Student Data Privacy in Field Education

Hey everyone! Starting a new thing here where I’m blogging instead of sending long emails that only one person reads. Hopefully more people find this useful.

One of the goals of Payment for Placements organizers is removing the cost of field education software. While many schools use some combination of spreadsheets, forms, poorly-formatted Microsoft Word documents and yes, paper…many schools rely on third-party software tools like Tevera. That’s the one that my school uses, and it’s the one that Payments for Placements at University of Georgia highlighted in their campaign. So, that’s the one I’ll analyze here. I imagine that most field education tracking software companies will be similar to Tevera, though a more rigorous study is required.

The reason I ask is that the issue of student data privacy comes up a lot in open education when textbook platforms try to get faculty to mandate 3rd party homework//learning platforms that are not approved by university IT… and so the companies who run 3rd party platforms can and do monetize student data. See Billy Meinke’s article which inspired mine.

This is an end-around of university IT departments’ controls on student data privacy, and it is one way that dominant education companies like textbook publishers and other vendors are pivoting to a digital-first business model. I wasn’t sure whether there were similar issues in these platforms, but I wanted to take a look. While field educators have well-established protocols they follow when choosing software vendors, sometimes those vendors can find ways to shortcut necessary review.

Tevera’s privacy policy seems anodyne, and it describes very clearly the limitations on data sharing. I’m curious about whether storing user data on AWS is FERPA-compliant, but I’m sure lots of ed tech companies do that. None of their privacy documents explicitly mention FERPA. Below is an excerpt from Tevera’s Terms of Service. Would you be comfortable if the software you used to create schoolwork required you to…

You hereby grant to Tevera and its affiliates, contractors, and suppliers a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide, royalty-free, assignable and sublicensable (through multiple tiers), license to reproduce, copy, use, host, store, sublicense, reproduce, create derivative works from, modify, publish, edit, translate, distribute, perform and display, including digitally or electronically, your submitted User Content and your name, voice and likeness (to the extent they are part of the User Content), (i) in connection with the Services, as specified under Third Party Licenses and/or for the interoperation of any third party products, (ii) if required by applicable law, where necessary to enforce these Terms of Use and/or to protect any of Tevera’s or other parties’ legal rights, (iii) in an aggregated form which does not include your identifying information, and (iv) as permitted by Tevera’s Privacy Notice.

Section 8 of Tevera’s Terms of Service

Billy’s post helpfully points to the United States Department of Education report Protecting Student Privacy While Using Online Educational Services: Model Terms of Service

GOOD! This is a Best PracticeWARNING! Provisions That Cannot or Should Not Be Included in TOS
10 Rights and License in and to Data
Maintaining ownership of data to which the provider may have access allows schools/districts to retain control over the use and maintenance of FERPA￾protected student information. The “GOOD!” provision will also protect against a provider selling information.
“Parties agree that all rights, including all intellectual property rights, shall remain the exclusive property of the [School/District], and Provider has a limited, nonexclusive license solely for the purpose of performing its obligations as outlined in the Agreement. This Agreement does not give Provider any rights, implied or otherwise, to Data, content, or intellectual property, except as expressly stated in the Agreement. This includes the right to sell or trade Data.” “Providing Data or user content grants Provider an irrevocable right to license, distribute, transmit, or publicly display Data or user content.”
Section 10

From my reading, it appears Tevera’s language is nearly identical to the all-caps warning from the DoE. Moving down to the next section in Tevera’s Terms of Service, it also appears that students themselves are responsible for determining whether Tevera meets their needs.

Without limiting the foregoing, you understand the risks associated with the access to and use of the Services and any User Content and other data, content and materials made available through the Services, and acknowledge that you are using the Services and such other data, content, and materials at your own risk and that you are personally responsible for verifying their suitability for your needs through your own investigation.

Section 9 of Tevera’s Terms of Service

While this clause by Tevera is entirely understandable from a legal perspective, universities know school employees are actually selecting software that students must purchase. This is one reason students are not permitted to choose their field software. The other is that software companies do not design their platforms to be interoperable because it is incompatible with their business model for students to move their field education data to a better provider if one comes along.

Students are not free to decline Tevera’s terms of service and continue in their social work program. Yet, they must agree that they are entirely in charge of consenting to the terms of service and are therefore providing voluntary consent. Seems fishy…ethically…for the university to manufacture that truth.

Essentially, students are forced to purchase software that requires them to give the software company unlimited rights to use, analyze, republish, and basically have carte blanche with the educational records students enter into the platform–in perpetuity. And students are forced to say this deal was entirely their choosing, and that they entered into the agreement voluntarily.

Cool. Cool.

Open textbooks: Educational equity and innovation

This panel presentation is a re-recording of our presentation live at the Council on Social Work Education’s Annual Program Meeting in November of 2021. Panelists include Matt DeCarlo, Whitney Payne, Rebecca Mauldin, and Susan Tyler.



Open textbooks are free, editable, and shareable alternatives to commercial textbooks. Our four panelists will detail their experiences creating and publishing open textbooks for social work, implementing them in their courses, and assessing their impact on student learning and teaching practices.


Open textbooks are unique. They are free to access, and they enable anyone to read, edit, and share educational content across the internet. Informed by faculty passion for their subject area as well as concern for social equity, open textbooks represent unique contributions to the community of social work education.

Open textbooks are, in part, a response to the broken textbook market. The price of textbooks has skyrocketed over 800% percent over the past forty years, outpacing the inflation of tuition, housing, and healthcare (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Kight, 2018). It is unsurprising that after tuition, course materials are the greatest source of stress for students (National Association of College Stores, 2019). A study of Virginia social work students found that because of high textbook costs, over half of students delayed purchasing textbooks, sought out additional work, or took on more student loans (DeCarlo & Vandergrift, 2019). A quarter of students in the multi-site sample engaged in piracy, skipped meals, and did not visit family over academic breaks because of textbook costs. The inequitable impacts of textbook costs such as earning lower grades, dropping and withdrawing from classes, and leaving school affect historically underserved groups like non-White, Pell-eligible, and part-time students the most (Colvard et al., 2017).

Adopting and creating open textbooks is a way for social work faculty to provide access to all of the materials needed for student success on the first day of class, regardless of ability to pay. Moreover, the open licenses attached to these books are a persistent invitation for collaboration across academia. This panel presentation will discuss the open textbook projects of four authors, how they built from existing materials, and what impacts it had on their classroom and educational practice. In particular, the presentation will focus on the spirit of OER–meeting students where they are by making the textbook more affordable and engaging to read. Insights from this presentation should be useful to any faculty member seeking to make their course more accessible and authentic.


This panel will define open educational resources (OER), describe their use in social work education, and review OER outcomes in a variety of settings. It will present the experiences of four social work faculty who created and adopted OER, with an emphasis on practical guidance for others wishing to develop or use OER in their classroom. Panelists will discuss the importance of institutional support for OER, challenges incorporating open textbooks into tenure and promotion guidelines as well as ensuring they would teach the course again in the future, and lessons learned. We will also discuss student experiences and evaluations of the OER, which include academic and personal benefits. For example, students found the open textbooks to be “more human” and “like a real person wrote them”(DeCarlo et al., 2019a) and reported using them more than commercial textbooks in other courses (DeCarlo et al., 2020). Students also reported that open textbooks alleviated the stress and workload associated with mitigating textbook costs and appreciated faculty eliminating this barrier to academic success.


Open textbooks are an immense time commitment, but represent a revolutionary new approach to course preparation. Not only do open textbook authors produce free materials customized to their course objectives, they publish and invite other scholars to use and build on their scholarship as a community of practice. These contributions would benefit from greater assistance and credibility from national and state social work organizations.

Video recording

Finding open opportunities in a closed curriculum: Strategies for junior and contingent faculty

Finding open opportunities in a closed curriculum: Strategies for junior and contingent faculty was a presentation delivered at the OpenEd21 conference by Matt DeCarlo on 10/21/21.



Because universities predominantly employ contingent faculty—adjunct, part-time, or student teachers—it is important for the open education community to explore how to experiment with open pedagogy when the instructor’s power to change the syllabus, readings, and assignments is limited or nonexistent. By norm and policy, the power to determine instructional content largely rests with tenured faculty members who require contingent and junior faculty members to teach to a predetermined syllabus. This open space is dedicated to sharing the insights of teachers who find ways to integrate open pedagogy in disempowering environments. 

I would prefer to host this open space on a forum that allows for multiple methods of storytelling (video, audio, text) as well as commenting. I prefer to use Google Slides, but I would be happy to redesign it for Discord, Padlet, Flipgrid, or other platforms based on suggestions from reviewers or conference organizers. 

I will submit two examples to the platform. The first example uses Wiley and Hilton’s OER-enabled pedagogy framework to redesign a quiz into a collaborative book of case studies. Quizzes are one example of assignments for which contingent instructors likely have some flexibility—deciding topics, format, and platform—and this example will review how to find open opportunities in a closed syllabus. 

For assignments on a syllabus with detailed prompts and rubrics that standardize implementation, faculty may consider completing assignments themselves in collaboration with students. Faculty projects are unconstrained by the syllabus and can be redesigned to use open pedagogy. The second open pedagogy example applies Bali, Cronin, and Jhangiani’s open educational practices framework to a faculty-student advocacy project fighting unpaid student labor in human service agencies. 

The closed curriculum is a persistent message that the ideas of junior and contingent faculty (as well as students!) are not valuable and not welcome. By celebrating stories of clandestine experimentation, this space will help teachers recognize hidden opportunities and freedoms within prefabricated courses to introduce open pedagogy. Of course, open pedagogy is not a panacea. It is simply one way for faculty to engage students within an often moribund and exclusionary curriculum through experimentation, self-determination, and collaboration. 

Video recording

Open educational practices: Faculty self-defense in a privatized knowledge ecosystem

Social work knowledge is ruthlessly privatized. The overwhelming majority of educational resources created by faculty and disseminated to students reuses content that is commercially copyrighted. That is, the content is behind a paywall and the copyright holder does not allow for people to reuse the content in transformative ways. For example, slideshows or activities that instructors adapt from commercial journal articles or textbooks cannot be publicly archived or published. These derivative resources must remain with the professor—at most, shared informally with colleagues—because commercial “copyright prohibits unauthorized copying or modification of particular instances of expression” (Nelson et al., 2014, p. 2). In this way, commercial copyright alienates educators from the product of their labor and atomizes them by limiting the emergence of a community based on sharing derivative and adapted resources.

The price, use, and reuse of educational content is controlled by a small oligopoly of academic publishers of textbooks and academic journals. It is a very profitable business, borne out of the broken markets for journals and textbooks. Student and faculty movements to lower textbook costs discuss their deleterious impact on food insecurity, housing, student debt, and employment (DeCarlo & Vandergrift, 2019; Senack & Donoghue, 2016). Although textbook prices have increased nearly 200% since 1998 (Kight, 2018), student spending on textbook has declined (National Association of College Stores, 2019). As student cost-cutting measures drive prices lower, publishers have attempted to lock down content by integrating rental platforms—which eliminate the used textbook market—and wraparound courseware using access codes and automatically billing from student accounts (i.e., inclusive access) (Senack et al., 2016). Similarly, while library budgets are strained, resulting in drastic cutbacks to journals, publishers sustain record profits from “big deal” agreements with ever-increasing fees (Shu et al., 2018).

The shift in textbook and journal publication from print-first to digital-first highlights the structuring impact of the platforms used to disseminate knowledge. If faculty create content using the tools in a proprietary learning management system (LMS), they will not be able to share those resources with colleagues at another university or transfer them to another LMS should they change jobs. Indeed, many universities claim ownership of faculty products under intellectual property policies (Nelson et al., 2017). Universities who contract with private companies to create resources or manage online programs may agree to intellectual property licenses that deny faculty ownership and prohibit redistribution (Hall & Dudley, 2019). 

In the emerging privatized knowledge ecosystem, access, ownership, and equity are under threat (Bali & Caines, 2018). Faculty are digital sharecroppers, tending the intellectual gardens of publishers who can aggregate and enclose their work for profit (Carr, 2006). This workshop will review open educational practices (OEP) and situate them as a commons-based alternative to privatized and commercialized scholarly publication. Guided by the facilitator, participants will explore how to use open platforms and apply open pedagogy to their everyday work—creating educational resources for their classes and disseminating research products. The workshop will conclude with a discussion how OEP can support networked learning and communities of practice (Hendricks, 2017).

Open educational practices can be defined as (a) the use of open educational resources (OER) and co-creation of curricular materials with students and (b) “the open sharing of teaching practices with a goal of improving education and training at the institutional, professional, and individual level” (BCCampus, n.d., para. 1). Cronin (2017) elaborates that OEP involves the “open sharing of teaching practices… as well as pedagogical practices employing participatory technologies and social networks for interaction, peer-learning, knowledge creation, and empowerment of learners” (p. 16-18). In this view, sharing one’s faculty products openly contributes those resources to a common pool of faculty development resources from which best practices, stewardship, and critique emerge. Faculty engaging in OEP offer a persistent invitation to the community to build from their resources and expand social work scholarship—improving it, decolonizing it, interrogating it, and localizing it—while ensuring free access to anyone with an internet connection.

Interactive workshop delivered at the Council on Social Work Education 2020 Annual Program Meeting (virtual)


Bali, M., & Caines, A. (2018). A call for promoting ownership, equity, and agency in faculty development via connected learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education15(1), 46.

BCCampus (n.d.). What is open pedagogy?

Carr, R. (2006). Digital sharecropping.

Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL18(5), 15-34.

DeCarlo, M. P., & Vandergrift, K. F. (2019, December 29). Textbook cost burden and social work students.

Kight, S. W. (2018, September 1). College students are skipping meals to pay for textbooks.


Hall, S. & Dudley, T. (2019, September 12). Dear colleges: Take control of your online courses. The Century Foundation.

Hendricks, C. (2017). Open pedagogy; open educational practices.

National Association of College Stores (2019). Student watch: Attitudes and behaviors toward

course materials, 2018-2019. Oberlin, OH.

Nelson, C. R., Barnett, G., Gorman, R. A., Reichman, H., Zurbriggen, E., & Nisenson, A. M. (2014). Defending the freedom to innovate: Faculty intellectual property rights after Stanford v. Roche. Academe100(4), 38.

Senack, E. & Donoghue, R. (2016, February). Covering the cost: Why we can no longer afford

to ignore high textbook prices. Student Public Interest Research Groups.

Senack, E., Donoghue, R., Grant, K. O., & Steen, K. (2016, September). Access denied: The new

face of the textbook monopoly. Student Public Interest Research Groups.

Shu, F., Mongeon, P., Haustein, S., Siler, K., Alperin, J. P., & Larivière, V. (2018). Is it such a big deal? On the cost of journal use in the digital era. College & research libraries79(6), 785.

Open for whom? Challenging information privilege in social work

Accepted CSWE 2020 Conference APM presentation proposal, in the Values & Ethics track.

A majority of the knowledge produced, shared, and sustained by social work scholarship is inaccessible. Apart from faculty, students, and researchers at well-funded universities in North America and Europe, paywalls, copyright maximalism, and the inheritance of social privilege marginalize the least powerful from engaging with scholarly information for social change. Even within North America, a recent study found that over half of social work journal articles cannot be accessed without a subscription or payment, and for those that are available, authors skirt copyright law to share their research (Pendell, 2018). For practitioners, community stakeholders, and international colleagues, the inability to engage with knowledge furthers social oppression and injustice.

Open access calls attention to the practices and policies surrounding the creation and transmission of knowledge. Information is not inert; information has multiple dimensions of value, and it is inherently political (Hare & Evanston, 2018). Indeed, “access to knowledge is a human right that is closely associated with the ability to defend, as well as to advocate for, other rights” (Willinsky, 2009, p. 143). Within both social work and all of science, the majority of scholarship is owned by a handful of commercial publishers, scholarly societies, and other private companies. As a result, it is highly costly to obtain (Larivière, Haustein, & Mongeon, 2015). These information monopolies and walled gardens are the products of neoliberalism and antiquated scholarly practices that are contradictory to our contemporary ability to produce, review, and share information. While commercial publication can effectively disseminate knowledge, the dramatic barriers to access, reliance on unpaid academic labor, and demand for copyright transfer are in stark contrast to the 40% profit margins of Elsevier (Lowe, 2019) and the over 1000% hike in textbook costs over the past 50 years (Popken, 2015). Additionally, many federal agencies are still not in compliance with mandated public access to taxpayer-funded research (GAO, 2019).

Information privilege is defined as the “advantages, opportunities, rights, and affordances granted by status and positionality” to information and knowledge building (Booth, 2014). Information privilege impacts individuals and communities locally and internationally. Professionals are cut off from the very research that evidence-based practice demands they utilize. Community members, as participants and stakeholders of research, cannot access and use that same research to inform social change and practices. Developing nations cannot afford journal subscriptions, software licenses, or commercial textbooks–inhibiting people from using the corpus of existing Western knowledge to the benefit of oppressed and marginalized groups. A vicious cycle, these barriers also reify the role of Western nations as producers of knowledge and objective scientific truth while scholars in the rest of the world are positioned as passive recipients of Western knowledge, not as producers of knowledge themselves. 

For these reasons, the open movements were born, including Open Access (OA), Open Educational Resources (OER), and Open Science. These movements fight for the public access and distribution of scientific research, measures and data, and educational resources. Open movements help actualize the right to education and free expression, i.e. “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (Cate, 1989, p. 374). It was these ideas of universal human rights that grounded the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Open University, the Free Software Foundation, and many other organizations. However, making research and pedagogy “open” is not as simple as publishing with particular journals or using an OER; in fact, neoliberal market forces are already co-opting the intentions of the open access movement through mechanisms like article processing charges (Ghamandi, 2018). 

This presentation will explore open practices in relation to social work research and education, as well as challenge the earlier universalist frameworks of “open” to engage with ethics of care and critical social justice perspectives that consider knowledge production holistically. Open practices challenge the traditional, hierarchical structure of information sharing only among predetermined and wealthy audiences. Instead, open practices encourage engagement broadly and inclusively. How can the process of publishing become more collaborative and communal? How can the benefits of publication be extended beyond the author and the information privileged? Utilizing these perspectives, authors will position the philosophical and values-orientation of open movements as well as the practices and policies that support them within social work values and ethical frameworks. Presenters will highlight how community-based and open alternatives to textbook and article publication can reflect a caring and more equitable “investment in accessibility for present and distant others” (Nadim, 2018, p. 31). The presentation will conclude by contextualizing “open” as central to addressing the Grand Challenges. 


Booth, Char. (2014). On information privilege [Blog post]. Info-Mational. Retrieved from:

Cate, F. H. (1989). The first amendment and the international “free flow” of information. Virginia Journal of International Law, 30, 371.

Ghamandi, D. S. (2018). Liberation through cooperation: How library publishing can save scholarly journals from neoliberalism. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 6(Special Issue: The Role of Scholarly Communication in a Democratic Society), eP2223.

Government Accountability Office (2019). Federal research: Additional actions needed to improve public access to research results. Retrieved from:

Hare, S., & Evanson, C. (2018). Information privilege outreach for undergraduate students. College & Research Libraries, 726–736.

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.

Lowe, D. (2019, March 1). California tells Elsevier to take a hike [Blog post]. In the Pipeline, Science. Retrieved from:

Nadim, T. (2018). Friends with books. In S. Moore (Ed.) The Commons and Care (pp. 26-33).

Pendell, K. D. (2018). Behind the wall: An exploration of public access to research articles in social work journals. Advances in Social Work 18(4), 1041-1052.

Popken, B. (2015, August 6). College Textbook Prices Have Risen 1,041 Percent Since 1977. NBC News. Retrieved from:

Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Social Work’s (Very Few) Gold OA Journals

First, let’s define “Gold” Open Access: Gold OA is when the journal makes all articles freely available at the time of publication. In contrast, “Green” OA is allowing a version of the article to be deposited in an institutional or disciplinary repository, often after an embargo period.

12 of 281

I pulled together a list of 281 social work journal titles by collating the “universe of disciplinary journals for social work” by authors Aubele and Perruso, the list of journals on, and a couple newer journals which did not appear on either (Radical and Critical Social Work and the Journal of Comparative Social Work). I then checked each title against the Directory of Open Access Journals. The following 12 titles from the journal list are Gold OA journals:

  • Advances in Social Work (English)
  • Critical Social Work (English)
  • Cuadernos de Trabajo Social (Spanish)
  • Janus (Finnish)
  • Journal of Comparative Social Work (English)
  • Journals of Family Strengths (English)
  • Latin American Review of Social Sciences, Childhood & Youth (Spanish)
  • Ljetopis Socijalnog Rada /Annual of Social Work (Croatian)
  • Servi√ßo Social e Sociedade (Portuguese)
  • Servi√ßo Social em Revista (Portuguese)
  • Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk (English)
  • Social Work & Society (English)

So What?

The problem with there being very few Gold OA journals in social work is multifaceted:

  • None of these journals are high impact, and none of them are indexed in Web of Science. This means that a researcher’s desire to publish in one of these journals is going to be pretty low, especially if they are pursuing promotion or grant funding;
  • Immediate OA in social work is therefore dependent on Article Processing Charges (APCs) paid to “hybrid” journals (more on hybrid journals below);
  • Or, authors must use Green OA (deposit of preprint or postprint in a repository, and there is demonstrably low engagement with repositories in social work, and journal archiving policies and long embargo periods can be discouraging.

Hybrid journals charge authors an APC (often ranging between $3000-5000 in the social sciences) to make their individual article OA, while also charging libraries the standard subscription fee. So, the journal capitalizes on two revenue streams. Meanwhile, any institution with a subscription and financial support for faculty APCs is paying twice for access, or an unreasonable burden is placed on individual authors to pay the APC independently. Sometimes grant funded research allows for APC costs in the budget, but, anecdotally, this is not consistent across funding agencies. Also, social work research might very well not be grant funded.

Possible Solutions

APCs are problematic, particularly in the social sciences and humanities, and recognition of this has grown significantly over the last few years. Hopefully, new OA funding models will replace APCs entirely at some point. To learn more, read:

It would be great to hear that some of the social work journal publishers are exploring new OA publishing models. Imagine if NASW made all their journal content available to *all* social workers around the world, not just members. I recognize that journal access is often seen as a key feature of association membership, but extending that access to all would seem to be in the spirit of social justice and social work ethics. (Please note, I’m not trying to pick on NASW specifically, but it’s easy example.)

Another solution is to simplify journal archiving policies and encourage deposit in a repository like SocArXiv.

Overall though, it feels like something needs to happen from inside the professional associations in order for there to be a meaningful increase in social work’s engagement with Open Access.

#BPD2020: Technological engagement as transgression: Social work and digital citizenship

Authors: Matthew DeCarlo (Radford University, @profmattdecarlo) & Kerry Fay Vandergrift (Radford University)

Abstract: This presentation will discuss how social work educators can integrate information and new media literacy in the classroom and educate the digitally-engaged change agents of the next decade.

Keywords: access to higher education; college access; open educational resources; social work; social work education; textbook cost

Presentation Materials:

Share Your #BPD2020 Presentations

Hello colleagues!

I know you are likely as disappointed as I am for the cancellation of the BPD 2020 conference. For me, it means missing a treasured opportunity to share and learn about resources and research from social work educators.

For faculty and student presenters at BPD 2020, I you worked hard on your presentation, and it should still find an audience! Since BPD is not planning to provide a virtual space to share our work, presenters and creators need to adopt open sharing practices to create our own virtual conference!

Open sharing practices, like the options listed below, are not just useful in a disaster. Rather, they should be incorporated into every in-person conference you attend. Conference attendance is structured by geography, income, race, disability status, contingent faculty status, among many other inequities in social work education. Sharing your presentation and its associated resources publicly and openly ensures that anyone with an internet connection can find and use your scholarship to better social work education and practice. Otherwise, your audience is limited to the people privileged and lucky enough to end up in the conference room for your presentation.

As a service to the BPD community, myself and Kimberly Pendell, the social work librarian at Portland State University, plan to signal boost #BPD2020 scholarship on our website,, as well as our Twitter accounts and social networks. We aim to create a virtual representation of #BPD2020, celebrate faculty and student scholarship, and foster open sharing practices into how faculty and students share their work at conferences.

I’ve created a few examples of open sharing based on my presentation with my colleague Dr. Kerry Vandergrift on Textbook cost burden in social work students. Our presentation covers how much social work students in Virginia pay for textbooks, the stress associated with these costs, and their impact on food insecurity, academic performance, and social equity.

Options for sharing your #BPD2020 scholarship include:

Virtual spaces you might share your #BPD2020 scholarship include:

  • The BPD listserv
  • Twitter (use the hashtag #BPD2020)
  • LinkedIn
  • Your personal website

To make sure Kimberly and I see your work and can catalog it on our website and Twitter account, please email us at openswresearch [at] with the following information. We would appreciate if you shared this with us by June 1st, so we can share your work over the summer as faculty have time to work on professional development and course design.

  • Title
  • Presenter names, emails, and Twitter handles (if any)
  • Abstract and learning objectives
  • Keywords
  • Embed code (preferred) or links to your presentation and associated resources (e.g. video, slides, papers)

If you need help working with open platforms, sharing your work, or open licensing, please don’t hesitate to reach out to myself or Kimberly and we’ll help you as best we can. Please don’t let COVID-19 erase the incredible scholarship that our community worked so hard to create for #BPD2020.

Thanks for reading!



Matthew DeCarlo PhD MSW

Assistant Professor of Social Work

OER Committee Chair

Open Textbook Network Campus Leader

Radford University School of Social Work



Archiving Policies of Social Work Journals

The table below provides a quick overview of embargoes for post-print archiving; visiting the full policy (via “details”) will further demonstrate a complex set of rules and conditions. Even as a librarian, I am confused by some of the policy language I found (what constitutes a “free public server” to NASW?). And while many publishers are quite flexible regarding pre-prints, post-prints are often subject to long embargoes for OA repositories (2 years for all NASW journals!).

While “green” archiving (the ability to deposit pre-prints, post-prints, or–rarely–publisher PDFs in OA repositories) has proliferated over the years, the rules around when and where have grown more complex:

“By tracing the policy journey of the original 107 publishers on the RoMEO database, we found that the number of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving grew by 12% in the 12 years since 2004. However, the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place increased by 119%, 190% and 1,000% respectively. “

Gadd, E., & Troll Covey, D. (2016). What it means to be Green: exploring publishers’ changing approaches to Green open accessImpact of Social Sciences Blog.

As OA (hopefully) grows in social work, it will be important not only to be a “green” journal, but also one with a policy is not so complex and restrictive as to effectively act as another barrier for deposit.

The following table provides a quick overview of archiving policies for discussion purposes. Please do not use this information as official policy; instead refer to full record (under “details) or journal’s information for authors.

Journal TitlePublisherPre-print Archiving Post-print Archiving
Affilia: Journal of Women and Social WorkSageOn any website (details)No embargo (details)
British Journal of Social WorkBritish Assoc. of Social Workers/Oxford Uni. PressMay only be posted prior to acceptance on author’s personal website, employer website, free public server or pre-prints in subject area (details)2 year embargo (details)
Child Abuse & NeglectElsevierOn any website (details)1-4 year embargo (details)
Children & SchoolsNASW/Oxford University PressMay only be posted prior to acceptance on author’s personal website, employer website, free public server or pre-prints in subject area (details)2 year embargo (details)
Clinical Social Work JournalSpringerOn author’s personal website and non-commercial pre-print server (details)1 year embargo (details)
Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work Taylor & FrancisOn author’s personal website or departmental website immediately (details)1 year embargo (details)
Health & Social WorkNASW/Oxford Uni. PressMay only be posted prior to acceptance on author’s personal website, employer website, free public server or pre-prints in subject area (details)2 year embargo (details)
Journal of Family Social WorkHaworth PressOn author’s personal website or departmental website immediately (details)1 year embargo (details)
Journal of the Society for Social Work & ResearchUniversity of Chicago PressOn a not-for-profit author’s personal website, institutional website, social website or pre-print server immediately (details)1 year embargo (details)
Journal of Social Work PracticeTaylor & FrancisOn author’s personal website or departmental website immediately (details)1 year embargo (details)
Research on Social Work PracticeSageOn any website (details)No embargo (details)
Social WorkNASW/Oxford University PressMay only be posted prior to acceptance on author’s personal website, employer website, free public server or pre-prints in subject area (details)2 year embargo (details)
Social Work ResearchNASW/Oxford University PressMay only be posted prior to acceptance on author’s personal website, employer website, free public server or pre-prints in subject area (details)2 year embargo (details)
Trauma, Violence & AbuseSageOn any website (details)No embargo (details)
All the journals allow the author to archive pre-print and post-print, but not the publisher PDF. The one exception to this is the Journal of the Society for Research & Social Work–authors may post the publisher PDF version of their article in a repository. Information for this table from SHERPA/RoMEO, “details” links to individual journal record