• socialnet
• Materials
• Notzon, Swantje u.a.: Students’ perspectives on artificial intelligence

Loss of humanity or job support?

Students’ perspectives on artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and robotics in social professions

Content

1. 1 Introduction
2. 2 Materials and methods
   1. 2.1 Sample
   2. 2.2 Questionnaire
   3. 2.3 Statistical methods
3. 3 Results
   1. 3.1 Sociodemographic Data
   2. 3.2 Technology commitment according to sociodemographic data
   3. 3.3 Assessment of own knowledge in relation to artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and robotics
   4. 3.4 Opportunities, risks, and possibilities of the use of AI, VR and robotics in social professions
   5. 3.5 Additional opportunities, risks and possibilities of using AI, VR and robotics in social professions mentioned by the participants in free text fields
   6. 3.6 Attitudes towards the use of AI in scientific writing during studies
   7. 3.7 Needs in relation to technology during studies
4. 4 Discussion
5. 5 Acknowledgments
6. 6 Declaration of Interest Statement
7. 7 Use of AI
8. 8 References

Summary

Artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and robotics could change the way people work and study in social professions. The aim of this study was therefore to examine students' knowledge and perceptions of the opportunities, risks, and possibilities of using AI, VR, and robotics. The article provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges of the three technologies for social organizations, professionals, and higher education. It also presents survey results and draws conclusions for successful teaching in social professions. Students at the Catholic University of Applied Sciences North Rhine-Westphalia took part in the survey between July 2023 and April 2024. The questions were mainly developed on the basis of a literature review by the authors of this article. Overall, the students surveyed felt competent and showed interest in AI, VR, and robotics. A large majority of them stated that they were familiar with the technologies and their possible applications. The use of all three technologies was considered useful by around two-thirds of respondents. Many also used the free text fields to suggest their own ideas for possible applications, which indicates the great potential for further development of these technologies for use in social professions by the practitioners themselves. The study shows that it is worthwhile to build on the existing interest and openness of students in teaching in order to prepare them for a digital working world with new opportunities and possibilities.

1 Introduction

The rapid advancement of technology significantly impacts various professional fields, including social and health care professions. Currently, a systematic integration of theory and practice of innovative technologies in the curricula of degree programs in social professions is missing (Mittmann et al., 2023). However, universities are endeavoring to fill these gaps and lecturers have begun to systematically address digital transformation and its effects on social professions, organizations, and professionals. In this context, the aim of this study was to investigate students' knowledge and perceptions of the opportunities, risks and possibilities of using artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR) and robotics. Therefore, this article provides a short overview of the challenges of the three technologies AI, VR, and robotics for social organizations, social professionals, and higher education. Subsequently, the survey is presented and derivations for teaching of social professions are made.

The emergence of AI, VR, and robotics has the potential to radically and rapidly change the way people work and study in social professions. To date, social organizations and institutions are increasingly using technology to administer and organize daily routine tasks (Evans & Hilbert, 2020; Freier, 2021). Due to their specifics, the digitalization of social organizations seems to be more difficult than that of other business sectors. These specifics refer to the fact that social organizations mostly deal with vulnerable or marginalized groups/​individuals and often base their work on specific norms and values (Schiffhauer & Seelmeyer, 2021). Technology can be viewed as a third actor in interactions with clients, thus changing interactions itself (Seelmeyer & Kutscher, 2021). As social organizations need to catch up with digitalization and as their specifics need special attention, it is important for students of social professions to be well educated in technical and ethical topics concerning digitalization.

In addition, the change in daily routine work for social professionals due to digitalization sets new demands on their flexibility and accessibility. Social professionals have to use new hardware and software, which often induces technostress and sometimes fuels reservations against new digital technology. Moreover, there may be a blurring of the boundaries between work and private life, with new demands being placed on the self-management of professionals (Scaramuzzino & Martinell Barfoed, 2023).

The technologies AI, VR, and robots are assumed to change the processes in social organizations and the social work practice of professionals; therefore, higher education for social professions has to change in the same place.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to modify social professions by providing tools for better data analysis, predictive analytics, and personalized interventions. AI can assist social workers in identifying at-risk individuals, optimizing resource allocation, and improving decision-making processes (Tambe & Rice, 2018). In particular, natural language processing may alter work and interaction processes in communication- and interaction-based professions, such as social work (Linnemann et al., 2023).

Digital transformation offers professionals the opportunity to be supported in the decision-making process. Automated data evaluation and decision support systems are changing the way decisions are made in social processes (Schneider & Seelmeyer, 2019). For example, future decision support systems might recommend removal of a child from the family based on available data (Ratner & Elmholdt, 2023). However, existing systems in this realm, such as the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, have weaknesses and distortions (Gerchick et al., 2023).

The use of AI also raises ethical concerns such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, the potential for dehumanization in care (Munro, 2019) and enormous energy consumption (Vries, 2023). It is the task of universities to prepare students for a world of work that has been changed by AI. In addition, university teaching itself will probably change at a rapid speed by the fact that both teachers and students will increasingly use large language models like ChatGPT to create texts. This raises questions such as whether students` homework is still suitable for assessing their performance. The potential of AI to help with study-related tasks in social work is illustrated, for example, by Victor et al. (2023) who demonstrated that ChatGPT can pass a US exam for social workers with good results. It is also still unclear whether AI will improve students' capabilities as a constantly available learning partner or whether students will uncritically adopt AI texts and thus unlearn how to write. However, in a recent survey of German social work students, over 80 % had already used ChatGPT (Witter et al., 2024). Bearman et al. (2023, p. 383) see AI as a challenge to the „fundamental structures of agency and authority within the academy“. At the same time, they believe that there is still a great need for research on AI in university teaching (Bearman et al., 2023, p. 382).

Virtual reality (VR) offers innovative ways to train and educate students in social professions, and is predicted to have great potential for the social sector (Kaspar, 2020). VR can simulate real-life scenarios, allowing students to practice their skills in a safe and controlled environment (Notzon & Schiffhauer, 2021). Such real-life scenarios could, for example, enable students to ethically and communicatively train home visits in a realistic setting without having to visit real apartments, and thus without the risk of violating privacy (Egonsdotter & Israelsson, 2024). In addition, problematic situations, such as interactions with clients with challenging behaviors, can be trained in VR. Unlike role-play, VR scenarios could be identical for several students and repeated as often as required or individually adapted (Egonsdotter & Israelsson, 2024).

In relation to prospective social professionals, VR can improve perspective taking (Ventura et al., 2020), train self-reflection and critical thinking (Egonsdotter & Israelsson, 2024) and prepare for complex situations.

To date, systematic integration of VR in the social work education curriculum is rare, but sporadically applications are becoming increasingly visible. The development of VR apps in social work education provides students with comprehensive training in the development and application of innovative technologies. Students could not only benefit from using VR as a tool in education but also by training themselves in the development of their own VR scenarios. Thereby, they can gain theoretical and practical knowledge as well as skills in technology development. They learn to reflect on their own designs and applications through the design process, and evaluate them in terms of technology assessment. This could promote joy and enthusiasm for understanding innovative technology and empower them to develop innovative technology in general (Schiffhauer & Remke, 2023). However, the high costs of VR equipment and the effort for set-up time, as well as the training of both teachers and students, are challenges that need to be addressed (Kavanagh et al., 2017, p. 100).

Robots, especially social robots, are used in a variety of settings, such as research, training, therapy, social institutions, households, private places, and public spaces (Schiffhauer & Schaffrath, in press). Their advantages lie in their embodiment and mobility and the capability to manipulate the physical and psychological environment by supporting people with, for example, carrying or bringing objects or interacting with them to increase their wellbeing (Ghafurian et al., 2024; Schiffhauer & Schaffrath, in press). In social care settings, future robots could help with routine tasks, provide companionship to the elderly, and assist individuals with disabilities (Sharkey & Sharkey, 2012, p. 27). For older adults and people with disabilities, this could be an opportunity to reduce their dependence on overburdened care givers (Sharkey & Sharkey, 2012, p. 37). However, there are on the one hand ethical concerns, such as the potential reduction of human social contact, the emotional impact on clients, and dealing with mistakes (Sharkey & Sharkey, 2012, p. 37). On the other hand, it is also possible that the use of robots could give staff more time for conversations and other forms of interpersonal contact.

Overall, the integration of AI, robotics, and VR in social and health-care professions presents opportunities and risks that are sometimes confusing and difficult to keep track of, especially due to constant technical progress. While these technologies have the potential to enable social innovation and new educational experiences in social work and related fields, it is crucial to address the ethical, practical, and emotional implications associated with their use. With regard to the opportunities and risks of using robots in social work, social robots can either support or hinder the goals of social work by promoting „social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people“ (IFSW, 2024).

To date, there is no standardized curriculum for the integration of innovative technology, such as AI, robotics, and VR, in social professions like social work in Germany. Seminars concerning AI are more common since the widespread release of ChatGPT at the end of 2022, and the use and in-class development of VR scenarios has recently begun to be taught sporadically in social work education (Linnemann et al., 2025; Schiffhauer & Remke, 2023). The debate regarding social robots as an innovation in social work is at its beginning (Schiffhauer & Remke, 2024).

It is assumed that students have some fundamental knowledge about innovative technologies that can be used as a starting point for further knowledge transfer in seminars. The present study investigates the current knowledge of students studying social professions, and their evaluation of these technologies to customize future seminars to the specific knowledge students have, enhance it, and address the opportunities, risks, and possibilities arising for social professions and social professionals.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Sample

Bachelor's and Master's students at the Cologne, Münster and Paderborn campuses of the Catholic University of Applied Sciences North Rhine-Westphalia were asked to participate in the study by repeated emails through which the link to the questionnaire was shared. The survey was conducted between July, 2023 and April, 2024. The sample characteristics are presented in the Results section. The study was reviewed and approved by the university's data protection expert. The responsible ethics committee (ethics committee of the Catholic University of Applied Sciences of North Rhine-Westphalia) did not consider it necessary to review this study. The rules for studies including human research participants were not applicable to the study as no personal data were collected from the study participants. The participants provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the study.

2.2 Questionnaire

Most questions in our questionnaire were developed based on an extensive literature review by the authors of this article. In addition, the Technology Commitment Short Scale (Neyer et al., 2016) was used. The data were used to generate a total score and the three subscales technology acceptance, technology competence beliefs and technology control beliefs. High values for the total score and the subscales technology acceptance and technology control beliefs indicate a high level of commitment to technology, while high values for the subscale technology competence beliefs indicate a self-assessment of having little competence. Entries in the free-text fields were carefully read. The most important aspects were selected and summarized.

2.3 Statistical methods

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29 software. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant. To control the family-wise error rate and account for multiple comparisons, we applied the Bonferroni-Holm correction to the p-values. The sample was characterized by gender and study program. The group was divided into younger and older participants, based on the median. Males and females, as well as younger and older participants, were compared regarding the total score and the three subscales of the technology commitment short scale using two-tailed t-tests. For questions on various topics (knowledge about technologies, assessment of risks, opportunities and possibilities of technology, attitudes towards the use of AI in scientific writing), percentages of responses are given in relation to the total sample. Subgroups with different attitudes towards the use of AI in scientific writing were compared using two-tailed t-tests regarding the total score and the three subscales of the technology commitment short scale. As the groups compared by the t-tests were unequal in size in some cases, additional Mann-Whitney U tests were carried out for all group comparisons. They confirmed the results of the t-tests in all the cases.

3 Results

3.1 Sociodemographic Data

A total of 245 students gave consent to participate and answered the questionnaire entirely or partly. The participants were all studying at the Catholic University of Applied Sciences North Rhine-Westphalia, either in Cologne, in Münster, or in Paderborn. Students from all semesters participated in the study.

Of the 210 students who provided information on their gender, 164 were female and 45 male. One person chose the „diverse“ option. The average age was 25.66 years (SD 7.26) (N=209).

198 participants provided information about their study programs. Most of them (125 people) were studying Social Work at the Bachelor's level. 40 people were studying Inclusive Education at the Bachelor's level, 25 Social Work at the Master's level and 5 Inclusive Education at the Master's level. Three were studying Childhood Education at the Bachelor's level.

3.2 Technology commitment according to sociodemographic data

The technology commitment differed significantly between women and men, with a higher technology commitment among men (t(165)=-5.82, p<.004, mean: women: 15.08 (SD=7.28); men: 22.81 (SD=6.16)). Men showed a higher acceptance of technology (t(167)=-4.45, p<.004, mean: women: 11.65 (SD=3.57); men: 14.58 (SD=3.25)), were more likely to feel in control of it (t(170)=-3.59, p<.004, mean: women: 12.86 (SD=2.44); men: 14.47 (SD=2.48)), and were more confident in their own competences in relation to technology (t(171)=5.07, p<.004, mean: women: 9.35 (SD=3.40); men: 6.42 (SD=1.94)).

Using the median (23 years), two age groups were formed, namely „23 years or younger“ and „older than 23 years“. The younger group showed significantly lower technology commitment (t(163)=-2.69, p=.032, mean: younger: 15.09 (SD=7.41); older: 18.29 (SD=7.86)). There were no significant differences between subscales.

3.3 Assessment of own knowledge in relation to artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and robotics

With regard to artificial intelligence (AI), most respondents felt able to describe the meaning of the term (93.4 %) and a majority was also aware of possible applications in social professions (82.0 %) (N=167). When asked about virtual reality (VR), 83.2 % felt competent to describe what the term means (N=161), and 51.9 % said they were aware of possible applications of VR in social professions (N=160). With regard to robots, 77.6 % were aware of possible applications in social professions (N=156). Knowledge of the term „robots“ was not asked here, as it was assumed to be generally known.

Only 9.7 % of the respondents stated that they were aware of theories relating to technology and digitalization. Respondents were asked to specify the theories with which they were familiar. This option was sensibly used by 11 participants, with at least nine participants referring to concepts and topics taught at the university.

3.4 Opportunities, risks, and possibilities of the use of AI, VR and robotics in social professions

Approximately two-thirds (67.7 %) of respondents said that AI support for professional decisions makes sense in principle, 13.8 % disagreed, and 18.6 % were undecided (N=167). When weighing up the opportunities and risks of using AI in social and healthcare professions, 40.6 % of respondents felt that the opportunities outweighed the risks, while 32.1 % felt that the risks outweighed the opportunities. 27.3 % saw opportunities and risks as equally important (N=165).

In principle, 64.2 % could imagine VR supporting them in their job, while 13.6 % rejected this and 22.2 % were undecided in this regard (N=162). 50.9 % mainly saw opportunities for such use in their profession, 22.4 % mainly saw risks, and 26.7 % saw opportunities and risks as equally important (N=161).

66.9 % agreed that robot assistance in the workplace would be useful, while 8.6 % disagreed and 12.7 % were undecided (N=157). A mixed picture emerged regarding the assessment of opportunities and risks of robots (opportunities predominate: 34 %; risks predominate: 31.4 %; opportunities and risks equal: 34.6 %; N=159).

Table 1 shows the ranking of risks and Table 2 shows the ranking of opportunities of AI, VR, and robots according to the participants. Table 3 shows the situations in which respondents favor using AI, VR, or robots.

Risks of AI		Risks of VR		Risks of robots
Too undifferentiated decisions (too little consideration of individual circumstances)	56.3 %	Reduction of social interaction in the real world	53.5 %	Reduction of social interaction with other people	45.3 %
Technology is prone to errors	38.8 %	Potential for addiction	39.6 %	Hardly any practical experience and therefore a lack of ethical guidelines for the appropriate use of robots	42 %
Discrimination against certain groups	33.9 %	Lack of expertise on the part of professionals leads to application errors	37.1 %	Lack of expertise among specialists leads to application errors	30.6 %
Insufficient data protection for sensitive data	31 %	Virtual reality content can be inappropriate for users (e.g. in the case of mental illness)	32.2 %	High costs and maintenance effort	29.8 %
Loss of public trust in the profession	31 %	High costs	30.2 %	Reduction in nursing staff	27.3 %
Lack of transparency in how decisions are made	22.9 %	Side effects such as dizziness and nausea	25.3 %	Risk of injury to physical integrity	23.3 %
Risks for climate and environment due to production and energy consumption of technology	8.2 %	No risks	0.4 %	Insufficient data protection	13.9 %
No risks	4 %			Risks for the climate and environment due to production and energy consumption of technology	11.8 %
				No risks	0.8 %

Opportunities of AI		Opportunities of VR		Opportunities of robots
Time savings, thus more time for clients	53.1 %	Reduction of access barriers (e.g. virtual counselling services, if going to a real counselling situation is experienced as stressful)	38.8 %	Relieving the burden on staff	44.5 %
More objective decisions	38 %	Increasing the motivation of recipients to do exercise, for example	29.4 %	Enabling the greatest possible self-determination	30.2 %
Cost reduction	20.4 %	Learning new skills	36.3 %	Increasing the quality of life of the recipients	27.3 %
Better decisions	12.7 %	Improving the quality of life of the recipients	24.1 %	Increasing the motivation of residents to do movement exercises, for example	24.5 %
Less responsibility for me	4.1 %	Increasing the social participation of clients	20 %	Increasing the social participation of recipients	16.3 %
No opportunities	2.9 %	Increasing the self-determination and independence of the clients	15.9 %	No opportunities	4.1 %
		No opportunities	2.4 %

Situations in which participants would be in favor of using AI		Situations in which participants would be in favor of using VR		Situations in which participants would be in favor of using robots
In clinical social services: Suggestions are made as to which further care options (rehabilitation clinics, outpatient services, etc.) are suitable.	46.9 %	Supporting therapies through virtual reality, for example by simulating a crowded underground train	53.9 %	Mobility assistance, e.g. through intelligent rollators and wheelchairs	56.7 %
In the youth welfare office: Based on certain risk factors, suggestions are made as to which families should be contacted more frequently	36.7 %	Cognitive training using games in a virtual reality environment	43.3 %	In rehabilitation: relearning action sequences and motivating patients to practise	38.0 %
In psychiatric care: Prognosis of worsening depression and suicide risk	24.1 %	Promoting memory work for people suffering from dementia through photos, old films or songs that are transferred into virtual reality	41.2 %	As a toy robot with which children can play thinking and combination games	34.7 %
In probation services: prognosis of criminality	16.7 %	Practising counselling sessions for students by simulating a real counselling session and then reflecting on it	41.2 %	Promoting interaction and learning social skills for children with autism spectrum disorder	28.2 %
In none of the situations mentioned	10.6 %	Virtual journeys for residents of nursing and retirement homes	37.1 %	In residential facilities to provide company, entertainment and enable contact with others	14.3 %
		Relaxation and breathing exercises in virtual reality	30.2 %
		Making contact with recipients through a virtual reality (e.g. the metaverse from Meta)	12.2 %
		In none of the situations mentioned	2 %

3.5 Additional opportunities, risks and possibilities of using AI, VR and robotics in social professions mentioned by the participants in free text fields

With regard to AI, several participants mentioned an additional risk, in particular the danger that professionals may rely entirely on AI and no longer reflect on its results, which could lead to a loss of humanity. Two participants mentioned the risk that the use of VR could discriminate against low-income people, presumably because they assumed that VR was an expensive technology. One participant expressed concern that clients of social professions could feel that they are being pushed into a virtual world instead of being integrated into the real world.

In terms of opportunities, several participants described the fact that AI could point out additional possibilities (e.g., additional support measures) that would not have occurred to the professional and provide additional knowledge. Participants also mentioned that AI could make it easier to keep track of large amounts of information and improve work quality. Two participants described repeatedly practicing situations without pressure as a possible opportunity of VR. An additional opportunity of robots was mentioned, namely the physical relief of staff.

With regard to possible areas of use for AI in practice, the participants made numerous suggestions, some of which are listed here as examples:

• writing letters to parents in school social work
• writing reports in integration aid for people with disabilities
• suggestions for social media concepts
• translation of texts into other languages or into easy language
• assisted communication
• relief from bureaucratic tasks (e.g., writing duty rosters)
• disability support: New conditions can be collected, and an overview of new support options can be provided. Old aspects can also be marked in the system as no longer relevant or less relevant.
• counselling for employees and patients/​clients who are alone
• machine learning to develop input-output systems that enable contact and promote exchange

The participants also named some additional possible areas of application of VR:

• education for sustainable development
• anti-discrimination work
• application in youth care for dream journeys or as a play opportunity
• experimenting with their own identity (character creation for transgender people, for example)
• anatomy/​physiology lessons

The participants named physically demanding and domestic tasks (e.g., emptying rubbish bins and distributing food) as possible areas of application for robots. Others mentioned the night-time care of clients and the correct sorting of medication into pill boxes.

3.6 Attitudes towards the use of AI in scientific writing during studies

The participants were also presented with a brief case study in which a student did not have time to write a seminar paper due to personal commitments and, therefore, had it written by an AI. This was rated by 21.6 % as not at all or rather not condemnable, while the remaining participants rated this approach as „a little“ or even „quite“ condemnable. 42.1 % stated that they could imagine having a scientific paper written by AI during their studies if they could be sure that it would not be noticed. There were no correlations with (the subscales of) technology commitment.

3.7 Needs in relation to technology during studies

Regarding the question of what percentage of teaching should also or entirely be offered online (e.g., video conferencing or self-study material) the respondents were divided in opinion: while 52.9 % wanted a maximum of 40 % or even less online teaching, 26.1 % were in favor of 50 % online teaching, and the rest wanted even more online teaching (see figure 1).

When asked which topics would interest them in their studies, the students' interests were relatively diverse. The most frequently chosen topics, each with just over 40 %, were consequences and ethical aspects of technology, use of smart devices, media skills of clients and technologies for assisted communication.

Table 4 shows the topics that should be given more attention in future courses according to our participants.

 

Consequences and ethical aspects of technology	47.3%
Use of smart devices (e.g. smartphones and tablets) in social and healthcare professions	44.1%
Media skills of clients	42.4%
Technologies for assisted communication	41.2%
Use of artificial intelligence in social and healthcare professions	39.2%
Use of social media in social and healthcare professions	33.5%
Data protection in the use of technology	30.2%
Use of virtual reality in social and healthcare professions	26.5%
Use of robots in social and healthcare professions	24.5%

 

4 Discussion

Overall, the students surveyed felt competent and were interested in AI, VR, and robotics. A large majority of them stated that they were familiar with the technologies surveyed and their possible applications. However, there were differences within the group, which became particularly clear when analyzing the technology commitment short scale.

Several studies have investigated gender and age differences with respect to the technology commitment short scale (Neyer et al., 2016). Our results are only partially consistent with the findings of previous studies. A study on 510 emergency medical service employees found in contrast to our study no gender differences regarding technology commitment (Elsenbast & Hagemann, 2023). A study by Wicki et al. (2019), like ours, found that men are more confident about their own technological competence as well as their abilities to control technology. In contrast to our study, they found men to be less accepting of technology than women (Wicki et al., 2019). A study by Maier et al. (2021) also showed, in accordance with our study, more technology commitment in men than in women.

Previous studies have repeatedly shown greater technology commitment in younger participants than older participants (Elsenbast & Hagemann, 2023; Maier et al., 2021; Wicki et al., 2019). In our study, this was the other way round. It should be noted that most studies cover a broader age range than ours and that more people over the age of 30 took part who had not grown up with today's technologies. The fact that the under-23s in our study felt less competent than the over-23s could, for example, be related to the fact that the under-23s feel more insecure in life and therefore consider themselves slightly less competent overall than other adults. Older students also probably have more professional experience, which would have allowed them to expand their knowledge of specific professional technologies and computer skills.

Most respondents were aware of both the opportunities and risks of the technologies, and many contributed their own thoughts on opportunities, risks, and possible applications in free-text fields. For social professions, it is not clear which technologies are seen as desired innovations; therefore, identifying the risks and opportunities is of great importance (Kaminsky, 2021). The greatest risk for both VR and robots was seen in the danger that they could replace interactions with real people. The fear of replacing interaction is two-fold. On the one hand, there is a fear of being replaced by a robot and therefore losing one's employment. On the other hand, people are worried that technology will replace social professionals, and therefore, clients will have less human interaction per day than they are used to (Becker, 2018). For AI, students were concerned about automated decisions that do not take the individual into account, erroneous software, and the potential of AI to discriminate against certain groups. The concern is not entirely unjustified, as examples for this have already been observed; a well-known case is criminal risk assessment algorithms in the US that were trained on historical crime data. As a result, the programs also took on the historical discrimination of low-income and minority communities (Hao, 2019). 

The biggest opportunity for both AI and robots was seen as making the work of employees easier. This is in line with current research indicating, for example, that artificial intelligence has the potential to support decision making processes (Schneider, 2021) and robots could be used to support professionals in care settings by reducing their physical and mental duties, but research also shows that at the same time, robots could increase the workload (for a review: Persson et al., 2022). Our study indicates that students see the potential of VR and robots in improving the quality of life for recipients. A variety of studies suggest positive effects of VR and robots on well-being, for example. VR and social robots are used in therapy as well as to improve social engagement of clients (Baisch & Kolling, 2021; Notzon & Schiffhauer, 2021). VR and robots can, therefore, contribute to the mission of social work and provide opportunities for the participation of people with disabilities (Lindsay & Hounsell, 2017).

When asked about situations in which respondents would be in favor of using AI, VR, or robots, it is noticeable that only the situations supporting therapies through VR and mobility assistance were rated in favor of using technologies. None of the other situations was chosen by the majority (more than 50 %). This is in line with research showing that the usage of technology has to have an additional benefit to outweigh the risks and costs (Schiffhauer et al., 2016). It is noteworthy that less than a third of the participants favored existing applications such as AI in the prognosis of criminality or robots for promoting social skills for children with autism spectrum disorder. This suggests that students were unfamiliar with the options currently available and the research on them. Therefore, more knowledge about what, how, and where to use the latest technologies is needed in higher education.

Regarding the assessment of the risks, it is noticeable, that the „risks for climate and environment“ for both AI and robotics were ranked last, i.e. they were considered to be lower than all other risks. This is astonishing, as experts consider the environmental risks associated with the use of AI to be significant, particularly because of the enormous energy consumption (Vries, 2023). Environmental pollution caused by electronic waste (Andeobu et al., 2021) and the consumption of resources for the production of electrical appliances (UNEP, 2024, p. 56) are further environmental problems that result from the technologies investigated here.

For universities, this leads to the task of addressing the environmental risks of technologies much more frequently and intensively. This would also meet the interests of the students, who, when asked which topics should receive more attention in the future, most frequently requested the topic „consequences and ethical aspects of technology“. Assessments of whether the usage of specific technologies should be taught in the future depended on the kind of technology: to learn about smart devices and AI in social and healthcare professions as well as about technology for assisted communication was rated as more important (39.2-44.1 %) than to learn about the usage of robotics and VR in social and healthcare professions (24.5-26.5 %). This result likely reflects the dissemination of these different technologies in society, as VR and robots are not as common as smart devices and AI. This is in line with the observation that students of social professions often do not see the importance of learning about digitalization and technologies before attending a seminar on the topic, but afterwards are sensitized to the significance (personal observation). A lack of an overview of everything that would be possible, in principle, limits student participation in curriculum design (Bergmark & Westman, 2018, p. 1361). Therefore, it can be assumed that with the increasing disruption and usage of these technologies, the importance perceived by students will also increase. This is one of the main difficulties in teaching classes about the digitalization of social professions: To prepare students for a future they cannot imagine at this point and to motivate them to deal with technology, although it will become important in the future and not just right now. Another aspect can be addressed as part of this topic:

A large majority of students found it morally questionable to have a homework assignment written entirely by AI. Nevertheless, over 40 % could imagine doing this. When interpreting these results, it is important to realize that the use of large language models by the general population was still relatively new at the time of the survey, and that there was uncertainty among both students and lecturers in this regard. An internal university guideline for dealing with large language models in teaching was also still being developed at the time of the survey. Therefore, the results only show the current picture and changes in students' opinions in the future are likely: on the one hand, the willingness to use large language models could increase if students become more confident in their use. On the other hand, awareness of the moral limits of use could be enhanced through increased discussion of the topic at the university and students could view certain types of use more critically.

Students’ opinions differed widely in terms of what percentage of teaching should take place online. To meet the different needs of students, it could be useful if students could choose between online and face-to-face courses in as many areas as possible. Both online and face-to-face teaching have advantages and disadvantages (Gherheș et al., 2021; Topping, 2023). In our study, we did not ask what motivations the students had for wanting more online or face-to-face teaching. It was also not the subject of our research whether certain groups of students might want more online teaching, for example, those with families or long commuting times. This could be a topic for future research.

This study has shown that although most of the students stated that they knew about the technologies AI, VR, and robotics, and could identify certain risks and opportunities, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding the importance and the current concrete use cases as well as regarding theoretical frameworks and the practical handling of technology. Therefore, this study could be used as a starting point to customize future seminars to the specific knowledge students have, enhance it and address the opportunities, risks, and possibilities arising for social professions and social professionals.

5 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anne Banzhaf for her support with the literature research development of the questionnaire.

6 Declaration of Interest Statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

7 Use of AI

We used the AI tool Deepl to check our English wording.

8 References

Andeobu, L., Wibowo, S., & Grandhi, S. (2021). A Systematic Review of E-Waste Generation and Environmental Management of Asia Pacific Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179051

Baisch, S., & Kolling, T. (2021). Roboter in der Therapie. In O. Bendel (Ed.), Soziale Roboter (pp. 417–440). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31114-8_22

Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review. Higher Education, 86(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2

Becker, H. (2018). Robotik in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Hoffnungen, Befürchtungen und Akzeptanz aus Sicht der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. In O. Bendel (Ed.), Pflegeroboter (pp. 229–248). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5_13

Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2018). Student participation within teacher education: emphasising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(7), 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1484708

Egonsdotter, G., & Israelsson, M. (2024). Computer-Based Simulations in Social Work Education: A Scoping Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 34(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221147016

Elsenbast, C., & Hagemann, V. (2023). Technology commitment of emergency medical service practitioners and dispatchers. International Paramedic Practice, 13(3), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.12968/ippr.2023.13.3.59

Evans, M., & Hilbert, J. (2020). Zur Zukunft der Arbeit in der Sozial-und Gesundheitswirtschaft in der Digitalisierungsära. In N. Kutscher, T. Ley, U. Seelmeyer, F. Siller, A. Tillmann, & I. Zorn (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung (1. Auflage). Beltz Juventa. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/​handle/20.500.12657/​87203/1/9783779952589.pdf#page=77

Freier, C. (2021). Den digitalen Wandel in der Sozialwirtschaft gestalten. Gegenwart und Zukunft sozialer Dienstleistungsarbeit, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32556-5_1

Gerchick, M., Jegede, T., Shah, T., Gutierrez, A., Beiers, S., Shemtov, N., Xu, K., Samant, A., & Horowitz, A. (2023). The devil is in the details: Interrogating values embedded in the allegheny family screening tool, 1292–1310.

Ghafurian, M., Dautenhahn, K., Teka, A., Chandra, S., Rasouli, S., Baliyan, I., & Hutchinson, R. (2024). Human-Robot Interaction Studies with Adults in Health and Wellbeing Contexts – Outcomes and Challenges. In A. A. Ali, J.-J. Cabibihan, N. Meskin, S. Rossi, W. Jiang, H. He, & S. S. Ge (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Social Robotics (Vol. 14453, pp. 130–142). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8715-3_12

Gherheș, V., Stoian, C. E., Fărcașiu, M. A., & Stanici, M. (2021). E-Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning: Analyzing Students’ Preferences and Behaviors. Sustainability, 13(8), 4381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084381

Hao, K. (2019). AI is sending people to jail – and getting it wrong. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/​algorithms-criminal-justice-ai

IFSW. (2024). Global Definition of the Social Work Profession. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/​global-definition-of-social-work/

Kaminsky, C. (2021). Digitale Transformation Sozialer Arbeit? – Ethische Orientierungen auf neuem Terrain, 7(2), 1–21.

Kaspar, K. (2020). Medienentwicklung und Medienpädagogik: Virtual Reality und Augmented Reality. In U. Sander, F. von Gross, & K.-U. Hugger (Eds.), Handbuch Medienpädagogik (pp. 1–12). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25090-4_68-1

Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85–119.

Lindsay, S., & Hounsell, K. G. (2017). Adapting a robotics program to enhance participation and interest in STEM among children with disabilities: A pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 12(7), 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2016.1229047

Linnemann, G. A., Löhe, J., & Rottkemper, B. (2023). Bedeutung von Künstlicher Intelligenz in der Sozialen Arbeit. Soziale Passagen, 15(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12592-023-00455-7

Linnemann, G. A., Löhe, J., Tappe, E.‑H., Remke, S., & Schiffhauer, B. (2025). Virtuelle Realität in der Hochschullehre der Sozialen Arbeit einsetzen. In M. Wunder & A. Giercke-Ungermann (Eds.), Digitalisierung in der Hochschulbildung für Soziale Arbeit. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt 2025, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:33128

Maier, A., Eicher, C., Kiselev, J., Klebbe, R., Greuèl, M., Kettemann, D., Gaudlitz, M., Walter, B., Oleimeulen, U., & Münch, C. (2021). Acceptance of Enhanced Robotic Assistance Systems in People With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Associated Motor Impairment: Observational Online Study. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies, 8(4), e18972.

Mittmann, M., Roeske, A., Weber, J., Remke, S., & Schiffhauer, B. (2023). Studium Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung. In M. Köttig, S. Kubisch, C. Spatscheck, S. Smykalla, G. Cajete, K. J. Ditlhake, K. Kiewitt, R. Lutz, N. Schirilla, & K. Svensson (Eds.), Theorie, Forschung und Praxis der Sozialen Arbeit: Band 26. Geteiltes Wissen – Wissensentwicklung in Disziplin und Profession Sozialer Arbeit (pp. 237–250). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.2840669.20

Munro, E. (2019). Predictive analytics in child protection. CHESS Work. Pap.

Neyer, F. J., Felber, J., & Gebhardt, C. (2016). Kurzskala Technikbereitschaft (TB, technology commitment). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis244

Notzon, S., & Schiffhauer, B. (2021). Virtuelle Realität in der Sozialen Arbeit – Beispiele für den Einsatz in Ausbildung und Praxis. Klinische Sozialarbeit: Zeitschrift für Psychosoziale Praxis und Forschung, 17(4), 10–12.

Persson, M., Redmalm, D., & Iversen, C. (2022). Caregivers’ use of robots and their effect on work environment – a scoping review. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 40(3), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2021.2000554

Ratner, H. F., & Elmholdt, K. (2023). Algorithmic constructions of risk: Anticipating uncertain futures in child protection services. Big Data & Society, 10(2), Article 20539517231186120. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231186120

Scaramuzzino, G., & Martinell Barfoed, E. (2023). Swedish social workers’ experiences of technostress. Nordic Social Work Research, 13(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2021.1951335

Schiffhauer, B., Bernotat, J., Eyssel, F., Bröhl, R., & Adriaans, J. (2016). Let the User Decide! User Preferences Regarding Functions, Apps, and Interfaces of a Smart Home and a Service Robot. In A. Agah, J.-J. Cabibihan, A. M. Howard, M. A. Salichs, & H. He (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Social Robotics (Vol. 9979, pp. 971–981). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_95

Schiffhauer, B., & Remke, S. (2023). Virtuelle Realität im Fokus von Lebenswelt und Studium. Partizipative Entwicklung von VR-Szenarien für angehende Sozialarbeiter:innen(11), 73 9. https://doi.org/10.3262/SM2312073

Schiffhauer, B., & Remke, S. (2024). How can I help you? In S. Neumaier, M. Dörr, & E. Botzum (Eds.), Praxishandbuch Digitale Projekte in der Sozialen Arbeit. Beltz Juventa. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/​handle/20.500.12657/​92212/​9783779977698.pdf?sequence=1#page=51

Schiffhauer, B., & Schaffrath, S. (in press). Soziale Robotik in der Sozialen Arbeit. In N. Kutscher, T. Ley, U. Seelmeyer, F. Siller, A. Tillmann, & I. Zorn (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung.

Schiffhauer, B., & Seelmeyer, U. (2021). Responsible Digital Transformation of Social Welfare Organizations. In D. Ifenthaler, S. Hofhues, M. Egloffstein, & C. Helbig (Eds.), Digital transformation of learning organizations (pp. 131–144). SpringerOpen. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55878-9_8

Schneider, D. (2021). Ein Schritt in Richtung De-Professionalisierung? Plädoyer für eine intensive Diskussion über algorithmische Systeme in der professionellen Praxis. In Digitalisierung und Soziale Arbeit. Transformationen und Herausforderungen (pp. 122–139). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.35468/​5909-09

Schneider, D., & Seelmeyer, U. (2019). Challenges in Using Big Data to Develop Decision Support Systems for Social Work in Germany. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 37(2-3), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1614513

Seelmeyer, U., & Kutscher, N. (2021). Zum Digitalisierungsdiskurs in der Sozialen Arbeit. Befunde – Fragen – Perspektiven. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:23158

Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012). Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6

Tambe, M., & Rice, E. (2018). Artificial intelligence and social work. Cambridge University Press.

Topping, K. J. (2023). Advantages and Disadvantages of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Learning in Higher Education: A Review. Education Sciences, 13(4), 326. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040326

UNEP. (2024). Bend the trend: Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes. Global resources outlook: Vol. 2024. International Resource Panel. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/​handle/20.500.11822/​44901/​Global-Resource-Outlook_2024.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Ventura, S., Badenes-Ribera, L., Herrero, R., Cebolla, A., Galiana, L., & Baños, R. (2020). Virtual reality as a medium to elicit empathy: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(10), 667–676.

Victor, B. G., Kubiak, S., Angell, B., & Perron, B. E. (2023). Time to move beyond the ASWB licensing exams: Can generative artificial intelligence offer a way forward for social work? Research on Social Work Practice, 33(5), 511–517.

Vries, A. de (2023). The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence. Joule, 7(10), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.004

Wicki, M., Guidon, S., Becker, F., Axhausen, K., & Bernauer, T. (2019). How technology commitment affects mode choice for a self-driving shuttle service. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 32, 100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100458

Witter, S., Meinhardt-Injac, B., Siemer, L., Späte, J., & Fachhochschule Potsdam. (2024). ChatGPT im Studium der Sozialen Arbeit. https://doi.org/10.34678/​OPUS4-3382

Written by
Prof. Dr. Swantje Notzon
Hochschullehrerin an der Katholischen Hochschule Nordrhein-Westfalen, Abteilung Münster
Mailformular
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8957-8578

Prof. Dr. Birte Schiffhauer
Hochschullehrerin an der Hochschule Hannover
Mailformular
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4503-910X

Prof. Dr. Sara Remke
Hochschullehrerin an der Katholischen Hochschule Nordrhein-Westfalen, Abteilung Münster
Website
Mailformular
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1579-9380

Prof. Dr. Gesa Linnemann
Hochschullehrerin an der Katholischen Hochschule Nordrhein-Westfalen, Abteilung Münster
Mailformular
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9651-7826

There is 1 Materialie of Swantje Notzon.
There is 1 Materialie of Birte Schiffhauer.
There is 1 Materialie of Sara Remke.
There is 1 Materialie of Gesa Linnemann.

Cite this publication
Notzon, Swantje,Birte Schiffhauer,Sara Remke and Gesa Linnemann, 2025. Loss of humanity or job support? [online]. socialnet Materials. Bonn: socialnet, 2025-12-02. Retrieved 2026-01-15 . https://doi.org/10.60049/l9zcrngi

Copyright
This material, like all other content on socialnet, is protected by copyright. If you are interested in using it, please make an agreement with us beforehand. The editorial staff of the materials will be happy to answer any further questions and make arrangements.