The Information Professions: Values, Ethics, and Associations

Memory Institutions and Information Science Perspectives

Archivists assess, collect, organize, preserve, maintain control over, and provide access to archival information. The primary duty of archivists is to maintain the integrity of the records in their care and custody. They must consider the legitimate, but sometimes conflicting, rights and interests of employers, owners, data subjects, and users—past, present, and future (International Council on Archives, 1996). “Archivists keep records that have enduring value as reliable memories of the past, and they help people find and understand the information they need in those records” (Pearce-Moses, 2006, p. 3).

Memory institutions focus on accumulating, analyzing, and disseminating a variety of information to diverse populations and cultures. Libraries, museums, and archives have developed principles for handling their specific kinds of “informative objects” or documents. These principles reflect the different nature and tasks of the various institutions. Their different experiences have contributed to the development of generalized knowledge in information science. This knowledge is then given back to those institutions in order to improve their functions.

Libraries, archives, and museums perform complementary functions. They collect and preserve unique records of our world, records of individual and organizational lives, and the published record of human communication. Librarians, archivists, and museum professionals understand what to acquire for these collections and how to preserve them for future generations. The rapid growth of electronic resources, especially web-based content, has challenged these professionals to develop and maintain collections of new kinds.

The convergence of media and technologies toward digital storage and access implies that old and well-established divisions of responsibility based on the nature of objects handled will change—published documents and unique objects have to be reconsidered. From an abstract perspective, these different institutions are performing the same task: handling information. Their approaches and perspectives, however, differ. For example, archivists emphasize the principle of provenance (knowing an item’s origin and history of ownership). Information professionals must be aware of the various specialized principles and be prepared to adopt them when needed; this understanding is especially useful in dealing with digital resources.

New areas of expertise within information science are developing to respond to the challenges of developing and maintaining collections of new kinds, one of which is digital preservation. Digital preservation is customarily described as “a set of activities aimed toward ensuring access to digital materials over time.” Because information objects are not usable if they cannot be accessed and understood in the future, preservation aims to ensure their availability, understandability, authenticity, viability, and renderability.

Libraries, museums, and archives are making more of their collections available over the internet. Digital libraries, virtual museums, and electronic archives greatly extend access to these collections, in line with a memory institution’s commitment to support education and enjoyment. Marty (1999) observed that information professionals have yet “to analyze and understand the social dimension that emerges when advanced information technology is integrated into an organizational context” (p. 1084). The stage is set for a social informatics perspective on how digital access and collaborative technologies affect memory institutions and people’s memories.

Connections With Computer Science

The stewardship of cultural heritage increasingly demands competence with computer and information technologies; and computer scientists have become increasingly aware of the need to understand and take responsibility for the work and consequences of these technologies. The prominent computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra remarked that “computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes” (Dijkstra, 1972)—highlighting the value of studying the theory and practice of what computers can do, not just the instruments themselves.

Although early work in computer science emphasized the machines and their architecture, the importance of software soon became obvious as programming became easier. The computer moved from being merely a high-speed calculator to become a ubiquitous presence essential for research, business, and leisure. Many of the information scientists who see computer science as their principal profession are members of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). The ACM’s special interest groups of particular interest to information scientists include SIGIR (Information Retrieval), SIGCHI (Computer–Human Interaction), and SIGCAS (Computers and Society).

13.3 Values

Freedom, equal access, and neutrality are fundamental, but contested, values in information science; they are the topics of many of today’s great debates. For instance, people’s “right to know” has been supported by both hackers and the American Library Association. Some would argue that private matters must be protected from public disclosure, and corporations would affirm that no one has either a right to know or a right to access proprietary information unless it was purchased on the open market.

Equity of access is a common, although not universal, value for information professionals. Government-funded agencies (including public libraries) often have equal access as a goal. An individual’s access to information may be limited because of poor literacy skills, economic disadvantages, or physical or learning disabilities. Location can also reduce access: rural communities have less or slower access to the internet, enhancing the effect of the so-called digital divide (Chen & Wellman, 2003).

Neutrality is also a divisive concept. Some interpret neutrality to mean detachment and indifference to the content of what is collected, organized, preserved, and disseminated; from this perspective, the neutral information provider does not discriminate and thus promotes democracy. Others believe that, conversely, a skilled professional demonstrates neutrality by skillfully screening content to provide authoritative answers for information seekers.

It is evident that politics and economics are playing an increasingly influential role in the design, planning, and implementation of information services and the values driving these choices. The contested area of intellectual freedom demonstrates the complexity of upholding a fundamental value.

Intellectual Freedom

The right to intellectual freedom is stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations, 1948).

Several professions, including education and librarianship, promote the safeguarding of this right. For instance, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (1999) states that “the right to know is a requirement for freedom of thought and conscience; freedom of thought and freedom of expression are necessary conditions for freedom of access to information” (para. 3). And the Canadian Library Association (1985) holds that everyone in that country has “the fundamental right … to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity, and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly” (para. 1).

European and North American writers debate how traditional intellectual freedoms will be identified and preserved in the digital age: digital liberties have been described that include access to technology, free exchange of ideas, the right to privacy, culture sharing, knowledge and skill development, and emancipation through empowerment.

Some of the values supporting intellectual freedom may be culturally influenced and sometimes at odds with some sensitive and proprietary indigenous knowledge. This is evident in anthropological research: newly empowered native peoples have found their own voices and claimed the right of repatriation of artifacts, together with the knowledge associated with their religious rituals, in order to regain full ownership of their mysteries.

The concept of intellectual freedom has also expanded to software development, access, and use. For instance, advocates of free and open source software contend that computer users have the right to replace proprietary software (used under restrictive licensing terms and conditions) with free software (considered a superior model for software development). This approach to social, ethical, and technical issues has resulted in efforts to pass legislation encouraging use of free software by government agencies in various countries, including the United States.

13.4 Information Ethics

Issues related to information ethics impinge on technology, government publication and legislation, graphic display, computer security, database management, disinformation, peer review, privacy, censorship, cyberspace, and information liability; these may be approached from sociological, philosophical, theoretical, and applied perspectives (McFarland & Company, 2009). Mason, Mason, and Culnan (1995) described four areas of interest in the field of information ethics: privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility. From a global perspective, Froehlich (1997) identified access, ownership, cultural orientation, and ethical priorities as being key to the consideration of the ethics of information.

In business settings information has vital strategic and therefore economic value. It is an asset to be developed, managed, and leveraged for advantage. Personal information, consumer information, and health information, for example, are generated by individuals and have economic value as well. The increased importance of e-business and user-generated content online reduced personal privacy and information security. Online applications greatly simplify the task of finding people in the physical world. Computer processing power, storage capacity, and interconnectivity often make violations of personal property and information remarkably easy, and incompetent use or abuse of information at either the organizational or personal level can have significant economic and social consequences.

The confluence of personal information (a form of personal property), communication technology, and the base urges of capitalism create ethical dilemmas that may be novel or may represent issues from antiquity recast in modern trappings. As is the case with the other policy aspects of information science, questions of information ethics have personal, institutional, and social dimensions; and they may be considered at both the political and the legal level.

Organizations and professional societies develop codes of ethics or conduct as guidelines for members. These declarations of principles provide a rubric for mission development as well as a model for defining high standards and identifying excellence. Most such professional creeds articulate responsibilities to society and to practitioners and tend to be positive rather than prohibitive in nature. Major issues pertaining to the unethical use of information include, but are by no means limited to, the following:

• Fraud and identity theft
• Protection of and access to personal information from a security standpoint
• Abuse of personal privacy and data mining for commercial or law enforcement reasons
• The protection of personal information such as financial and health information from public disclosure
• Censorship

The ASIS&T Professional Guidelines (American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1992) provide an example:

ASIS&T recognizes the plurality of uses and users of information technologies, services, systems and products as well as the diversity of goals or objectives, sometimes conflicting, among producers, vendors, mediators, and users of information systems.

ASIS&T urges its members to be ever aware of the social, economic, cultural, and political impacts of their actions or inaction.

ASIS&T members have obligations to employers, clients, and system users, to the profession, and to society, to use judgment and discretion in making choices, providing equitable service, and in defending the rights of open inquiry.

Responsibilities to Employers / Clients / System Users:

• To act faithfully for their employers or clients in professional matters
• To uphold each user’s, provider’s, or employer’s right to privacy and confidentiality and to respect whatever proprietary rights belong to them, by limiting access to, providing proper security for, and ensuring proper disposal of data about clients, patrons, or users
• To treat all persons fairly

Responsibility to the Profession: To truthfully represent themselves and the information systems which they utilize or which they represent, by

• Not knowingly making false statements or providing erroneous or misleading information
• Informing their employers, clients, or sponsors of any circumstances that create a conflict of interest
• Not using their position beyond their authorized limits or using their credentials to misrepresent themselves
• Following and promoting standards of conduct in accord with the best current practices
• Undertaking their research conscientiously, in gathering, tabulating, or interpreting data; in following proper approval procedures for subjects; and in producing or disseminating their research results
• Pursuing ongoing professional development and encouraging and assisting colleagues and others to do the same
• Adhering to principles of due process and equality of opportunity

Responsibility to Society: To improve the information systems with which they work or which they represent, to the best of their means and abilities by

• Providing the most reliable and accurate information and acknowledging the credibility of the sources as known or unknown
• Resisting all forms of censorship, inappropriate selection and acquisitions policies, and biases in information selection, provision, and dissemination
• Making known any biases, errors, and inaccuracies found to exist and striving to correct those which can be remedied

To promote open and equal access to information, within the scope permitted by their organizations or work, and to resist procedures that promote unlawful discriminatory practices in access to and provision of information, by

• Seeking to extend public awareness and appreciation of information availability and provision as well as the role of information professionals in providing such information
• Freely reporting, publishing, or disseminating information subject to legal and proprietary restraints of producers, vendors and employers, and the best interests of their employers or clients

Information professionals shall engage in principled conduct whether on their own behalf or at the request of employers, colleagues, clients, agencies, or the profession.

Some ethical issues related to the use and abuse of information date from antiquity, such as the persistent issues of censorship and identity theft. Technological developments have exacerbated some concerns, but the fundamental issues are constant. Other issues, such as data mining and the use of technologies such as radio frequency identification and global positioning system tracking, have raised new questions about the nature of privacy and anonymity.

In many cases, modern ethical questions are not new but have become more pressing and relevant because of fundamental technological trends. Technological factors that contribute to or exacerbate problems in the information society include the exponential growth of processing power and storage capacity of information-handling technology (computers and network devices), increased incidental data production by individuals (daily living now results in a much more detailed data trail than it did 25 years ago), and increasingly sophisticated and wide-reaching data analysis tools.

Because using today’s information and communication technologies can provide significant economic value, some entities are highly motivated to refine their techniques in order to increase profit by selling ever more detailed information about individuals. Such data aggregators and brokers are controversial; however, many of their sources of information have always been publicly available and have simply become more convenient with the advent of widespread information networks.

For example, a search of home sales and tax records once required a trip to the local or state records office; today a much larger search can be done in less time from any device with access to the appropriate data repositories. The practice has not changed, but its speed and convenience have.

Any discussion of information ethics must first consider what constitutes ethical behavior. Ethics comprises the precepts that free individuals use in making choices to guide their decisions and behaviors. Without undertaking a study of the history of ethics, it is useful to consider the most commonly used ethical principle in Western civilization: Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, a moral test that asks the question: If everyone behaved in this way, could the organization or society in general survive? It can also be seen as a restatement of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Smith (1997) noted two dominant philosophical approaches to information ethics: utilitarian (largely based on the work of John Stuart Mill) and deontological (largely based on Kant’s work). Mitcham and Huning (1986) considered epistemological and metaphysical issues surrounding information. Mason and colleagues’ (1995) textbook, Ethics of Information Management, explored the life cycle of information, including ethical considerations regarding information dissemination and integrity and their impact on society in general. Spinello (1995) examined concerns about personal information rights such as informed consent, privacy, and intellectual property.

Questions of information ethics are often considered in terms of basic ethical tests:

• The slippery slope: This ethical test asks whether an act’s rightness or wrongness is defined by its magnitude. (If I make an analog copy of a recording for a child, is that different from distributing the recording on the internet? Alternatively, is it more moral to take a $1 bribe than a $10,000 bribe?)
• Utilitarianism: As described by Mill, the rightness of an act is determined entirely by its consequences, or in more colloquial terms, “The end justifies the means.” Such a calculus is common in business and government, in which net benefit is measured against potential liability to determine a course of action.
• Risk aversion: This test asks, “What are the consequences to me from this action?” The potential negative effects of a decision are weighed against potential benefits. This line of thought may take its most famous form in Pascal’s argument for belief in God, paraphrased as follows: To believe in God and to be wrong costs one nothing. However, if one does not believe in God and is wrong, then the penalty is infinite. Thus, it is better to believe than not.
• The no-free-lunch rule: This rubric for making ethical decisions assumes that any tangible property is owned by someone unless explicitly stated otherwise. It is a test that asks, What is the likelihood that taking this action will deprive someone else of his or her property?

Laudon and Laudon (2007) described five moral issues of importance to an information society:

1. Individual information rights: What are the rights of the individuals with regard to information about themselves or created by themselves? Concerns include data mining of records and protection of personal information such as telephone numbers or medical records.
2. Intellectual property rights and obligations: How can creative works or inventions of an intangible nature be protected in the digital marketplace? In short, how can intellectual property rights be maintained in an environment in which such creations are neither rivalrous (can be possessed by more than one person) nor excludable (people who have not paid can be prevented from having access)?
3. Accountability and control: Who is responsible or accountable in the event that data or information is lost and personal privacy or other social harms result? The legal concepts of responsibility, accountability, and liability all come into play with regard to this aspect of information ethics.
4. System quality: What public standards exist to ensure the reliability and quality of the information in information systems? Issues in this area include the rights of individuals to access and correct information about them and to seek justice in the event that information is lost or misused.
5. Quality of life: What institutions and values will be preserved in a society in which all information generated by an individual is available through some electronic source? Examples include the extent to which individuals have an expectation of privacy in their daily lives and the role of the library in a changing information-based economy.

Social ethical norms play a major role in understanding ethical decisions. For example, although U.S. law contains no explicit right to privacy, individuals have historically had what Justice Blackmun (1986, p. 199) described as “the right to be left alone,” based on the principles detailed in the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, First Amendment protections relating to speech and assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the individual from unreasonable search and seizure, have been held to protect the individual from unwanted scrutiny.

In a society in which the protection of personal property has become the paramount social value, any product generated by an individual that has negotiable worth is deemed worthy of protection. Consequently, records and personal information may be protected from public disclosure for personal reasons or for economic ones.

Numerous laws exist to protect individuals and to address ethical dilemmas created by the presence of vast amounts of information available instantly anywhere in the world to billions of highly unpredictable users. Examples of policies (laws) that exist to protect the individual include the Financial Privacy Act of 1974 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects medical records from unauthorized disclosure. Restricting content available to minors has long been a justification for censorship; modern incarnations include the Communications Decency Act and the Children’s Internet Protection Act.

Attempts to legislate other aspects of information use in society that have ethical dimensions include the development of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which (among other things) restricts research into encryption technologies in an attempt to make copy protection a viable technology by eliminating users’ ability to examine those technologies legally.

To conclude, the accelerative aspects of information technology continue to blur the distinctions between disciplines, making information ethics a complex and evolving area of inquiry.

Issues such as the role that information plays in creating a better society and the ethical implications of the digital divide, ownership, access, censorship, and privacy domestically and globally continue to be complex and vexatious. Simple guidelines rather than prohibitions seem to be the more effective approach to making ethically sound decisions for the individual and society.

One approach, adopted by the American Library Association, is that information should be made available to all people. How individuals use (or choose not to use) such information to their advantage affects everyone, but the ethical considerations then fall to the individual rather than to policymakers. Such an approach leads to a multiplicity of outcomes, but if information has one unifying trait, it is that its significance and utility are directly proportional to the number of users.

Like information use, information ethics is dependent on the activities of individuals, or in the parlance of moral philosophers, free moral agents. People have developed uses for networked information that are far beyond the original expectations of authors or telecommunications workers; it is the freedom to make decisions based on information that leads to innovation and diversity of opinion. Such decisions necessarily entail ethical concerns.

Top-down mandates dictating how information should be used not only stifle innovation and intellectual freedom, but such behavior also tends to be strongly culturally biased and leads to conflict at the moral, personal, societal, and global levels. Individuals must have access to information for the sake of good government, innovation and economic growth, and personal development. The role of the individual in creating a better society is affected by access to information and the ability to transform it into knowledge. Wise policymakers will bear in mind that intellectual freedom is a powerful social force, and policy decisions should be geared toward expanding the freedoms and rights of the engines of innovation—information users.

13.5 Links to Professional Associations

Here are links to several important professional associations:

• American Association of Museums – www.aam-us.org
• American Library Association – www.ala.org
• American Society for Information Science and Technology – www.asis.org
• ARMA International – www.arma.org
• Association for Computing Machinery – www.acm.org
• International Council on Archives – www.ica.org
• International Council of Museums – www.icom.museum
• Society of American Archivists – www.archivists.org
• Special Libraries Association – www.sla.org