Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice PLoS One . 2026 Apr 10;21(4):e0346869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346869 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Protocol for a scoping review on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in community practice Ofir Sivan Ofir Sivan 1 Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Ofir Sivan 1, *, # , Ali Pearson Ali Pearson 1 Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Ali Pearson 1, # , Stephanie Begun Stephanie Begun 1 Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Stephanie Begun 1, # Editor: Wei Lang 2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2 Sun Yat-Sen University, CHINA ✉ * E-mail: [email protected] Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. # ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. # Contributed equally. Roles Ofir Sivan : Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Ali Pearson : Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Stephanie Begun : Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing Wei Lang : Editor Received 2025 Oct 15; Accepted 2026 Mar 25; Collection date 2026. © 2026 Sivan et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13068256 PMID: 41961868 Abstract Introduction There is a growing literature connecting information and communication technologies (ICTs) to community-based practices including community organizing, community development, and participatory planning. Over a decade ago, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare launched the Grand Challenge to Harness Technology for Social Good. Despite its potential to answer this challenge, community practice is absent from all systematic reviews on social work and technology. The proposed scoping review will address this gap by identifying, organizing, summarizing, analyzing, and synthesizing the existing literature connecting community practice and ICTs in social work and related disciplines. Methods This protocol was developed using Arksey and O’Malley’s [2005] framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols [PRISMA-P]. Search will be conducted in the following databases: Sociological Abstracts [ProQuest interface, 1952-], [Social Service Abstracts ProQuest interface, 1977-], Applied Social Service Index Abstracts [ProQuest interface, 1987-], Social Work Abstracts [Ovid interface, 1968-], Communication Abstracts [EBSCO interface, 1915-], Social Science Citation Index [Web of Science interface, 1900-], and Emerging Sources Citation Index [Web of Science interface, 2005-]. Published records eligible to include in this scoping review include conceptual and empirical peer-reviewed articles. Selection criteria, and methods of data extraction, management, and analysis are detailed. Discussion The proposed scoping review will explore the engagement of community practitioners with ICTs. This review will also identify ICT-facilitated community-based practices that the social work profession can reclaim in a bid to address the Grand Challenge to Harnessing Technology for Social Good. Limitations, implications for future research, and methods of disseminating the results are discussed. Introduction Information and communication technologies (ICTs) refer to a wide range of online and offline technologies used to store, process, and disseminate information and/or support communication [ 1 , 2 ]. These technologies include, but are not limited to, computers, telephones, mobile devices, social media, algorithms, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and geospatial technologies [ 3 ]. Over the past three decades, ICTs have become an integral part of social work research [ 4 ], education [ 5 ], and practice [ 6 – 8 ], shaping its epistemological assumptions [ 9 , 10 ] and professional ethics [ 10 , 11 ]. To date, several scoping and systematic reviews have been conducted to map the relationships between social work and technology [ 12 ]; evaluate the empirical evidence produced in technology-mediated intervention studies in social work [ 13 ]; and assess technology-based interventions in social work practice in general [ 14 ], specifically in the area of mental health social work [ 15 ]. Additional scoping and systematic reviews mapped and assessed the effectiveness of ICTs (such as web-based instruction methods or virtual-reality simulation) in social work education [ 16 – 18 ]. Despite growing research on the relationship between ICTs and community-based practices in both social work [ 19 – 21 ] and related social science disciplines [ 22 – 25 ], no scoping or systematic reviews have mapped, analyzed, and synthesized this literature. Scoping and systematic reviews on community-based practices are rare, and those that do exist contain little to no reference to ICTs [ 26 – 29 ]. Social work scholars have repeatedly raised community practice as a way to counter populism and the erosion of liberal democracy institutions [ 30 – 35 ], build democracy through citizen participation [ 36 , 37 ], and advocate for a more equitable redistribution of power, services, and resources [ 22 , 38 , 39 ]. The significant decline in North American social work’s engagement with community practice has been associated with the dispersion of community practice research across various social sciences and with a lack of systematic investigation from a social work perspective into how ICTs are used to facilitate and implement community practices [ 38 ]. To address this gap, we propose a scoping review that will locate, organize, analyze, and synthesize the extensive interdisciplinary literature connecting community practice and ICTs. Community practice in social work This scoping review will adapt the North American social work’s definitions and classifications of community practice. Gutiérrez and Gant [2018] define community practice as any method of intervention that: (a) engages communities or community organizations; (b) aims to motivate change in the community or larger social systems; and (c) aligns and advances social work ethics and values such as “social justice, the dignity and worth of individuals, the importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence” [ 38 ] (p. 618). While this definition provides the necessary conditions for community practice, scoping reviews require more exclusive and exhaustive definitions for developing search and screening strategies [ 40 , 41 ]. For this goal, we build on various typologies of community practice offered by social work scholars [ 36 – 39 , 42 – 47 ] to define three core strategies of community practice: community organizing, community development, and participatory planning. Each of these strategies can be implemented using various intervention methods. That said, it is important to remember that the division between the three strategies is somewhat artificial since community practitioners usually combine more than one strategy to achieve their goals [ 36 , 48 , 49 ]. The concept of community in community practice is also diverse, and may refer to: (a) functional communities that are temporarily organized for a specific mission or purpose; (b) communities of interest that are organized around practicing faith, sports, or education; (c) local, place-based communities both in rural and urban settings; (d) virtual communities such as those created on social media and the internet; (e) identity-based communities such as the LGBTQ+ community, women’s groups, and immigrant communities; and (f) communities built around lasting social problems such as unequal education, unaffordable housing, and inaccessible health service provision [ 36 , 37 , 43 , 45 , 46 ]. The community strategy used is closely related to the concept of community itself. For example, community organizing is often connected with functional communities, which can exist in either physical locations or virtual spaces. On the other hand, community development is more effectively carried out in place-based communities. Community organizing. Community organizing is an umbrella term for various community-based practices sharing the assumption that conflict, disruption, and pressure are a legitimate means to advance community goals [ 44 ]. The guiding principle of this strategy is that organizing, of both people and organizations, should be done ‘bottom-up’, allowing community members and organizations to take various roles and responsibilities [ 46 , 49 , 50 ]. In community organizing the authority to make decisions and set goals is determined by the community members, leaders, and activists, rather than by professionals or administrations [ 48 , 51 , 52 ]. Community organizing is action-oriented and usually includes one or more of the following methods: grassroots organizing [ 53 ]; collective mobilization [ 36 ]; lobbying and advocacy [ 48 ]; civil disobedience, boycotts, strikes, and demonstrations [ 38 , 43 ]; group- or organization-based coalition building [ 22 , 37 ]; educational campaigns [ 37 , 45 ]; and Freirean critical pedagogy, conscientization, and teach-ins [ 54 , 55 ]. Community organizing can vary significantly in its goals. Some initiatives may focus more on symbolic aspects such as getting recognition or building community’s social capital [ 46 ], while others emphasize achieving material objectives, such as ensuring equal access to social services and resources [ 39 ]. community organizing’s efforts may differ in their level of reliance on sponsoring organizations or professionals, such as social workers, policymakers, and lawyers [ 38 ], as well as in the extent to which service provision is integrated into the organizing activities [ 37 ]. It is important, however, to distinguish community organizing from both social activism and mass mobilization within social movements. Unlike activism, community organizing aims at bringing community members together for a planned, collaborative, and democratic decision-making process [ 48 ]; and while community organizing can sometimes emerge from the institutionalization of social movements, it typically results from a long-term, systematic, and planned community building process rather than a spontaneous reaction to specific events [ 43 ]. Community development. Community development is a strategy that focuses on building community capacity and leadership, emphasizing the importance of consensus-building through community participation [ 36 , 44 , 48 ]. This strategy assumes that communities can solve their problems when provided with the right skills and sufficient access to resources and opportunities [ 36 , 45 ]. The main goal of community development is sustainable social reproduction [ 49 ] that can address social, economic, and environmental disparities through service provision [ 37 , 56 ]. Heavily relying on professional expertise and leadership, community development practitioners incorporate practices such as general and vocational adult education, community sensitization, and awareness-raising regarding local problems, as well as participatory service development, delivery, and evaluation [ 37 , 43 , 48 ]. Since its goal is to connect social needs with available resources to support sustainable economic development [ 38 ], community development is generally open to the involvement of external stakeholders, including local developers, government foundations, charities, banks, and international organizations [ 37 ]. While both community development and community organizing share a critical analysis, placing the origins of community problems in unequal access to resources and opportunities, each of these strategies envisions the solution differently [ 45 ]. Community organizing typically focuses on mobilizing the community members against specific policies, institutions, or individuals perceived as responsible for the injustices they experience [ 50 ]. In contrast, community development aims to equip communities with skills and resources, enabling them to solve their own problems while emphasizing consensus between communities and social institutions. [ 36 ]. Some scholars, however, suggest that community organizing methods can serve as a means to secure resources for community development initiatives [ 48 , 49 ]. Participatory planning. Participatory planning, also known as citizen participation [ 43 ] or inclusive program development [ 37 ], is a process that actively engages communities in identifying a shared vision for change, conceptualizing the necessary conditions for that change to happen, and outlining the steps required to achieve it [ 36 , 37 , 43 , 45 ]. Unlike community organizing and community development, social planning—even when participatory—follows a ‘top-down’ strategy [ 36 ]. As such, it perceives community as something that exists rather than something that needs to be created. Like traditional forms of social planning, participatory planning emphasizes the importance of data, empirical evidence, and experts [ 36 ]. However, participatory planning also incorporates community members, citizens, residents, and community organizations in these ‘top down’, data-driven social planning efforts, usually through multi-sector collaborative governance of social programs and public policy consultations [ 36 , 37 , 43 ]. The grand challenge context: Harness technology for social good Over a decade ago, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW) brought together leading experts and scholars in social work to launch the Grand Challenges for Social Work (GCSW) framework [ 57 – 59 ]. The purpose of GCSW was to encourage interdisciplinary research focused on what were seen as the most pressing issues facing social work practice, theory, and education [ 58 ]. The challenge to Harness Technology for Social Good was conceptualized under the category of creating a ‘stronger social fabric’, along with ‘end homelessness’ and ‘eradicate social isolation’ [ 59 ]. Two working papers were published in 2015, outlining the barriers for- and potential of ICTs [ 60 ] and big data [ 61 ] to address wicked social problems and advance social work practice, research, and education. Three book chapters evaluating the progress of social work in addressing this Grand Challenge indicate the profession’s primarily focus on harnessing technology in micro-level (i.e., clinical interventions with individuals and families) and the macro-level (i.e., planning and policymaking) practices [ 59 , 62 , 63 ]. A decade after the launch of GCSW provides a valuable opportunity to examine the potential of social work to effectively harness technology for social good, by exploring the relationships between ICTs and community practice. Study objectives The primary goal of the proposed scoping review is to identify, describe, analyze, and synthesize the extensive literature connecting ICTs with community practice. Specifically, this scoping review will: (a) map and categorize this literature (e.g., discipline, theoretical framework, methodology, geography); (b) describe the relationships between community practice and ICTs; (c) indicate gaps in the literature and questions for future research/focused systematic reviews; and (d) identify ICT-facilitated community practices that can be reclaimed by the social work profession. Methods We will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 41 ] methodology for scoping reviews which includes five stages: (a) identifying research questions (b) locating the relevant literature, (c) selecting the literature, (d) charting the data and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. This protocol was developed by employing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols [PRISMA-P] checklist [ 64 ] ( S2 Appendix ). This scoping review will be conducted by a doctoral student (OS), a doctoral candidate (AP), and an Associate Professor (SB)––all from the Factor Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto. The research protocol and search strategy methods were developed by a doctoral student (OS) in consultation with the other team members (SB, AP) and social work librarian at the University of Toronto (YL; see Acknowledgements). The research team approved the protocol and its stated objectives. Formulating research questions Following Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 41 ] recommendation, we aim to cover a broad scope of the literature connecting community practice and ICTs as defined in the Introduction. Accordingly, our overarching research question is: what is known, based on the published interdisciplinary and peer-reviewed literature, about the relationship between community practice and ICTs? Specifically, we ask: (a) How are the relationships between community practice and ICTs described in this literature? (b) How are ICTs used in community practice, and what role does community practice play in addressing the social impacts of ICTs? (c) What definitions of community and community practice can be identified from this literature? (d) What gaps and areas for future research exist in this literature? (e) What ICT-facilitated community-based practices can be reclaimed by the social work profession? Identifying relevant literature The initial search strategy was developed by the first author (OS) and has been iteratively refined via consultations with the social work librarian (YL) and the research team (AP, SB). We used an initial bibliographical list of 30 journal peer-reviewed articles addressing the relationships between community practice and ICTs that have been published since 2015 to determine the final databases for search and test our search strategy. We scanned these 30 articles, alongside indices of community practice, digital sociology, digital social work handbooks [ 7 , 37 , 53 , 65 – 68 ] and scoping reviews on technologies and social work [ 12 – 15 , 17 , 18 ] to develop our initial search strategy. We optimized our search strategy using both controlled vocabulary (ProQuest Sociological Thesaurus search) and natural language (keywords) to capture maximum variations in our terminology. Additionally, our search strategy included both Boolean and proximity operators (e.g., NEAR/2), truncation, and wildcards to cover common phrases such as “community-based organizing” (see S1 Appendix ). The final search strategy was developed and tested in Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest interface, 1952-) using both keyword and the thesaurus search (see the complete search string attached in Appendix S1). Search strategy will be translated to perform the final search using the following databases: Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest interface, 1952-), Social Service Abstracts (ProQuest interface, 1977-), Applied Social Service Index Abstracts (ProQuest interface, 1987-), Social Work Abstracts (Ovid interface, 1968-), Communication Abstracts (EBSCO interface, 1915-), Social Science Citation Index (Web of Science interface, 1900-), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science interface, 2005-). These databases will enable us to comprehensively identify the literature published in social work and related fields, including education, psychology, sociology, urban studies, development studies, and communication. To ensure thorough coverage of the literature, we will also perform a supplementary search in the reference lists of the articles screened for extraction, as well as these articles’ journal websites. Search strings, dates, and result numbers for each database will be recorded in a table to help the research team track future modifications. Searches in all databases will be restricted to publications in English between 2015 and 2025. We chose this timeframe considering the Grand Challenge of Harness Technology for Social Good was launched in 2015. Recently, Hitchcock et al. (2024) published a scoping review of the scholarship published by social work scholars and/or in social work journals to assess the advancement of the profession in meeting this Grand Challenge [ 12 ]. Their review, however, does not specifically cover the relationship between community practice and technology, is limited to social work literature, and included publications only between 2015–2019. Recognizing the multi- and interdisciplinarity of community practice, our review aims to cover the literature published during the decade passed since the launch of the Grand Challenges. Screening eligible literature The literature identified using the search strategy outlined above and in S1 Appendix will be downloaded from databases as RIS files (including titles and abstracts) and uploaded to Covidence, a web-based software used for conducting systematic and scoping reviews, for deduplication and screening. At the first stage, title and abstract screening will be conducted independently by the first two authors (OS, AP) using the following eligibility criteria: (a) written in English; (b) published between 2015–2025; (c) published in peer-reviewed journals; (d) include reference to both ICTs and community practice as conceptualized in the Introduction; (e) can be empirical, conceptual, and theoretical articles; (f) include conceptual/theoretical articles without geographical restriction; and (h) restricted to empirical studies with data collected/generated in the United States or Canada. This geographical restriction is based on three considerations: historical, professional, and theoretical. Historically, community practice in the Anglo-American social work (especially in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada) emerged from the settlement houses at the beginning of the twentieth century and has been shaped by the neoliberal structuring of the welfare state [ 45 , 69 ]. In contrast to the UK, Canada and the United States share a more decentralized and flexible model of welfare provision, emphasizing the roles of civil society, community initiatives, and nonprofits rather than state control [ 70 , 71 ]. Professionally, both the United States and Canada implement similar accreditation and state- or province-controlled regulation, while in the UK the profession is regulated by a single statutory body [ 72 ]. These historical and professional contexts have led to different theoretical emphases in community social work on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, a state-sponsored model of community development emerged [ 73 , 74 ], while in the United States and Canada there were greater opportunities for grassroots organizing, local entrepreneurship, community activism, and social movements [ 50 , 53 , 69 ]. Upon completing the title and abstract screening, the first two authors (OS, AP) will independently complete a full text review of the selected articles. Conflicts and discrepancies during the full text review will be resolved by the third author (SB). Charting the data We will systematically categorize and organize data from the articles meeting the eligibility criteria using five extraction tables, each featuring a Covidence article identifier in the leftmost column to enable tracking and support data analysis and synthesis. While the extraction will be performed by the first author (OS), research team members will pilot this extraction framework with the bibliographical list of 30 articles used to select data bases and test the search strategy. Extraction categories will be modified if necessary. The first table will include the following bibliographical details: (a) authors’ names; (b) first author disciplinary/professional affiliation; (c) first author country and state; (d) article title; (e) year of publication; (f) journal name; (g) journal’s disciplinary categorization [in Web of Science]; (h) whether the article is conceptual or empirical; (i) methodological design for empirical studies [i.e., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods]; (j) community practice strategy [i.e., community organizing, community development, participatory planning]; (k) type of ICT [e.g., artificial intelligence, social media]; and (l) Digital Object Identifier [DOI]/Uniform Resource Locator [URL]. The second table will organize and categorize the following additional data from conceptual articles: (a) theoretical framework; (b) conceptualization of community practice; (c) conceptualization of community; (d) authors’ approach regarding the use of ICTs in community practice; (e) paper’s main arguments/concepts. The third table will organize and categorize the following additional data from empirical studies: (a) the specific operationalization/method of community practice [e.g., adult education, campaigns, resident consultations, protests] (b) the professional identity of practitioners or the absence thereof; (c) the type of sponsoring organization or the absence thereof; (d) the main sociodemographic characteristics of the community; (e) the issue or need addressed by the practice; (f) the purpose/rationale of using ICTs in community practice; (g) the ways ICTs are used in community practice; (h) the way the relationship between ICTs and community practice is described; (i) the way ICTs shape different aspects of community practice [e.g., community participation, practitioner motivation]; and (j) country and state/province of data collection [i.e., Canada, the United States]. The fourth table will organize and categorize the following additional data, specifically relating to qualitative papers: (a) research questions; (b) methods of data collection and analysis/design [e.g., ethnography, grounded theory]; (c) guiding theoretical frameworks; (d) sample size; (e) sampling methods; and (f) main findings/themes/trends. The fifth table will organize and categorize the following additional data, specifically relating to quantitative and mixed methods papers: (a) sample size; (b) sampling methods; (c) research questions/hypotheses (d) study design [e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, RCT]; (e) statistical analysis methods; (f) type/level of evidence; (g) results/findings; and (h) conclusions. Finally, an additional table/document will be dedicated to document our reflections, insights, and key takeaways during the extraction process. Data analysis and synthesis We will perform both quantitative and qualitative analyses. For the quantitative analysis, we will assign numeric values for the extracted categorical data (e.g., methodology, professional affiliation) or continuous data (e.g., year of publication, sample size). Using statistical software, we will describe these variables using univariate statistics and explore the relationships between these variables using bivariate statistical tests (e.g., Chi-square, Pearson correlation, t-tests). For example, we will explore the relationships between the type of ICT used (e.g., social media, big data analytics) and the community practice strategy (e.g., community development, community organizing) using Chi-square test or the correlation between year and number of publications using Pearson correlation. We will employ thematic analysis to summarize and organize the qualitative data extracted from the articles [ 75 ]. To begin, we will familiarize ourselves with the data by reading and re-reading it. Then, we will develop a structured codebook to guide our analysis. The first author (OS) will create the initial version of the codebook, which will then be revised and amended by the second and third authors (AP, SB). We will utilize both deductive (theory-driven) and inductive (data-driven) coding methods in this process. Finally, we will organize the codes into a framework and identify themes, sub-themes, and their interrelationships. Additionally, we will synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings [ 41 ] to better understand the relationships between community practice and ICTs, identify definitions of community and community practice that emerge from this literature, evaluate the knowledge produced on these relationships since 2015, identify gaps and questions to guide future research, and specify what ICT-facilitated community practice social work can reclaim. Ethics Information for this review will be sourced from publicly available resources. Therefore, ethics approval is not necessary. Discussion This protocol describes a proposal for a scoping review on the relationships between community practice and information and communication technologies (ICTs) in social work and related disciplines/professions. We contextualized the need for this scoping review by showing that, despite the growing interdisciplinary literature connecting community practice and ICTs, community practice is absent from systematic reviews on social work and technologies. Due to the various (and often ambiguous) definitions for community practice, we used community social work definitions and typologies to articulate the conditions under which an intervention is deemed community practice. Following Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 41 ] methodology for scoping studies and the PRISMA-P checklist guidelines [ 64 ], we defined the research questions for this review, developed a thorough search strategy, established selection criteria for studies, outlined extraction categories, and determined methods for both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Implications for theory and practice The proposed scoping review aims to systematically describe, analyze, and evaluate the growing body of literature connecting community practice and ICTs. It also seeks to address the possibilities, challenges, and roles of community practice in increasingly technologized environments, especially in a political context of growing polarization, populism, violence, and injustice. This review will contribute to community social work theory, education, and practice by examining the field’s relationships with technology over the past decade. This scoping review will contribute to the development of innovative and reflexive approaches to planning, implementing, and evaluating ICT-facilitated community-based practices. Our findings will also indicate existing gaps in the interdisciplinary research on the use of ICTs in community practice. Conducted by social work researchers with extensive backgrounds in community practice, this review will be a significant first step towards embracing social work’s professional and disciplinary responsibility for community practice. Finally, we contextualized this review within the Grand Challenge framework introduced over a decade ago [ 58 ] to emphasize the urgent need to understand how technology can be used to advance social work goals and values [ 12 , 59 – 63 ]. As social work scholars and community practitioners, we recognize the potential of both community practice and scientific research to provide sustainable solutions and innovative approaches to complex social problems. Therefore, we are committed to the collective effort in our discipline to explore how ICT-facilitated community practice can be harnessed for social good. Limitations This scoping review has three main limitations related to the article selection criteria (i.e., screening). First, the empirical studies covered in this review will be limited to those that collected or generated data in the United States and Canada. These two countries share similar histories of community practice, terminology, and typologies dating back to the late nineteenth century. They also have comparable social work practices and regulatory mechanisms and have similarly responded to the neoliberal restructuring of the welfare state. Although our geographic restrictions are anchored in historical, professional, and theoretical considerations, they were also driven by feasibility. As a result, this scoping review excludes important empirical studies that could contribute to our understanding of the relationship between community engagement and ICTs. Future reviews may benefit from including and comparing empirical studies conducted in other Anglo-American contexts, such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Second, although social work and related disciplines are increasingly publishing in English-language international journals, this review’s exclusion of articles published in other languages may omit conceptual papers in local scholarly languages and empirical studies by francophone scholars in Canada. Finally, this review does not include book chapters, theses/dissertations, and gray literature, such as reports from local and international nonprofit organizations (NPOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Future reviews should prioritize collecting this literature, as it has the potential to shed light on additional aspects of ICT use in community practice. Reporting and disseminating the results A final report will be created to present both qualitative and quantitative findings. The report will address all objectives and research questions outlined in this protocol, focusing on both the description, analysis, and evaluation of the current body of knowledge regarding community practices and ICTs. The report will identify trends and gaps in this broad interdisciplinary literature, propose new research questions, and highlight areas that require further exploration through more focused systematic reviews. This report’s findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences. Any amendments to this protocol will be documented in the final publication of the review. Supporting information S1 Appendix. Search strategy for Sociological Abstracts [ProQuest]. (DOCX) pone.0346869.s001.docx (38.6KB, docx) S2 Appendix. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*. (DOCX) pone.0346869.s002.docx (42.6KB, docx) Acknowledgments The research team members would like to express their gratitude to Yoonhee Lee, the social work librarian at Robarts Library’s user service, University of Toronto for the assistance in developing and refining the search strategy. Data Availability All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Funding Statement The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. References 1. Cline HF. Information communication technology and social transformation. Routledge; 2014. [ Google Scholar ] 2. Doll K, Craig S, Lee Y, Kourgiantakis T, Lee E, Dicesare D, et al. Protocol for a scoping review on technology use and sexual and gender minority youth and mental health. PLoS One. 2024;19(1):e0291539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291539 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Kirvan P, Awati R, Pratt MK. What is ICT (Information and Communications Technology)? | Definition from TechTarget. In: Search CIO [Internet]. 2025. [cited 4 Sept 2025]. Available: https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/ICT-information-and-communications-technology-or-technologies [ Google Scholar ] 4. Xue J, Macropol K, Jia Y, Zhu T, Gelles RJ. Harnessing big data for social justice: An exploration of violence against women‐related conversations on Twitter. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2019;1:269–79. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.160 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Fang L, Mishna F, Zhang VF, Van Wert M, Bogo M. Social media and social work education: understanding and dealing with the new digital world. Soc Work Health Care. 2014;53(9):800–14. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2014.943455 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Mishna F, Sanders J, Fantus S, Fang L, Greenblatt A, Bogo M. Informal use of information and communication technology in social work. Clinical Social Work Journal. 2021;49:85–99. doi: 10.1007/s10615-019-00729-9 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Hill A, Shaw I. Social work & ICT. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications Inc; 2011. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Garrett PM. Social work’s ‘electronic turn’: notes on the deployment of information and communication technologies in social work with children and families. Critical Social Policy. 2005;25(4):529–53. doi: 10.1177/0261018305057044 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Parton N. Changes in the Form of Knowledge in Social Work: From the “Social” to the “Informational”?. British Journal of Social Work. 2006;38(2):253–69. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl337 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Steiner O. Social Work in the Digital Era: Theoretical, Ethical and Practical Considerations. Br J Soc Work. 2021;51:3358–74. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa160 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Pascoe KM. Considerations for integrating technology into social work practice: A content analysis of nine professional social work associations’ Codes of Ethics. International Social Work. 2021;66(2):298–312. doi: 10.1177/0020872820980833 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Hitchcock LI, Sage M, Scott CF, Singer J, Beal B, Glennon A, et al. Grand Challenge of Social Work’s Harness Technology for Social Good : Scoping Review. Research on Social Work Practice. 2024;36(1):24–37. doi: 10.1177/10497315241304370 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Chan C, Holosko MJ. A Review of Information and Communication Technology Enhanced Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice. 2015;26(1):88–100. doi: 10.1177/1049731515578884 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Chan C. A Scoping Review of Social Media Use in Social Work Practice. J Evid Inf Soc Work. 2016;13(3):263–76. doi: 10.1080/23761407.2015.1052908 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Ramsey AT, Montgomery K. Technology-based interventions in social work practice: a systematic review of mental health interventions. Soc Work Health Care. 2014;53(9):883–99. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2014.925531 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Afrouz R, Crisp BR. Online education in social work, effectiveness, benefits, and challenges: A scoping review. Aust Soc Work. 2021;74:55–67. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2020.1808030 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Huttar CM, BrintzenhofeSzoc K. Virtual Reality and Computer Simulation in Social Work Education: A Systematic Review. Journal of Social Work Education. 2019;56(1):131–41. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2019.1648221 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Wretman CJ, Macy RJ. Technology in Social Work Education: A Systematic Review. Journal of Social Work Education. 2016;52(4):409–21. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2016.1198293 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. LaMendola W. Social work, social technologies, and sustainable community development. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 2019;37(2–3):79–92. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2018.1552905 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Dunlop JM, Chechak D, Hamby W, Holosko MJ. Social Work and Technology: Using Geographic Information Systems to Leverage Community Development Responses to Hate Crimes. J Technol Hum Serv. 2022;40:201–29. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2021.1931635 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Brady SR, Young JA, McLeod DA. Utilizing Digital Advocacy in Community Organizing: Lessons Learned from Organizing in Virtual Spaces to Promote Worker Rights and Economic Justice. Journal of Community Practice. 2015;23(2):255–73. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2015.1027803 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Petitjean C, Talpin J. Tweets and doorknocks. Differentiation and cooperation between Black Lives Matter and community organizing. Perspect Polit. 2022;20:1275–89. doi: 10.1017/S1537592722001049 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Fischer M. #Free_CeCe: the material convergence of social media activism. 2016:771. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2016.1140668 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Dumitrica D, Felt M. Mediated grassroots collective action: negotiating barriers of digital activism. Inf Commun Soc. 2020;23:1821–37. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1618891 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Trevisan F, Bello B, Vaughan M, Vromen A. Mobilizing personal narratives: The rise of digital “story banking” in U.S. grassroots advocacy. J Inf Technol Polit. 2020;17:146–60. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2019.1705221 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Lapierre J, Bourque L, Leblanc N, Roch G, Provencher V, Jetté C, et al. The Systematic Integrative Narrative Review on Community Support Practices and Outcomes in Social and Community Housing. CJNSER. 2024;15(S1). doi: 10.29173/cjnser684 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Talò C, Mannarini T, Rochira A. Sense of community and community participation: A meta-analytic review. Soc Indic Res. 2014;117:1–28. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0347-2 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Ohmer ML, Korr WS. The Effectiveness of Community Practice Interventions: A Review of the Literature. Research on Social Work Practice. 2006;16(2):132–45. doi: 10.1177/1049731505282204 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Lester H, Ryakhovskaya Y, Olorunnisola TS. Asset-based community development approaches to resilience among refugees and recent migrant communities in Australia: a scoping review. IJMHSC. 2023;19(2):77–96. doi: 10.1108/ijmhsc-09-2022-0098 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Lee E, Johnstone M. Resisting politics of authoritarian populism during COVID-19, reclaiming democracy and narrative justice: Centering critical thinking in social work. International Social Work. 2021;64(5):716–30. doi: 10.1177/00208728211011627 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Fazzi L, Nothdurfter U. The multifaceted challenges of new right-wing populism to social work: The profession’s swansong or the rebirth of activism? In: Noble C, Ottmann G, editors. The challenge of right-wing nationalist populism for social work: A human rights approach. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2020. p. 84–97. doi: 10.4324/9780429056536 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Westoby P. A radical tradition of community development responses to right-wing populism. In: Noble C, Ottmann G, editors. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2020. p. 42–54. doi: 10.4324/9780429056536 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Boulet J. Social-media-weaponised populism and community development. In: Sue K, Ife J, Westoby P, editors. Populism, Democracy and Community Development. Policy Press; 2020. p. 89–108. doi: 10.1332/policypress/9781447353836.003.0006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Ife J. Right-wing Populism and Social Work: Contrasting Ambivalences About Modernity. J Hum Rights Soc Work. 2018;3(3):121–7. doi: 10.1007/s41134-018-0064-5 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Knezevic Z. Unlearning nationalised social work in times of rising right-wing populism. Critical and Radical Social Work. 2025;13(3):477–86. doi: 10.1332/20498608y2024d000000048 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Rothman J. Multi Modes of Intervention at the Macro Level. Journal of Community Practice. 2007;15(4):11–40. doi: 10.1300/j125v15n04_02 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Gamble DN, Weil M. Community practice skills: local to global perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ] 38. Gutiérrez LM, Gant LM. Community practice in social work: reflections on its first century and directions for the future. Soc Serv Rev. 2018;92:617–46. doi: 10.1086/701640 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Reisch M. Radical community organizing. In: Weil M, Reisch M, editors. The Handbook of community practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005. p. 287–304. [ Google Scholar ] 40. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Fisher R. History, context, and emerging issues for community practice. In: Weil M, Reisch M, editors. The Handbook of community practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2005. p. 34–58. [ Google Scholar ] 43. Checkoway B. Six strategies of community change. Community Dev J. 1995;30(1):2–20. doi: 10.1093/cdj/30.1.2 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Rothman J. Approaches to community intervention. In: Rothman J, Erlich JL, Tropman JE, editors. Strategies of community intervention. 6th ed. F.E. Peacock Publishers; 2001. p. 27–64. [ Google Scholar ] 45. Weil M, Gamble DN, Ohmer ML. Evolution, Models, and the Changing Context of Community Practice. In: Weil M, editor. The Handbook of Community Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2013. p. 167–94. doi: 10.4135/9781412976640.n7 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Pyles L. Progressive community organizing: transformative practice in a globalizing world. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2020. doi: 10.4324/9780429294075 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Rothman J. An analysis of goals and roles in community organization practice. 1964. [ Google Scholar ] 48. Stoecker R. Understanding the Development-Organizing Dialectic. Journal of Urban Affairs. 2003;25(4):493–512. doi: 10.1111/1467-9906.00174 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Rubin H, Rubin I. The Practice of Community Organizing. In: Weil M, Reisch M, editors. The Handbook of Community Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2005. p. 189–203. doi: 10.4135/9781452220819.n9 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Petitjean C. Occupation: Organizer A Critical History of Community Organizing in America. La Vergne: Haymarket Books; 2023. [ Google Scholar ] 51. Pyles L. Progressive community organizing: Transformative practice in a globalizing world. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2020. doi: 10.4324/9780429294075 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Stall S, Stoecker R. Community organizing or organizing community? Gender and the crafts of empowerment. Gender & Society. 1998;12:729–56. doi: 10.1177/089124398012006008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Pyles L. Progressive community organizing: transformative practice in a globalizing world. Third Edition ed. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2021. [ Google Scholar ] 54. Martinson M, Su C. Contrasting organizing approaches: the ’Alinsky Tradition and the Freirean organizing approaches. In: Minkler M, editor. Community organizing and community building for health and welfare. Rutgers University Press; 2012. p. 59–77. [ Google Scholar ] 55. Kenny S, Ife J, Westoby P. Community development and popular education in populist times. Populism, Democracy and Community Development. Policy Press. 2021. p. 71–88. [ Google Scholar ] 56. Soifer S, Costa C, McNeely JB, Pickering-Bernheim N. Community economic development in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. 2014. [ Google Scholar ] 57. Uehara E, Flynn M, Fong R, Brekke J, Barth RP, Coulton C. Grand challenges for social work. J Soc Soc Work Res. 2013;4:165–70. doi: 10.5243/jsswr.2013.11 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Sherraden M. Introduction and context for Grand Challenges for Social Work (Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative, Working Paper No. 1). Am Acad Soc Work Soc Welf. 2013:1–13. [ Google Scholar ] 59. Sage M, Singer J. ‘Harness Technology for Social Good’. In: López Peláez A, Kirwan G, editors. The Routledge International Handbook of Digital Social Work. Routledge. 2023. p. 479–90. doi: 10.4324/9781003048459-47 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 60. Berzin SC, Singer J, Chan C. Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: a grand challenge for social work. Am Acad Soc Work Soc Welf. 2015;12:1–21. [ Google Scholar ] 61. Coulton CJ, Goerge R, Putnam-Hornstein E, de Haan B. Harnessing big data for social good: a grand challenge for social work. Am Acad Soc Work Soc Welf. 2015;:1–20. [ Google Scholar ] 62. Singer JB, Sage M, Berzin SC, Coulton CAJ. Harnessing technology for social good. In: Fong R, Luben JE, Barth RP, editors. Grand challenges for social work and society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2022. p. 230–56. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780197608043.003.0009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Berzin SC, Coulton C. Harness technology for social good. In: Fong R, Lubben JE, Barth RP, editors. 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 161–80. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190858988.001.0001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349(jan02 1):g7647–g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 65. Rohlinger DA, Sobieraj S. The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; 2022. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.001.0001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 66. Weil M, Reisch M. The handbook of community practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif London: SAGE; 2005. [ Google Scholar ] 67. López Peláez A, Kirwan G. The Routledge handbook of digital social work. 1 ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2023. [ Google Scholar ] 68. Minkler M, Wakimoto P. Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Social Equity. 4th ed. Rutgers University Press; 2022. doi: 10.36019/9781978824775 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 69. DeFilippis J, Shragge E, Fisher R. Contesting community: The limits and potential of local organizing. Rutgers University Press. 2010. [ Google Scholar ] 70. Graham JR, Shier ML, Brownlee K. Contexts of Practice and Their Impact on Social Work: A Comparative Analysis of the Context of Geography and Culture. Journal of Ethnic And Cultural Diversity in Social Work. 2012;21(2):111–28. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2012.673430 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 71. Payne M. The Politics of Systems Theory within Social Work. Journal of Social Work. 2002;2(3):269–92. doi: 10.1177/146801730200200302 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 72. Davis NB. Regulation of social work practice in the United States, United Kingdom, and European Economic Area: A perspective on governance. Int J Soc Educ Sci. 2024;6:103–16. doi: 10.46328/ijonses.628 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 73. Ledwith M. Community Development: A Critical and Radical Approach. 3rd ed. Bristol: Policy Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ] 74. Reynolds A. Exploiting ambiguity in community development: lesson from the UK Coalition government (2010–2015). Community Dev J. 2020;55:588–606. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsz011 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 75. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r001 Decision Letter 0 Wei Lang Wei Lang Academic Editor Find articles by Wei Lang Author information Copyright and License information Roles Wei Lang : Academic Editor © 2026 Wei LangWei LangWei LangWei Lang This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 11 Mar 2026 Dear Dr. Sivan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at [email protected] . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wei Lang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2 If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: The manuscript is methodologically rigorous and fills a critical gap in the intersection of social work and ICTs research, holding significant theoretical and practical value. To further enhance its academic impact, improvements could be made in the following areas: 1、Methodology (1)Search Strategy The manuscript adheres to the Arksey & O’Malley framework and PRISMA-P guidelines, demonstrating a robust methodological foundation. But, also need Include concrete examples of search strings (e.g., for Sociological Abstracts) and explain optimizations (e.g., synonym expansion). (2)Geographical Restrictions The rationale for limiting empirical studies to the U.S. and Canada requires stronger justification. Clarify how these regions’ community practice theories and practices align theoretically to avoid exclusionary biases. (3)Temporal Scope: The 2015–2025 timeframe risks omitting pre-pandemic or foundational studies. Address how this choice might influence the comprehensiveness of findings. 2、Data analysis (1)Quantitative Analysis Specify hypothesis testing methods (e.g., chi-square tests, t-tests) for bivariate analyses to strengthen rigor. (2)Qualitative Analysis Elaborate on thematic analysis procedures, including coding processes, theme generation methods, and intercoder reliability checks. ********** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy ..--> Reviewer #1: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation . NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. PLoS One. 2026 Apr 10;21(4):e0346869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Article notes Copyright and License information Collection date 2026. PMC Copyright notice 23 Mar 2026 Dear Editor-in-Chief Wei Lang and the PLOS One Editorial Board, On behalf of my co-authors, PhD Candidate Ali Pearson and Professor Stephanie Begun, I am submitting the enclosed revised Study Protocol for review by the PLOS One editorial Board. We thank you for your thorough revisions and are confident that your comments will improve the final manuscript. Reviewer #1: The manuscript is methodologically rigorous and fills a critical gap in the intersection of social work and ICTs research, holding significant theoretical and practical value. To further enhance its academic impact, improvements could be made in the following areas: Methodology (1) Search Strategy: The manuscript adheres to the Arksey & O’Malley framework and PRISMA-P guidelines, demonstrating a robust methodological foundation. But also needs to include concrete examples of search strings (e.g., for Sociological Abstracts) and explain optimizations (e.g., synonym expansion). Response: Thank you for this comment. We elaborated our search strategy optimization methods (e.g., thesaurus and keyword search, truncations, wildcards) under the subtitle “Identifying Relevant Literature” in the Methods section. An example of a complete search string is attached, as supporting information (S1). The string is too long to be included in the manuscript itself. (2) Geographical Restrictions: The rationale for limiting empirical studies to the U.S. and Canada requires stronger justification. Clarify how these regions’ community practice theories and practices align theoretically to avoid exclusionary biases. Response: Thank you for this comment. We provided a stronger justification for limiting empirical to the U.S. and Canada under “Screening Eligible Studies” in the Methods section. We also address the potential limitations posed by these geographical restrictions in our Discussion section. (3) Temporal Scope: The 2015–2025 timeframe risks omitting pre-pandemic or foundational studies. Address how this choice might influence the comprehensiveness of findings. Response: We mentioned the pandemic as a reference point to justify the 2015–2025 timeframe to demonstrate that this timeframe can also be productive in tracing the impact of COVID-19 on the relationships between ICTs and community practice. While findings may suggest insights into the impact of the pandemic on the relationship between community practice and ICTs, this is not the primary question asked in this review. Accordingly, we provided a more detailed rationale for this timeframe, anchoring it in relation to the Social Work Grand Challenges framework (specifically Harness Technology for Social Good). Data analysis (1) Quantitative Analysis: Specify hypothesis testing methods (e.g., chi-square tests, t-tests) for bivariate analyses to strengthen rigor. Response: We elaborated on hypothesis testing methods in Data Analysis and Synthesis in the Methods section. (2) Qualitative Analysis: Elaborate on thematic analysis procedures, including coding processes, theme generation methods, and intercoder reliability checks. Response: We elaborated on thematic analysis procedures in Data Analysis and Synthesis in the Methods section. Additional Changes #: (1) Refining Conceptualization: Based on the community social work literature, we replaced the expression “grassroots organizing/advocacy” with “community organizing”. In the North American social work literature, the term “community organizing” is widely used to encompass local grassroots organizing, organizational coalition building, and participatory advocacy. (2) Proofreading & Clarifications: We thoroughly proofread and added clarification in several places throughout the manuscript. All changes can be traced in the track-changes version of the manuscript. Sincerely, Ofir Sivan, MSW, RSW PhD Student, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 23 March 2026.docx pone.0346869.s004.docx (254.5KB, docx) PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r003 Decision Letter 1 Wei Lang Wei Lang Academic Editor Find articles by Wei Lang Author information Copyright and License information Roles Wei Lang : Academic Editor © 2026 Wei LangWei LangWei LangWei Lang This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 25 Mar 2026 Protocol for a Scoping Review on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Community Practice PONE-D-25-55788R1 Dear Dr. Sivan, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .... If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kind regards, Wei Lang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ********** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: The revisions not only addressed the key concerns raised by the reviewers but also strengthened the scientific rigor and methodological soundness of the study. ********** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy ..--> Reviewer #1: No ********** PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346869.r004 Acceptance letter Wei Lang Wei Lang Academic Editor Find articles by Wei Lang Author information Copyright and License information Roles Wei Lang : Academic Editor © 2026 Wei LangWei LangWei LangWei Lang This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PONE-D-25-55788R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Sivan, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected]. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing . If we can help with anything else, please email us at [email protected]. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Wei Lang Academic Editor PLOS One Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials S1 Appendix. Search strategy for Sociological Abstracts [ProQuest]. (DOCX) pone.0346869.s001.docx (38.6KB, docx) S2 Appendix. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*. (DOCX) pone.0346869.s002.docx (42.6KB, docx) Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 23 March 2026.docx pone.0346869.s004.docx (254.5KB, docx) Data Availability Statement All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (431.9 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top