulping it down’’ (2010, p. 36). It is clear that the role of social media in the culture of the United States is still evolving. Many universities and colleges are now using social media for recruiting purposes and, more controversially, some use social media to screen admission applicants (Schaffer and Wong 2012); and further, some use it if ‘‘red flags’’ come up in the admission process (Hechinger 2008). For example, North Carolina State University will do an Internet search if a student has a history of school suspension. The Director of undergraduate admissions reports that ‘‘


the school found a Facebook page with a picture of the applicant holding a gun’’ (Hechinger 2008, para 12). Recently, some universities have begun monitoring student-athlete social media sites as a matter of policy (The University of North Carolina 2011). Public school teachers have encountered enormous difficulties in the online environment. An incident from New 123 R. Duncan-Daston et al. Jersey illustrates this point (Solomon 2011). A teacher posted comments on her Facebook page about her opinion that an exhibit at her school on gay history should be taken down. These comments began a series of exchanges with parents and others that culminated with demonstrations between gay rights activists and supporters of the teacher. The teacher did not intend this remark for the parents of her students, and thus did not intend to enter into a dual relationship where her private life impacted her professional one, but this example illustrates the ‘‘thinning of boundaries’’ (Judd and Johnston 2012, p. 6) which traditionally allowed a separation between the private self and public professional self. Higher education professors have experienced similar troubles with postings on Facebook. A sociology professor at one university posted what she believed to be protected comments and was placed on administrative leave for threats to students (Stripling 2010). After a particularly bad day at work, she had posted, among other things, ‘‘Does anyone know where to find a very discreet hitman’’ (para. 3)? She had conscientiously denied ‘‘friend’’ requests from her students, but, due to a small change in the settings of her online profile, now they could view her comments. This inadvertent viewing of her comments in cyberspace seriously undermined her professional relationship with her students. The New York City Education Department has developed guidelines for public schoolteachers which state ‘‘public schoolteachers may not contact students through personal pages on Web sites like Facebook and Twitter, but can communicate via pages set up for classroom use’’ (Chen and McGeehan 2012, para. 1). Students in other disciplines who assume a similar dual role while working with the public have also received sanctions for inappropriately using social media. In one case a student teacher posted pictures of herself drunk on MySpace and the school district barred her from the classroom. The court upheld this decision (Case Law Snyder v. Millersville University 2007). At other times the student has had the sanction over-turned. Beja (2009) reports that a Judge ordered the University of Louisville to reinstate a nursing student who posted discriminatory comments about unidentified patients on MySpace because the Honor Code was too ambiguous to serve as the basis for the expulsion. The Courts are faced with making decisions about the ambiguous virtual world minus precedent to guide them. Social work educators and students are expected to be aware of how their online profile impacts their professional presence. The NASW Code of Ethics (2008) states that ‘‘social workers should not permit their private conduct to interfere with their ability to fulfill their professional responsibilities’’ (4.03). This dilemma is particularly relevant to social work education because educators support Considering the implications students to assume professional roles with clients in the field placement which is a required part of the degree completion. Consistent with the position of professional role-model, social work educators need to facilitate discussions with students about what is public and what is private and ‘‘what constitutes professionalism in the era of Web 2.0’’ (Judd and Johnston 2012, p. 10). Mukherjee and Clark (2012) are concerned that this is not happening. The Council on Social Work Education expects students to demonstrate practice behaviors that indicate that students can ‘‘attend to professional roles and boundaries’’ and ‘‘demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior, appearance, and communication’’ and ‘‘use supervision and consultation’’ (Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards 2008 2.1.1). These practice behaviors apply to the virtual world as well as the face-to-face world. Educators need to assume a proactive stance with students regarding their social networking sites and advise them to review their sites with their field placement supervisors in order to assist their critical reflection on the content they have posted. Mukherjee and Clark (2012) are concerned that students’ insensitivity to the ethical implications incumbent with social media may put them ‘‘at risk of breach of privacy and ethical misconduct’’ (p. 163). Social workers and professionals in other disciplines in other countries are also struggling with the online environment and its challenge to professionalism. Writing from the United Kingdom, Bolton (2011) makes the point that social workers have an online presence even if they do not have a social media account themselves—via pictures and videos taken by friends and posted. According to Bolton’s report from the Chief Executive of the Scottish Social Services, misconduct online has become a significant issue in the social work community there in terms of conduct referrals. Researchers from New Zealand are concerned about the online presence of Doctors. MacDonald et al. (2010) identified 338 doctors who graduated in 2006 or 2007 from the University of Otago. Sixty-five percent of them had Facebook and almost two-thirds of those on Facebook used privacy settings. The remaining 82 accounts (about 24 percent of the graduates) were accessible to researchers. They found that these Doctors averaged about 147 or 148 friends and that they regularly shared their political and religious views, as well as their relationship status. Additionally, the Doctors shared their sexual orientation, employment, sports interests, alcohol use, and taste in music. A majority of Doctors had pictures demonstrating healthy behaviors, but a minority of sites included some nudity, pictures of patients or rude comments. The authors conclude that it ‘‘seems reasonable to assume public trust in the profession may be threatened’’ (p. 811) by content displaying public drunkenness or knowing, for example, 37 that a particular Doctor belongs to a group called ‘‘Perverts united’’ (p. 811). Two researchers in social work education, Mukherjee and Clark (2012), explored social work students’ perception of their activities on social networking sites. They conducted a survey of 105 social work students who participated in social networking, seniors majoring in social work at the bachelor’s level (47 %) and master’s students in their final year (53 %). Mukherjee and Clark found that sixty-nine percent of the students reported that they had posted an inappropriate picture or comment on one of their social networking sites. Seventy-two percent of the students were not using security settings. The majority of students (83 % of MSW students and 71 % of BSW students) indicated that they would accept a friend request from a client. Thirty-six percent of the students had posted a picture of themselves drinking alcohol and 67 % had posted a story about field placement. Fully eighty-one percent of the students in the sample agreed with this statement, ‘‘NASW Codes don’t directly apply to behavior on SNS’’ (p. 167). Mukherjee and Clark conclude that these social work students are relatively unaware of how their behavior on social networking sites may impact their professional career. Another ethical issue in social work education that has not been dealt with effectively at this point is that of ‘‘friending students’’. For the purposes of this discussion about social media, Facebook is frequently used as an example. The NASW Code of Ethics (2008) states that social work educators and field instructors ‘‘should not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with students in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the student’’ and that it is the social work professional’s responsibility to set ‘‘clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries’’ (3.02d). Reamer says ‘‘social workers who interact with clients via Facebook may unwittingly violate ethical standards concerning boundaries and dual relationships’’ (2011, para. 3). One may well make a similar statement regarding students. Questions that have not been addressed sufficiently, for example, include the ethical implications of ‘‘friending’’ students and how that impacts the professional boundaries and the ethical implications of friending some students and not others. Does a Facebook relationship with a student constitute a dual relationship and is this a dual relationship that can potentially benefit or hurt a student? How does making this ‘‘public display of connection’’ (Donath and Boyd 2004, para. 39) impact not just this particular student, but other students in the same class? Congress (2001) addresses this issue of relationships between professors and students when she stresses that social work students may not know how to differentiate between personal and professional relationships since most 123 38 of them are new to the professional world. In the study by Mukherjee and Clark (2012), social work students indicated that they were ‘‘comfortable accepting friendrequests from course instructors’’ (p. 168). In contrast, Congress underscores that the social work educator ‘‘has a responsibility not only to teach students about types of dual relationships, but also to model appropriate ethical behavior to students regarding dual relationships’’ (para. 37). Congress goes on to state that the behavior that students observe may carry more educational value than lectures in the classroom. Research has found that ‘‘inappropriate dual relationships can have serious consequences for practitioners throughout their careers’’ (Bonoksy 1995; Pope 1988, as cited in Congress 2001, para. 37). Dual relationships, in simple terms, are defined as those interactions involving ‘‘two or more distinct relationships with the same persons’’ (Fraser and Grigg as cited in Endacott et al. 2006, p. 988). A review of the literature indicates that these relationships have been of concern in the field of social work for some time. Congress suggests that faculty friendships with students can be unfair if the faculty member is influenced to grade student/friend more favorably than others (1996). In a national survey of 87 (out of 120) deans of accredited Master of Social Work programs in 1999 (a few years prior to the explosion of social media), Congress (2001) found that most of the sample believed professional dual relationships with student were ethical (94.3 %, N = 82), but personal dual relationships were not (11.5 % or N = 10). Does friending students individually on Facebook or Twitter constitute a personal dual relationship? Unfortunately, there is little empirical evidence to guide practitioners in this area. Available decision-making models favor a process prior to entering such relationships, and do not aid social workers in monitoring relationships they have entered without intent (Gottlieb 1993; Scopelliti et al. 2004.). It is unofficial practice to leave monitoring of these relationships to the involved professional (Endacott et al. 2006; Scopelliti et al. 2004; Halverson and Brownlee 2010; Nickel 2004). In summary, although the social work profession has long been interested in the nature of dual relationships, it has yet to come to a consensus on what is appropriate behavior as it concerns dual relationships. In the present context of Internet and related privacy claims, novel controversies are arising regarding boundary issues in several professions (Bongartz et al. 2011; Hader and Brown 2010; Luo 2009; Strutin 2011). If the social work profession has yet to determine the appropriateness of dual relationships within the face-to-face context, it is little wonder that the online environment has not yet been clarified. Even a social work educator who decides to not friend students in order to avoid the ethical quagmire may 123 R. Duncan-Daston et al. inadvertently cause hurt feelings if the students are not aware of the educator’s policy. Minus a posted policy, a student could potentially personalize a refusal to accept a ‘‘friend’’ request. Empirical studies regarding higher education and social media are explored below in order to provide a foundation for thoughtful engagement about these issues. Higher education pedagogy and social media Kilpelainen et al. (2011) used social media, Wiki pages and online file sharing, in a hybrid model of social work education delivery through the University of Lapland and received mainly positive feedback from the master’s level students. The program was offered in the rural northern region of Finland where long distances make commuting difficult. The researchers found that the collaborative online learning and teamwork, plus the flexibility of schedules created a productive learning environment overall. Allwardt (2011) experimented with using Wikis in the classroom with undergraduate social work students and she found that while students use similar ‘‘applications in their personal lives, they do not necessarily want to use them in the classroom’’ (p. 602). An interesting study conducted by Junco et al. (2012) compared student engagement across different types of undergraduate classroom environments. Seven sections of a one-credit seminar course for pre-health professional majors were randomly assigned to either a control group (N = 53) or an experimental group (N = 65). In one classroom situation Twitter was required and professors worked actively with the students on that platform; in the other Twitter was optional and the professors responded erratically. The researchers found that it was only when Twitter was required and faculty worked with students regularly, that student engagement and grades increased. The researchers also compared Twitter to Ning in the classroom situation where both were required. Ning ‘‘allows users to create their own social networking site’’ (p. 3). Students using Twitter were the more engaged group and the researchers posited that the posts on Ning were static; whereas posts in Twitter resulted in numerous responses. These studies do not mention ethical issues regarding the indeterminate length of time student comments online may be archived, whether these implications are discussed with students in advance, nor the implications of these issues over time. Additionally, no mention is made of any consideration of issues related to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. These studies give credence for the need to study how students feel about their professors’ use of social media, and how their perceptions may impact academia and the profession. Considering the implications Student perception of professors using social media Only a few studies have explored how students perceive their professors via social media. Mazer et al. (2007) found that undergraduate communication students viewing a Facebook page of a potential professor expected a positive learning environment although over a third of them also thought the page was inappropriate; however, Karl and Peluchette (2011) found that business students reacted with suspicion to the idea of receiving friend requests from an unknown or worse professor. The study by Mazer et al. (2007) set up three experimental conditions where they had a graduate teaching assistant confederate develop three different Facebook pages, high self-disclosure, moderate self-disclosure and low self-disclosure. In the high self-disclosure she posted pictures of herself around town in social situations, divulged her relationship status, and campus groups to which she belonged. On the moderate self-disclosure page she posted pictures of herself with family and friends at home and provided information about the movies and books she liked. For the low self-disclosure page she only posted a picture of her face and information about her position at the university. One hundred thirty-three students in basic communication courses, not enrolled in classes she was teaching, were randomly assigned to one of these groups and asked to view the prepared webpage. Then they answered the research questionnaire about what it would be like to have her as a professor. In the quantitative outcome Mazer, Murphy, and Simond found that students in the high and medium disclosure groups were more likely to anticipate high motivation and high affective learning; however 33 percent of students also rated the use of Facebook as somewhat inappropriate and four percent rated it as very inappropriate. Twenty-two percent of the students were undecided about how appropriate it was. Furthermore, the qualitative remarks contained concerns about the professionalism of the professor. The researchers conclude that ‘‘teachers may consider the use of Facebook as an important tool to foster the student–teacher relationship; however, they should approach with caution’’ (p. 14). Business professors, Karl and Peluchette (2011), draw on Goffman’s presentation of self theory (1959 as cited in Karl and Peluchette) and make the point that in the online environment people can no longer successfully differentiate between their on-stage and off-stage presentation of self. They further articulate that the dilemma for students is having close friends in the same forum as authority figures. They surveyed 208 students in undergraduate management and business courses and found that on a continuum of response that ranged from delighted to irritated and suspicious, students tended to have suspicious reactions to 39 ‘‘friend’’ requests from unknown/worse professors. Based on their results they suggest that faculty who are considering the use of Facebook as a means of communicating with their students should be cautioned in doing so as the results for this study suggest that many students are uncomfortable with having Professors as Face-book friends’’ (p. 17). These researchers recommend that Professors may prevent negative student responses by Friending all the students in a particular class as a learning tool. Professorial decision making about facebook relationship with students A rare study conducted by Plew (2011) focused on how professors make decisions about Facebook relationships with students. In her dissertation through the Georgia State University Department of Communication, Plew found that fifty-six percent of the 331 instructors she surveyed allowed friend requests from students. Those that did not allow friend requests wanted to avoid the blurring of the personal/professional boundary and they also wanted to avoid the perception of favoritism. Her research found that most of the instructors who allowed students as friends kept the relationship appropriate, were aware of the need to manage their online impression, and did not want to exploit the power in the relationship with students. Many instructors did not accept certain students as friends, such as undergraduate students or students who were still enrolled in the institution, students with problems, students that they did not have a relationship with or that they did not trust (Plew 2011). The largest group of students that many instructors allowed as friends were those with whom the instructors already had a relationship—in addition to teaching. She states, ‘‘since the primary role the instructor should play in students’ lives is professional (instructoreducator), these secondary roles are possibly seen as more personal and may explain why there were more likely to move to Facebook’’ (p. 144). The demographic associated with the decision to friend students was having a Facebook account for a year longer than instructors who did not friend students and a higher level of understanding of the privacy settings on Facebook. Plew advises instructors to be aware of what the community norm is at their college or university regarding friending students. This study offers social work educators a basis for understanding how a limited number of professors used social media within a professional context. However, the study cannot be generalized to larger populations, nor is it specific to the social work profession. Social work educators 123 40 need ethical guidelines to aid them in decision making regarding the new realm of social media. Ethical reasoning Social work educators must weigh all the evidence and decide how to proceed regarding the use of social media. Reamer’s framework of ethical decision making (2006) recommends that the social worker begin by framing the dilemma in terms of competing values. Two primary dilemmas exist. One dilemma may be couched as the social work educator’s personal freedom as a United States citizen to free speech versus the professional obligation to maintain a professional presence and to ensure that one’s private conduct does not interfere. The other dilemma may be described as the educator’s desire to cultivate engaging, culturally relevant relationships with students versus the professional obligation to provide clear boundaries and avoid undermining the professional relationship by causing confusion about the nature of the relationship. Reamer’s framework of ethical reasoning begins with identifying the ethical issues. In the first dilemma concerning the clash between what might be seen as personal rights versus professional responsibilities, the blurring of boundaries which occurs in social media creates ethical vulnerabilities. Judd and Johnson (2012) suggest that even if social workers use the established privacy settings, their friends may not do so. What is shared in the context of a friendship may have a much wider audience than intended, introducing concomitant issues in how the online material is interpreted. Therefore what is communicated as a private citizen in the context of friendship may unintentionally become available to students or clients and blur professional boundaries. Likewise, for students discussing struggles and frustrations they may encounter in a particular class with classmates online, how will those same comments be viewed by a current client or a future employer? Could their competence be called into question (Judd and Johnston 2012)? Our code of ethics specifies that one of the professional responsibilities of social workers is to ensure that private behavior does not interfere with fulfilling professional responsibilities (National Association of Social Work Code of Ethics 2008, 4.03). Regarding the second dilemma, the online environment, vis-a-vis personal social networking sites, provides many potential avenues for intimate details to be shared with an unknown audience. If students are privy to these personal details and the educator is sharing inadvertently, that may cause confusion to the student about the nature of the relationship. If the educator is sharing intimate details purposively, then it seems that the educator may be deliberately creating a personal relationship that may make 123 R. Duncan-Daston et al. him or her more likely to have difficulty maintaining an objective stance with the student—which would make it difficult for the educator to fairly evaluate the student’s work. Further, in terms of a possible conflict of interest, the NASW Code of Ethics states: Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with students in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the student. Social work educators and field instructors are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries (3.02 d). One person providing guidance about the professional management of social media is Keely Kolmes, who was a computer consultant prior to becoming a psychologist. She is very concerned about the potential for blurred boundaries. An example of part of her social media policy posted on the Internet follows, ‘‘I do not accept any friend or contact request from current or former clients on any social networking site (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.). I believe that this could compromise your confidentiality and our respective privacy. It may also blur the boundaries of our professional relationship’’ (4/26/10). Kolmes further states in the following paragraph, ‘‘I deleted my Facebook Page after concluding that the potential risks of maintaining such a page outweighed any potential gains.’’ Two hundred and forty-five friends is the average number of friends people reportedly have on Facebook (Tsukayama 2012). Given that no one has control over the settings of their friends and whether or not friends choose to keep posts private, one might wonder if this number of friends would be excessive for any practicing professional. Backstrom, writing on the Facebook website, indicates that twenty percent of all users have less than twenty-five friends but 50 % of all users have over 100 friends (2011). The average is skewed by the users who have many friends, but there is nothing in the professional literature at the moment to prohibit thousands of friends. Karinthy postulated that people across the world were hypothetically connected within six degrees of separation (1929, as cited in Backstrom); however using a sophisticated analysis Facebook has now concluded that most of their users are only separated by five degrees. That number is steadily decreasing as more people join the network, so the implications of this connectedness for dual relationships in the virtual world are easy to realize. Despite recent changes, the Facebook website explains that even if you utilize your privacy settings, people can find ‘‘a link to your timeline when they search for content they have permission to see, like if you are tagged in a friend’s photo or post something Considering the implications to a public page’’ (Data use policy, (12/11/12)). Consumer Reports (Protect Your Privacy 2012) published tips on how to protect one’s privacy on Facebook which include protecting your status updates and turning off the tagging function. These are examples of privacy controls with which professionals using social media must become familiar. In addition to these issues, social work educators also face the issue of how a social media relationship could be viewed by others. Becoming Facebook friends with some students and not others, for instance, could create the appearance of favoritism and, thus, impropriety. Clifton Tennison, a physician who lectures on ethical behavior (workshop presentation 2004), refers to a Chinese proverb to explain the principle of impropriety; ‘‘When you are walking through your neighbor’s watermelon patch, don’t tie your shoe.’’ This proverb encourages us to consider how our behavior may look to others, even if we are clear that what we are doing is innocent. Thus once we are bent over in the patch (or friends with some of our students and not with others), no one knows what we are doing and may suspect the worse. Social workers are expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety (Reamer 2009). While we must be cognizant of the risks that social media can bring it is also important to consider that online sites can provide students in rural areas collaborative options as they seek graduate education (Kilpelainen et al. 2011). Mazer et al. (2007) found that students anticipated greater motivation and higher affective learning when they viewed a professor’s Facebook page. Finding methods to increase these benefits and minimize the risks is important. Reamer’s second step of ethical reasoning involves identifying who will be impacted by the decision that is reached. The two parties who will be at the heart of this decision are the students and the professors. Additionally, the employing universities, the profession of higher education, and the social work profession are also impacted. One might also consider the undergraduate students’ parents as stakeholders in this decision making process because they are quite likely involved in supporting students to seek their college degree either financially or emotionally, or both. The third step of Reamer’s framework identifies all viable courses of action, participants in each option, and potential benefits and risks. By thoughtfully applying ethical standards of conduct to these issues several guidelines for prudent practice emerge. The first such option to explore is for the social work educator to abstain from participating in social media. This option would completely avoid all ethical complications and ambiguity that ensue from the use of social media which would be a benefit; however, the professional would also not participate in any of the potential ways that social media can assist students and clients. To address this side of things, a 41 professional could set up a non-interactive professional profile in a social media account. This site would benefit the public by providing information, but it would avoid the ethical gray areas concerning the informal interactions between educators and students. In the second option, a social work professional could use a collaborative online learning medium provided and protected by the university as a class project with all students required to participate. In this option the potential benefits of the collaboration online would accrue, but the professional would avoid the appearance of favoritism by including all students, and indeed, making the participation of all students required. Some professors have done this in a regular online forum, but the class material is public and therefore could be archived somewhere for an indeterminable amount of time (Rodriguez 2011). It is not possible to predict how this information will be used in the future. Plus, one must guard against unsavory postings that might reflect badly on the professor or on the institution of higher learning. It could further be construed that a site of this nature could be a risk to students regarding their Family Education Rights and Privacy Act rights (Rodriguez 2011; NASW Codes of Ethics 2008, 1.07 m). Most universities provide Blackboard or other protected online sites that seemingly could serve the collaborative function, minus the possible risks. The third option for consideration is for the social work educator to abstain from all informal social contact via social media with students and clients and use the most secure privacy settings for a very select and limited circle of friends of less than twenty-five (as do 20 % of all Facebook users). The professional would need to thoughtfully consider the choices he or she made about what to disclose online and its relative permanence (Tunick et al. 2011). A conservative professional would be wise to invite supervisors to review the site at regular intervals in order to invite critical reflection on the content. No student or client should be able to access the account, but, given the apparent unstable nature of the privacy settings (Reamer 2012; Zur 2011), if that were to happen the ‘‘friend’’ request would not be accepted. In this option, the professional’s right to use social media is protected (although limited), dual relationships are purposively guarded against, confidentiality is protected, and measures have been taken to ensure that private behavior does not negatively impact professional behavior. The risks here are that students might become privy to the online content despite all measures taken to the contrary, either through mutual friends or subtle changes to the privacy settings, with the ensuing ethical problems that have been previously discussed. By limiting the number of friends, perhaps one may also limit the potential for these problems to arise. Professionals could further set up separate personal 123 42 and professional profiles in order to more adequately address the impression management issues. One additional consideration for all three options is the provision of a policy regarding the use of social media. The NASW Code of Ethics (2008) explicitly states that social workers who provide services via electronic media should provide information regarding the associated limitations and risks (1.03 e), so in the current context, seemingly each professional in the above examples would need to provide a policy statement regarding their use of social media in order to be transparent and to avoid causing harm to students/clients. Social work education needs to prepare students more proactively for professional life in the current context, and similarly, continuing education needs to address these issues. In the words of one student, ‘‘…it may be necessary to ask every MSW student to engage in some sort of education around social media’’ (Kays 2011, para. 46). She describes the thoughtfulness with which she shut down her blog, locked down her Facebook profile, and closed her Twitter account, only to reopen it under a different name. This is an example of the type of ethical decision making that each social worker, no matter what the credential— BSW, MSW, LCSW, or PhD, must now employ. Through increased sensitivity of social work educators to these important issues and with their knowledgeable dissemination of this information to students our profession will better ensure that technology supports higher education, rather than undermining it. References Allwardt, D. (2011). Writing with Wiki: A cautionary tale of technology in the classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 597–605. Backstrom, L. (2011). The anatomy of Facebook. Retrieved 1/7/13 from http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-data-team/anatomyof-facebook/10150388519243859. Beja, M. (2009). Judge Orders University of Louisville Nursing Student Reinstated. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 9/16/2012 from http://chronicle.com/article/JudgeOrders-U-of-Louisville/47925/. Bolton, J. (2011). Social workers must be ‘cautious with online social media’. Community Care website. Retrieved 11/5/12 from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/06/10/2011/117566/ social-workers-must-be-cautious-with-online-social-media.htm. Bongartz, J., Vang, C., Havrda, D., Fravel, M., McDaniel, D., & Farris, K. B. (2011). Student pharmacist, pharmacy resident, and graduate student perceptions of social interactions with faculty members. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(9), 1–9. Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. Retrieved 9/16/2012 from doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/full. Cain, J., Fink, J. (2010). Legal and ethical issues regarding social media and pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Pharmacy Education, 74 (10), 184, retrieved 11/4/12 at http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058471/. 123 R. Duncan-Daston et al. Case Law Snyder v. Millersville University (2007).IAC P Center for Social Media. Retrieved 9/16/2012 from http://www.iacpsocial media.org/Resources/CaseLaw/ CaseLawDetails.aspx?cmsid=1362&termid=133&depth=2. Chen, D. & McGeehan, P. (2012). Social media rules limit New York student-teacher contact. NY Times. Retrieved 9/17/2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/nyregion/social-media-rulesfor-nyc-school-staff-limits-contact-with-students.html?pagewanted= all&_moc.semityn.www. Congress, E. (1996). Dual relationships in academia: Dilemmas for social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 12 (3), 329–338. Retrieved 12/30/12 from http://www.bu.edu/ssw/ files/2010/10/Dual-Relationships-in-Academia.pdf. Congress, E. (2001). Dual relationships in social work education: Report on a National Survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 37 (2). Retrieved 12/30/12 from http://website.cswe.org/ publications/members-only/01-2Dual.htm. Data use policy. (12.11.12) Retrieved 1/7/13 from http://www. facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info-on-fb. Educational policy and accreditation standards. (2008). Council on social work education. Retrieved 12/17/12 from http://www. cswe.org/File.aspx?id=41861. Endacott, R., Wood, A., Judd, F., Hulbert, C., Thomas, B., & Grigg, M. (2006). Impact and management of dual relationships in metropolitan, regional, and rural mental health practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40, 987–994. Facebook Key Facts (2012). Retrieved 9/24/2012 at http://newsroom. fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22. Fletcher, D. (2010). Facebook: Friends without borders. Time, 175(21), 32–38. Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding dual relationships: A decisionmaking model. Psychotherapy, 30(1), 41–48. Hader, A. L., & Brown, E. D. (2010). Legal briefs: Patient privacy and social media. AANA Journal, 78(4), 270–274. Halverson, G., & Brownlee, K. (2010). Managing ethical considerations around dual relationships in small rural and remote Canadian communities. International Social Work, 53(2), 247–260. Hechinger, J. (2008). College Applicants, Beware: Your Facebook Page is Showing. The Wall Street Journal.Retrieved 9/17/2012 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122170459104151023.html. How Twitter was Born. (2009). Retrieved 9/24/2012 from http:// www.140characters.com/2009/01/30/how-twitter-was-born/. Judd, R. & Johnston, L. (2012). Ethical consequences of using social network sites for students in professional social work programs. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 9 (1), 5–12. Retrieved 9/1/2012 from http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/spring12/ spr122.pdf. Junco, R., Elavsky, M., Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x. Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2011). ‘‘Friending’’ professors, parents & bosses: A Facebook connection conundrum. Journal of Education for Business, 86(4), 214–222. Kays, L. (2011). Must I Un-friend Facebook: Exploring the ethics of social media. The New Social Worker Online. Retrieved 9/30/ 2012 from http://www.socialworker.com/home/Feature_Articles/ Ethics/Must_I_Un-Friend_Facebook?_Exploring_the_Ethics_of_ Social_Media/. Kilpelainen, A., Paykkonen, K., & Sankala, J. (2011). The use of social media to improve social work education in remote areas. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29, 1–12. Kolmes, K. (4/26/10) My private practice social media policy. Retrieved 9/29/2012 from http://www.drkkolmes.com/docs/ socmed.pdf. Considering the implications Luo, J. S. (2009). The Facebook phenomenon: Boundaries and controversies. Primary Psychiatry, 16(11), 19–21. MacDonald, J., Sohn, S., & Ellis, P. (2010). Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: A dilemma for young doctors. Medical Education, 44, 805–813. Mazer, J. P., Marphy, R. E., Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on Facebook. Communication Education, 56, (1), 1–17. Retrieved 9/16/2012 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/127029/See-Youon-Facebook. Mukherjee, D., & Clark, J. (2012). Students’ participation in social networking sites: Implications for social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 161–173. National Association of Social Workers (2008).Code of ethics.Washington, DC author. Nickel, M. (2004). Professional boundaries: The dilemma of dual and multiple relationships in rural clinical practice. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1(1), 17–22. Plew, M. S. (2011). Facebook Friendship between College/University Instructors and Students: Deciding Whether or Not to Allow Students as Friends, Communicating with Students, and the Individual Differences that Influence Instructors’ Impression Management on Facebook. Communication Dissertations. Paper 26. Retrieved 9/25/2012 from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/ communication_diss/26. Protect Your Privacy on Facebook. (2012). Consumer Reports. Retrieved 1/7/13 from http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/ facebookprivacy.htm. Reamer, F. G. (2006). Social work values and ethics. NY: Columbia University Press. Reamer, F. G. (2009). Boundaries in Supervision. Social Work Today [online]. Retrieved 9/29/2012 from http://www.socialworktoday. com/archive/EoEJanFeb09.shtml. Reamer, F. G. (2010–2012). Ethics: Boundary and Dual Relationship Issues. BehavioralHealth CE. Retrieved 9/23/12 from http:// www.behavioralhealthce.com/index.php/component/courses/? task=view&cid=65. Reamer, F. G. (2011). Developing a social media ethics policy. Social Work Today [online]. Retrieved 12/27/12 from http://www. socialworktoday.com/news/eoe_070111.shtml. Reamer, F. G. (2012). Ethical issues related to social workers’ use of social media and online services. National Association of Social Workers Lunchtime Series [Webinar]. 43 Rodriguez, J. (2011). Social media use in higher education: Key Areas to Consider for Educators. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Retrieved 9/29/2012 at http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/ rodriguez_1211.htm. Schaffer, R., & Wong, C. (2012). Kaplan test prep survey finds that College Admissions Officers’ Discovery of Online Material Damaging to Applicants nearly Triples in a year. Retrieved 11/4/ 12 from http://kaplan-test-prep-survey-finds-that-collegeadmissions-officers-discovery-of-online-material-damaging-toapplicants-nearly-triples-in-a-year. Scopelliti, J., Judd, F., Grigg, M., Hodgins, G., Fraser, C., Hulbert, C., et al. (2004). Dual relationships in mental health practice: Issues for clinicians in rural settings. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 953–959. Solomon, N. (2011). Friendly Advice for Teachers: Beware of Facebook. National Public Radio. Retrieved 9/22/2012 at http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143264921/friendly-advice-forteachers-beware-of-facebook. Stripling, J. (2010). Not so Private Professors. Inside Higher Ed [online]. Retrieved 11/4/12 from http://www.insidehighered. com/news/2010/03/02/facebook. Strutin, K. (2011). Social medial and the vanishing points of ethical and constitutional boundaries. Pace Law Review, 31(1), 227–290. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Policy on StudentAthlete Social Networking and Media Use (2011). Retrieved 9/22/ 12 at http://www.goheels.com/fls/3350/pdf/Compliance/Social NetworkingPolicy.pdf?SPID=111196&DB_OEM_ID=3350. Tsukayama, H. (2012). Your Facebook Friends have More Friends than You. The Washington Post. Tunick, R., Mednick, L., & Conroy, C. (2011). A Snapshot of Child Psychologists’ social media activity: Professional and ethical practice implications and recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(6), 440–447. Webster, T. (2012). The Social Habit.Edison Research. Retrieved 9/29/2012 from http://socialhabit.com/secure/downloads/attach ment/the-social-habit-2012-by-edison-research/. Zur, O., & Zur. A. (2011). The Facebook Dilemma: To Accept or Not to Accept? Responding to Clients’ ‘‘Friend Requests’’ on Psychotherapists social networking sites. Independent Practitioner, 31 (1), 12–17. Retrieved 11/10/12 from http://www. zurinstitute.com/facebook_therapy.pdf. 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purchase answer to see full attachment