Untitled

Abstract

The percentage of non-native English speaking individuals in the United States is growing and is predicted to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Between 1990 and 2013, the number of people in the United States who are described as Limited English Proficient grew by 80%, with the number of individuals unable to speak English fluently in 2013 reported at approximately 25 million (Zong & Batalova, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). By 2020, the number of Spanish speakers alone in the United States is predicted to rise to between 39-43 million (Lopez & Gonzalez-Barrera, 2013).This paper seeks to describe the problem of excluding language minorities from research, examine the issue from two opposing ethical perspectives, and offer possible solutions.

Professionals’ digital competences and user profiles in social agencies and their impact on professional practice, family autonomy and wellbeing

“…However, the European Digital Competence Framework also recommended that the integration and re-elaboration of digital content that are needed for designing and developing family intervention programs delivered by digital media should be at the advanced level. The design and delivery of family programs or family interventions also requires safety competences at advanced level, which ensure that interventions accomplish ethical standards regarding the protection of personal and users’ data and confidentiality ( López-Peláez et al, 2017 ; Reamer, 2018 ; Mishna et al, 2021 ; Pascoe, 2022 ). Therefore, it seems that these more specific technical competences still need to be improved.…”

“…Using ICTs in child and family support services imply advantages but also some risks or controversies ( López-Peláez et al, 2017 ; Reamer, 2018 ; Suárez-Perdomo et al, 2018a ; Mishna et al, 2021 ; Canário et al, 2022 ). On the one hand, it can serve as an incentive to encourage users to engage in the service.…”

“…For example, technology has facilitated the reach of family or social education programs to remote areas. However, it carries out also some limitations such as the risk of dehumanize the relation with users ( Reamer, 2018 ), the more difficulty to stablish a therapeutic alliance, or greater costs that may result in an increase of social exclusion for users who are not able to afford the devices or the access to online services ( López-Peláez et al, 2017 ). Furthermore, the necessity to deal with ethical challenges and legal considerations in the use of ICTs is also a matter to consider.…”

“…Digital ethics for therapists, as defined by the Zur Institute (2018) , involves managing oneself ethically, professionally and in a clinically sound manner via online and in digitals mediums. Issues as ensure privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, protecting users’ data in computers, professional boundaries, managing records of online conversations or the responsibility to use online material from reputable sources should also be a matter of concern to social agencies’ practitioners ( López-Peláez et al, 2017 ; Reamer, 2018 ; Mishna et al, 2021 ).…”

“…In relation to ethical challenges, as Joiner (2019) has pointed, the lack of digital education and instruction focusing on the use of ICT in direct practice could result in future practitioners unable to address the ethical issues of the digital age. Therefore, an important component of ethical standards should be involved in training social services’ and social agencies’ practitioners about the use of technology in practice ( Reamer, 2018 ).…”