Digital construction of the professional identity of social work: Networks, discursive communities, and advocacy on World Social Work Day

Abstract

Introduction: The professional identity of Social Work is constructed through processes of differentiation, recognition, and collective negotiation that develop both within the profession and in its interaction with society (Dubar, 2002; Payne, 2006; Liu & László, 2007). Its plural and dynamic character is related to the diversity of functions, institutional contexts, and professional traditions that coexist within Social Work (Forenza & Eckert, 2018; Ornellas et al., 2018). Although digital platforms have become relevant spaces for professional visibility, participation, and the construction of shared meanings (Boyd, 2010; Marwick & Boyd, 2011; Zappavigna, 2011), little is still known about the way in which the identity of Social Work is configured relationally and discursively during professional campaigns of international scope. This study analyzes how the professional identity of Social Work is digitally constructed and projected during the 2021 World Social Work Day. Specifically, it examines the structure of the conversation, the actors and communities involved in it, and the narratives through which professional recognition, advocacy, dissemination, and the public representation of the profession are articulated. Methods: 12,729 posts collected on X were analyzed using the hashtags associated with World Social Work Day and the Ubuntu 2021 campaign. A multi-method design was adopted, combining social network analysis, community detection, and netnographic analysis. The relational structure was examined using centrality, distance, clustering, and modularity metrics (Brandes, 2001; Blondel et al., 2008; Latapy, 2008), while the content was classified into five categories: Recognition, Advocacy, Informative/Educational, Characteristics of Social Work Professionals, and Other. Results: The conversation presented a globally dispersed structure, but organized into differentiated discursive communities. Recognition was the predominant category -36.53%-, followed by advocacy -24.37%-, informative or educational content -19.19%-, and the characteristics attributed to social workers -17.11%-. The communities with the greatest impact tended to reinforce pride, cohesion, and the internal recognition of the profession, while others were oriented toward publicly explaining their functions, questioning stereotyped representations, and linking Social Work with social justice and structural transformation. Discussion: The results show that the digital identity of Social Work does not constitute a homogeneous narrative, but rather a plural construction produced through the interaction between professionals, students, professional organizations, and academic entities. This finding is consistent with research that questions the existence of a single identity of Social Work and highlights its contextual, dynamic, and negotiated character (Forenza & Eckert, 2018; Ornellas et al., 2018). Conclusions: World Social Work Day functions simultaneously as a space of internal affirmation and as a stage of public legitimation. However, the predominance of celebratory discourse over critical narratives reveals a tension between the pursuit of professional recognition and the advocacy potential of digital presence. The study contributes to understanding social networks as spaces in which professional identities are not only communicated, but collectively negotiated, reproduced, and transformed.