Full text of DOI:10.1093/sw/45.5.457

Commentary
What Is the Role of Hypertechnology
in Social Work Today?
Larry W. Kreuger and John J. Stretch
here is little doubt that professional com-
munication in social work is being trans-
formed by hypertechnology (Gandy &
turist, determinist, constructivist, political–eco-
nomic, postmodernist, and feminist. Each per-
spective captures a slightly different aspect of
how hypertechnology tends to be viewed in the
literature and therefore what kinds of questions
might be raised. In this article we have extended
Kitchin’s basic model, specifically, his sixth per-
spective, feminism, to include any set of
T
Tepperman, 1990; Howard, 1995; Saleebey,
1991). Discussions about hypertechnology in
the social work literature have for the most part
focused on one application at a time on a piece-
meal basis, reviewing separate or distinct appli-
cations of hardware or software. There has been
comparatively little examination of the broader
implications of modern hypertechnology for
the profession as a whole (Cnaan & Parsloe,
1989). We think this is so for two reasons. First,
various types of hypertechnology have been
evolving quite rapidly, making it difficult for
practitioners (Stretch & Kreuger, 1992) and
educators (LaMendola, 1987) to keep up and
second, there has not been a sufficiently broad
conceptual framework from which to judge the
modern hypertechnology assemblage in it’s en-
tirety (Pickering, 1995).
It is time to take stock of our investments in
social work and assess how well hypertechnol-
ogy’s promise has been kept. To help get this
done we apply a model, suggested by Kitchin
(1998), that we believe provides a broad con-
ceptual overview for assessing social work’s re-
lation to this evolving international technologi-
cal assemblage (Perry, 1998). Second, we show
how Kitchin’s model may be used to frame
policy and practice questions (see for example,
Schopler, Abell, & Galinsky, 1998; Seabury &
Maple, 1993) for the human services.
hypertechnology users or potential users who
are not currently empowered, and we renamed
the category polyvocal perspective (Table 1).
Utopist-Futurist Perspective
According to Kitchin (1998), Utopist and futur-
ist analysts of hypertechnology would seek to
forecast how technological innovation would
affect future conditions on a societal scale. Such
forecasters would claim societies are moving en
masse to some new and novel stage and that
many vexing problems today will be subject to
radically new scientific solutions in the future
(Kitchin). In the social work literature, Kreuger
(1997) and Stoesz (1997) forecasted an end of
the social work profession after the collapse of
public auspices resulting from the decline of the
nation-state and pressures of globalization.
They both included advances in
technotherapies and hypertechnological pros-
thetic territories and subsequent decline in the
grand narratives of the profession as powerful
indications of the inevitable future course of the
profession. To the futurists and Utopists, the
hypertechnological assemblage (Phillips, 1990)
is just one of a set of inevitable forces that bring
on massive structural changes. Utopists and fu-
turists see little hope of redirecting changes, so
that we would be well served as a profession to
learn to accept and adapt to inevitable massive
structural change.
A Conceptual Framework for Understanding
Hypertechnology in Social Work
Kitchin (1998) maintains that there are six fun-
damental perspectives for viewing discussions
of the effect of hypertechnology: “Utopist”-fu-
CCC Code: 0037-8046/00 $3.00 © 2000
National Association of Social Workers, Inc.
Kreuger and Stretch / What Is the Role of Hypertechnology in Social Work Today?
457

Table 1
Model for Understanding the Role of Technology in Social Work
Perspective on
Hypertechnology
Essential View
Central Question for Social Work
Utopist–futurist
Society moving en masse to a new or bet-
ter state where technological solutions
solve large-scale problems.
How do we train and prepare for mas-
sive macro-changes in a technologically
dominated society?
Determinist
Innovations are dominant independent
shapers of largely passive and reactive
profession.
How do we live with inevitable micro-
effects on short-run applications?
Constructivist
Political–economic
Postmodernist
Everyday life diverts electronic objects
into a mediated arena of shared human–
machine agency.
How do we define and frame questions
about human issues such as privacy and
security?
International capitalist systems reproduce Can we avoid object fetishism and busy
themselves by commodifying all forms of
life at the office and at home.
consumerism in social work settings?
The industrial revolution has created a
depthless superficial reality with
decentered identities and virtual happi-
ness.
How do we find meaning in a profes-
sion dominated by high-tech gadgetry?
Polyvocalist
White, wealthy, Western men dominate
science and hypertechnology.
Can cyberspace be a viable place for all?
Can other voices be heard?
NOTE: Adapted from Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: The world in the wires. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Determinist Perspective
terms of outcomes based on technological
choices (Karger & Stoesz, 1998), but not to
choose to reject what may be, in the long run,
wasteful consumption of technology to begin
with. Murphy (1997), from a slightly different
determinist perspective, insists that we recog-
nize that hypertechnology has environmental
costs as well.
The technological determinists perspective is
perhaps the most common. Different types of
local hypertechnology are seen as independent,
active, and determining, and social work as a
profession would be seen as more passive and
reactive (Kitchin, 1998). Here, writers examine
how micro-oriented social, cultural, political,
and economic aspects of our lives both as pro-
fessionals in practice (Conklin & Osterndorf,
1995) and in education (Patterson & Yaffe,
1994; Wodarski & Kelly, 1987) are determined
individually at the local level by technology.
Technical innovations, (see, for example,
Lynett, 1985) themselves uncaused by social
factors and essentially inevitable, are the domi-
nant shapers of social structure and culture
(Kitchin).
Constructivist Perspective
The social constructivists argue that hypertech-
nology must be seen as both a social con-
structed value (Reamer, 1986), that technology
and its use cannot be separated (Kitchin, 1998),
but rather are intimately entwined with both
human values (Caputo, 1991), and nature
(Habermas, 1989). Individuals are free, from
this perspective, to interpret hypertechnology
symbolically from any of a number of alterna-
tive value positions. Hypertechnology is viewed
as a social artifact; it mediates a series of social
interactions (Born, 1987) and is itself a product
We are witnessing implications of the deter-
minist approach today in social work as the
privatization movement encourages managers
to define success, for example, primarily in
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 5 / October 2000
458

of social mediation (Kitchin). Social
high costs are ensuring that access is restricted
to a relatively privileged few (Wise, 1997). In
addition, there is evidence that workers and
their families in the Third World are being ex-
ploited in the production process, and the envi-
ronment is being despoiled during manufacture
(Borsook, 1996; Rushkoff, 1997).
constructivists downplay the role of science and
industry in technological developments (see, for
example, Gottdiener, 1985; Poster, 1995).
A critical issue in social work practice and
education for practice from a values-oriented
constructivist approach is the human dimen-
sion as it may be expressed in access to confi-
dential information, (Cwikel & Cnaan, 1991),
privacy and security, and the role of technical
specialists in building and maintaining systems
(Agre & Rotenberg, 1998). For example, in the
area of computers and the Internet (see for ex-
ample, Giffords, 1998), according to Whalen
(1997), network administrators have the capac-
ity to peek at employee screens in real time,
scan data and e-mail at will, tabulate keystroke
speed and accuracy, overwrite passwords, and
even seize control of a remote workstation if
they deem it necessary.
Postmodernist Perspective
Postmodernists criticize much of the technol-
ogy from the past 100 years expressed through
industrialization, urbanization, and the decline
of the nation-state, (Kitchin, 1998; Perry, 1998).
This perspective sees the profession moving
through a culture that denies depth and history,
a profession for which alternatives are always
defined by outsiders, and a movement where
superficiality and “depthlessness” prevail
(Meinert, 1998). Economic and political sys-
tems have been evolving with a global move-
ment away from the local, accompanied by a
vast corporate restructuring (Epstein, 1990).
We are living in times of fragmentation,
decentering, disorientation, and disenchant-
ment as we enter the postindustrial phase.
Theorists (Lyotard, 1984) focus on meanings of
identity, body, community, and place. Accord-
ing to Kitchin, these concepts are bound up and
affected by the social production of space and
the blurring of boundaries between reality and
virtuality, nature and culture.
Political-Economic Perspective
Those who advocate the perspective of political
economy suggest that the relationship among
hypertechnology, society, and social work as a
profession is bound within capitalist modes of
production and the associated political, eco-
nomic, and social relations that underlie capi-
talism and its extension to social work—privati-
zation (Kitchin, 1998). The private sector is the
dominant shaper of social policy and practice,
and hypertechnology helps to reproduce social
relations (Brahm & Driscoll, 1995; Memmott &
Brennan, 1998) of the private sector so that the
balance of power tends to remain the same
(Epstein, 1995).
Hypertechnologies are rarely neutral (Karger,
1983), but are developed in the interest of in-
dustrial and corporate profits. From this per-
spective hypertechnology is little more than the
latest ideology of the capitalist state, ever per-
fecting and thrusting the profit motive into the
lifeworld. For example, although the initial glo-
bal Internet was publicly owned, it has been in-
creasingly privatized and commodified, with
transnational companies seeking added value
for services rendered.
From the postmodernist perspective Kreuger
(1999) speculated that hypertechnology facili-
tates the loss in capacity for deeper insight in
social work:
Perhaps the fault lies partially in the many
new hyper-technologies which have emerged
in the last 10 years (Kreuger & Stretch, 1998).
Today, scholars are able to routinely examine
practically any set of secondary data and find
practically any pattern, no matter how far
afield the very pragmatic goals of the profes-
sion. (p. 109)
From the postmodernist perspective we ap-
ply a perspective discussed by critical theorist
Ben Agger (1998), which would view technol-
ogy similarly to the narrative behind any story.
For example, from this perspective technology
should be questioned deconstructively, engaging
From the perspective of political economy, a
number of purely profit-oriented systems are
dominating the assemblage worldwide while
Kreuger and Stretch / What Is the Role of Hypertechnology in Social Work Today?
459

its potential to be reformulated and perhaps
ultimately liberating for the individual (Agger,
1998). Hypertechnology would not been
framed as units of equipment (pages of a book),
but rather the lives it scripts for individuals—
the lives they live by their own example. With-
out this sort of understanding, according to Ag-
ger, readers (users) will remain in the thrall of
hypertechnologies that appear to have arrived
almost as if by epiphany, having neither history
nor social or cultural significance (Agger,
1998).
pecially important when many of the agents of
transmission (electronic devices) were origi-
nally designed to mass communicate to essen-
tially passive nonadult audiences in the market-
place (Blakely, 1994; Poster, 1995).
A technological determinist perspective rec-
ognizes that the physical, social, and inter-
relational helping environments should serve as
the active consideration and operative criterion
for judging the costs and benefits associated
with each piece of hypertechnology as it reflects
the international assemblage.
From the values-laden constructivist per-
spective, we need to focus on achieving humane
outcomes in practice (Cwikel & Cnaan, 1991)
and educational outcomes that make sense
pedagogically, rather than simply serving ad-
ministrative (hence expedient) goals. Given the
incredible capacity of electronic systems to
track activities and to communicate, what are
the implications for this type of control in
agency settings? Laudon (1996), in a compre-
hensive analysis of the literature on privacy and
hypertechnology, concluded that “existing pri-
vacy laws do not protect privacy well . . . law in
general is far behind the developmental trajec-
tory of hypermodern technology” (p. 701).
From the political–economic perspective, we
recommend that social work advocate for the
collection of an estimated 5 million secondhand
computers in the United States that could be
distributed to those without access to the entire
assemblage of hypertechnology.
From the postmodernist perspective we need
to continue to seek meaning for the profession,
apart from the high-tech gadgetry, to shape
what should be our agendas in such areas as
poverty, racism, and sexism.
Finally, from the polyvocalist perspective,
alternatives are perhaps more difficult to specify
because there are so many voices to be heard
(Brunner, 1991). Appadurai (1990), for ex-
ample, argued that the global culture promised
by hypertechnology produces not democracy,
but cosmopolitanism, which has unclear impli-
cations for social work, especially in the Third
World. These theoretical difficulties notwith-
standing, questions that emerge from a
Polyvocalist Perspective
The feminist perspective proposed by Kitchin
(1998) suggests that hypertechnology is domi-
nated by and reflects the position of men; spe-
cifically, white, wealthy, Western men. Even
computer games are aimed at contact sports,
war or fighting, and lots of blood and combat.
The cyberspace created by hypertechnology ac-
cording to Kitchin, like earthspace, is not devel-
oping as a viable place for those not already in-
timately involved as a result of their lack of
power.
In this vein, Turkle and Pappert (1990) and
Lie (1997) have researched the issue of gender
in relation to technology and concluded, along
with Brunner (1991), that computing follows
male rather than female logic. We extended
Kitchin’s final perspective to include any set of
individuals not currently empowered and able
to participate in the universal assemblage of
hypertechnology.
Challenges for Policy and Practice
The Utopist–futurist perspective is a fully struc-
tural model that runs counter, in our judgment,
to the principle of self-determination in social
work practice. On the plus side, however, it
would suggest that we need to improve our ef-
forts to gather better data to assess how practi-
tioners, clients, and those in training adapt to
temporal and spatial distanciation; how they
relate to the emerging physical and spatial as-
pects of electronic communication over dis-
tance (Siegel, Jennings, Conklin, & Flynn, 1998;
Wodarski & Kelly, 1987), and how they adapt to
individual differences in reception of electronic
messages (Phillips & Berman, 1997). This is es-
polyvocalist perspective regarding the role of
hypertechnology in social work suggest that
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 5 / October 2000
460

movement to an international perspective in
social work is warranted. ■
Gottdiener, M. (1985). The social production of urban
space. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of
the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeoise society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Polity Press.
References
Agger, B. (1998). Critical social theories: An introduc-
tion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Agre, P., & Rotenberg, M. (1998). Technology and
privacy: The new landscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in
global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2(2), 10.
Blakely, T. J. (1994). Strategies for distance learning.
Journal of Continuing Social Work Education,
6(1), 4–7.
Born, C. (1987). Microcomputers and field instruc-
tion. Journal of Social Work Education, 23, 135–
141.
Borsook, P. (1996). Cyberselfish. Mother Jones Inter-
active, MOJO WIRE.
Howard, M. (1995). From oral tradition to comput-
erization: A case study of a social work depart-
ment, Computers in Human Services, 12 (3–4),
203–219.
Karger, H. (1983). Science, research and social work:
Or, who controls the profession and how? Social
Work, 28, 216–214.
Karger, H., & Stoesz, D. (1998). American social wel-
fare policy: A pluralist approach (3rd ed.). New
York: Longman.
Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: The world in the
wires. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kreuger, L. (1997). The end of social work. Journal
of Social Work Edcuation, 33, 19–27.
Kreuger, L. (1999). Shallow Science? Research on
Social Work Practice, 9, 108–110.
Brahm, G., & Driscoll, M. (1995). Prosthetic territo-
ries: Politics and hypertechnologies. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Brunner, C. (1991). Gender and distance learning.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 514, 133–145.
Caputo, R. (1991). Managing information systems:
An ethical framework and information needs
matrix. Administration in Social Work, 15(4), 53–
64.
Kreuger, L., & Stretch, J. (1998, August 3).
Hypertechnology is destroying social work. Paper
presented to the APM of Conference on Informa-
tion Technology in Social Work, Charleston, SC.
LaMendola, W. (1987). Teaching information tech-
nology to social workers. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 1(1), 53–69.
Cnaan, R., & Parsloe, P. (1989). The impact of infor-
mation technology on social work practice, New
York: Haworth Press.
Conklin, J. J., & Osterndorf, W. (1995). Distance
learning in continuing social work education:
Promise of the year 2000. Journal of Continuing
Social Work Education, 6(3), 13–17.
Laudon, K. (1996). Markets and privacy. In R. Kling
(Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value
conflicts and social choices (pp. 697–726). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Lie, M. (1997). Technology and gender versus tech-
nology and work: Social work and computers.
Acta-Sociologica, 40, 123–141.
Cwikel, J., & Cnaan, R. (1991). Ethical dilemmas in
applying second-wave information technology to
social work practice. Social Work, 36, 114–120.
Epstein, W. (1990). The obligation of intellectuals.
Science, technology and human values, 15, 244–
247.
Epstein, W. (1995). Social work in the university.
Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 281–291.
Gandy, J., & Tepperman, L. (1990). False alarm: The
computerization of eight social welfare organiza-
tions. Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier Univer-
sity Press.
Lynett, P. (1985). The current and potential uses of
computer assisted interactive videodisc in educa-
tion of social workers. Computers in Human Ser-
vices, 1(4), 75–85.
Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A re-
port on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Meinert, R. (1998). Consequences for professional
social work under and conditions of post-
modernity. Social Thought, 18(3), 41–54.
Memmott, J., & Brennan, E. (1998). Learner–learn-
ing environment fit: An adult learning model for
social work education. Journal of Teaching in So-
cial Work, 16(1/2), 75–83.
Giffords, E. (1998). Social work on the Internet: An
introduction. Social Work, 43, 243–251.
Kreuger and Stretch / What Is the Role of Hypertechnology in Social Work Today?
461

Murphy, R. (1997). Sociology and nature: Social ac-
tion in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Patterson, D., & Yaffe, J. (1994). Hypermedia com-
puter-based education in social work education.
Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 267–277.
Perry, N. (1998). Hyperreality and global culture.
New York: Routledge.
Whalen, J. (1997). You’re not paranoid: They really
are watching you [Online]. Available: wired.com/
wired/3.03.
Wise, J. (1997). Exploring hypertechnology and social
space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wodarski, J., & Kelly, T (1987). Simulation technol-
ogy in social work education. Arete, 12(2), 12–20.
Phillips, D. (1990). The underdevelopment of com-
puting in social work practice. International Jour-
nal of Sociology and Social Policy, 10(4–6), 9–29.
Phillips, D., & Berman, Y. (1997). Human services in
the age of new technology: Harmonizing social work
and computerization. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time,
agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Larry W. Kreuger, PhD, is associate professor,
School of Social Work, University of Missouri-
Columbia, 711 Clark Hall, Columbia, MO
65211; e-mail: kreugerl@missouri.edu. John J.
Stretch, PhD, ACSW, LCSW, is professor, School
of Social Services, St. Louis University.
Original manuscript received June 1, 1998
Final revision received September 14, 1999
Accepted November 29, 1999
Poster, M. (1995). The second media age. Cambridge,
MA: Polity Press.
Reamer, F. (1986). The use of technology in social
work: Ethical dilemmas. Social Work, 31, 469–
472.
Rushkoff, D. (1997, April). Opportunity costs. New
York Times Syndicate [Online]. Available: http://
nytsyn.com/IMDS%7cread%…./content/users/
imds
Saleebey, D. (1991). Technological fix: Altering the
consciousness of the social work profession.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 18(4), 51–
67.
Schopler, J., Abell, M., & Galinsky, M. (1998). Tech-
nology-based groups: A review and conceptual
framework for practice. Social Work, 43, 254–267.
Seabury, B., & Maple, F. (1993). Using computers to
teach practice skills. Social Work, 38, 430–439.
Siegel, E., Jennings, J., Conklin, J., & Flynn, S.
(1998). Distance learning in social work educa-
tion: Results and implications of a national sur-
vey. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 71–80.
Stoesz, D. (1997). The end of social work. In M.
Reisch & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Social work in the
21st century (pp. 368–375). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Stretch, J., & Kreuger, L. (1992). New challenges of
technology for social work administrators. In L.
Healey (Ed.), Managers’ choices: Compelling issues
in the new decision environment (pp. 56–64).
Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Turkle, S., & Pappert, L. (1990). Epistemological
pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer
culture. Signs, 16, 128–157.
Social Work / Volume 45, Number 5 / October 2000
462