Ethics for Information Professionals: Neutrality or Advocacy?
by Steve Hardin

You're glancing through some of your records on your computer at work when you accidently discover that because of a software glitch, you can see the private files of everyone else on the network. Should you report the problem immediately to your systems department, or wait until you've had a quick look at a few of your coworker's files?

This scenario represents just one of the ethical decisions that people who deal with information may face on the job at any time. "Ethics for Information Professionals: Neutrality or Advocacy?" was the topic for the March 5 meeting of the Indiana Chapter of the American Society for Information Science. Eighteen persons attended the Indianapolis presentation by Martha "Marti" Montague Smith. Smith -- who authored the 1997 Annual Review of Information Science chapter on information ethics -- is an assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science.

Smith noted Harvard psychologist Robert Coles was very influential in her development of this topic. In one of his writings, Coles related the story of how he went to see a psychiatrist as part of his training. He knew that psychiatrists were supposed to be morally neutral. He discovered, however, that when he went to the psychiatrist's office, he went to a very exclusive part of town. The beautiful office told him a lot about the kind of person he would be seeing. The lesson, he said, is that no matter how hard we try to be neutral, we carry a certain number of values with us. Coles said one of the mistakes we make in education is to think we can be detached and not deal with values. It's one thing to talk abstractly, Smith pointed out, but in the real world, decisions have to be made.

She handed out a paper on information ethics, which she said was adapted from material found in Media Ethics, a 1995 work by Clifford Christians, Mark Fackler and Kim Rotzoll. It dealt with issues surrounding "The Big Five" values: access, ownership, privacy, security and community. Smith noted these concepts may oppose one another.

When dealing with an information ethics question, Smith said, you can use the Big Five to help. First, identify the issue. After you've identified scope of problem, move to identifying the values/principles involved as well as the stakeholders. Then, try to identify the goal or purpose. The purpose may vary by user. As mentioned earlier, these interests may be opposed to one another. You have to identify as best you can in all stages whose interest will be served. So the next step is to prioritize your loyalties. Then, the hard part: make the decision. What happens when the decision is not acceptable or workable? Go back to the beginning and start over.

Smith also handed out an ethics quiz. It contained scenarios similar to the one described at the outset of this article. Much of the evening was spent discussing these vignettes and potential courses of action resulting from them.

For example, consider the aforementioned scenario. Most of the persons in the room agreed the proper thing to do is to report the problem immediately. There are many cases in which wide access is desirable. But personnel records aren't one of them.

Another quiz example involved an employee who has been placed in charge of an important long-term project, and who also knows he or she is leaving the company within a few months. What should the employee do? Most persons in the room agreed the employee ought to train someone else to take over the project. But there was considerable disagreement on whether that would really happen. Some thought the employee would keep his or her leaving a secret, but work on the project as effectively as possible until departure. Others felt most employees would do very little knowing they wouldn't have to deal with the problem for very long. Smith noted the scenario really involves a question of loyalty: are you more loyal to yourself or to your company? We have to bridge these gaps in our own behavior. Ideally, she said, it would be best to train someone - formally or informally - to take over the project.

And what about the case where a reference librarian gets asked by a patron for information on how to break into a computer system? Considerable discussion ensued on whether it was better to provide the information with no questions asked, or try to find out why the patron wants the information, or even refuse to answer the question. Smith noted there can be times when you must move out of the information professional role and become a "sensible person." In that case, you call 911. Is this one of those times?

Smith and her audience discussed several other vignettes. "I know we've opened a can of worms, and they're all crawling around," she said in conclusion. The evening provided attendees with an opportunity for thought-provoking discussion and new ways of thinking about some of the issues information professionals must face.