INFORMATION ETHICS

Demonstrate awareness of the ethics, values, and foundational principles of one of the information professions, and discuss the importance of those principles within that profession.

STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY

The American Library Association (ALA) (1939/2019) proclaims that “all libraries are forums for information and ideas” (para. 1). In order to establish, standardize, and communicate values which promote the competent facilitation of said information and ideas, a strong ethical foundation is required. Across the United States, the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights (1939/2019) and Code of Ethics (1939/2021) are widely regarded as the primary documents within which values and ethics central to librarianship are declared, and continually updated. Furthermore, the Association of College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) (1999) Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights adapts the ALA’s core ethics and values for application within academic settings. There exists no formal process by which the ALA or ARCL enforces the adoption of its ethics and values as written; as such, these documents are widely interpreted as providing a framework by which individual libraries can—and arguably should—formulate and codify their own values and policies.

Given multiple core ethics promoted by the ALA and ACRL—in addition to laws and other societal expectations—certain scenarios might cause one ethic or value to come into tension with another. Ferguson, et al. (2016) define ethical dilemmas as “situations in which there are conflicting ethical obligations, and doing one right thing has the potential to cause harm in another way” (p. 544). Considering this potential for conflict, individual ethics and values should arguably be evaluated against others within the context of a given situation, and not applied dogmatically. Fallis (2007) and Ferguson, et al. (2016) advocate for information professionals to continually examine published case studies of ethical dilemmas in practice, so that precedence for handling certain types of conflicts can be established.

Core ethics promoted by the ALA (2019/2021) include users’ “[rights] to confidentiality and privacy” in their use of library services and materials (para. 7), observation of intellectual property rights when considering access to materials (para. 8), and the continual pursuit of “racial and social justice” within workplace culture, user interactions, and the design of services (para. 12). However, the most consequential ethical principle is arguably intellectual freedom, which Jones (2015) defines as “the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction” (p. 3). Intellectual freedom informs the ALA’s (1939/2019) established values that collections and services should not reflect personal or institutional bias (para. 2), that access and services should be granted equitably to all users (para. 2; para. 6), that collections should present all sides of given ideological debates (para. 3), and that all censorship campaigns should be routinely challenged (para. 4; para. 5).

The ALA’s ethical framework—and the value of intellectual freedom, in particular—is rooted in the notion of neutrality, by which Seiter (2018) asserts that “equal weight [is given to] all information and viewpoints regardless of the power structures behind them” (p. 109). Neutrality as a guiding principle can bolster libraries’ efforts to oppose reactionary censorship efforts; recent challenges targeting the removal of Art Spiegelman’s Maus from public libraries arguably affirm the value of neutral library ideology, particularly in politically reactionary communities. However, upon considering our nation’s long history of colonialism, discrimination, and systemic inequities—all of which, according to Chiu, at al. (2021) have contributed to a publishing industry dominated by white, male perspectives (pp. 59-60)—the stated value of uncritically furnishing “all points of view” may still contribute toward white, male dominated, and thus unknowingly biased collections, if neutrality is not balanced by appropriate sociopolitical considerations. Additionally, academic librarianship’s commitment to critical information literacy, as outlined within the ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education—an inherently political model, whereby students are taught to evaluate information based on its accuracy, authority, and trustworthiness—is arguably incompatible with neutrality, which inherently values apolitical, uncritical approaches to the development of collections and services.

While a “neutral” approach to collection development, for example, might justify the acquisition of pseudoscientific materials or hate literature, critical perspectives offer the reminder that intellectual freedom concerns should be considered in conjunction with user needs and sensitivities. However, the potential importance of problematic materials within academic libraries, specifically, should not be overlooked; while a given piece of hate literature, for example, might be determined to present more harm than good within the context of a small, public library collection, the library of a research institution might find it valuable as a historical artifact to be studied critically, in context (Pekoll & Adams, 2015, p. 92). Regardless of given circumstances, the ACRL (1999) asserts that proposals to acquire or eliminate resources and services should be met by “[a] procedure ensuring due process” (para. 12); this statement offers a framework by which political concerns and community sensitivities can coexist with intellectual freedom protections, given established checks and balances in both directions.

Ferguson, et al. (2016) qualify many ethical dilemmas involving intellectual freedom concerns as matters of “access to information [versus] obligation to society” (p. 544). Other ethical dilemmas involving access to information may arise when the value of maximizing access comes into conflict with another ethical concern: for example, a case study regarding access to information versus intellectual property rights, in which academic librarians considered the ethical implications of violating copyright laws to produce a Braille copy of a given resource, thus ensuring access for a visually impaired user (p. 547). The tension between “privacy [and] organizational ethos,” is exemplified by a case in which a professor attempted to access a student’s library record, in order to confirm suspicions of plagiarism (pp. 547-548). While some of these specific dilemmas may present greater moral ambiguity than others, their central ethical themes carry the potential of resurfacing in unpredictable ways. Academic librarians must possess a shrewd understanding of their profession’s ethical codes—as well as their shortcomings in the face of nuanced situations—in order to competently address all potential stakeholders.

COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT

Several courses have contributed toward my gradual comprehension of information ethics and their application, beginning with INFO 200: Information Communities. This course helped me establish an understanding of intellectual freedom, among other principles central to information ethics. Additionally, INFO 256: Archives and Manuscripts gave me a sense of ethical issues central to the archival profession. However, INFO 281: Building a Critical Culture presented me with a valuable opportunity to not only deepen my understanding of these values, but to interrogate them from the standpoint of critical theory. Learning about the notion of “neutrality”—a central theme within critical librarianship discourse—gave me valuable perspective regarding the ALA’s ethics statements, and how their core value of intellectual freedom is often used, sometimes unknowingly, to sustain sociopolitical power imbalances: within collections, reference services, and even workplace cultures.

While somewhat peripheral to the subject of information ethics, INFO 254: Information Literacy and Learning contributed to my understanding of the political and social contexts which produce information, and how these contexts must be critically examined in order to competently navigate misinformation, disinformation, information glut, and other, often overwhelming realities of the modern information landscape. While it is not an ethics statement per se, the ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education strikes me as an appropriately nuanced guide for the understanding of an increasingly fragmented, unreliable information environment. While I wish the ALA’s values statements demonstrated a comparable level of nuance in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, I nonetheless take these values seriously, and commit to adhere to their principles, as interpreted by my future places of work, to the best of my ability as an academic librarian.

SELECTED ARTIFACTS

Through the following pieces of written work, I seek to demonstrate my understanding of information ethics, and their application within several information professions: namely, academic librarianship, public librarianship, and archives.

INFO 281 - Issue Brief - Taylor Kaplan copy.pdf

INFO 281: ISSUE brief - "All points of view?: intellectual freedom vs. social justice in library practice"

This issue brief is written from the perspective of an academic librarian, seeking administrative buy-in for an adjustment to their institution’s interpretation of the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights: specifically regarding Article II, which states that “[l]ibraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues”. Specifically, this brief weighs notions of intellectual freedom and neutrality against communal responsibilities of socially just collection development, and seeks balance between these often incompatible perspectives.

INFO 281 - Critical Conversations, Week 2 copy.pdf

INFO 281: Critical conversations - week two

The first portion of this discussion post addresses the ALA’s Code of Ethics, and how its prevailing lack of context, and applied case studies, results in the difficulty of its application to actual ethical dilemmas. The second portion addresses challenges to resources filed by community members, and how challenges emerging from politically left-leaning perspectives might require librarians to prioritize ethical responsibilities over their own political convictions.

INFO 210 - Discussion 6.pdf

INFO 210: Discussion six - community partnerships

This discussion post addresses an ongoing programming partnership at Oakland Public Library, in which representatives from Oakland Tenants Union field questions regarding renters’ rights. This program, while demonstrably popular with the library’s user base, due to high costs of living in Oakland, is found to offer librarians an easy way out of a potential ethical dilemma; instead of illicitly offering legal advice to patrons, librarians can point them toward a community partnership which addresses their information needs.

INFO 256 - Discussion Posts - Theme One.pdf

INFO 256: theme one, case two - censorship

This discussion post is written from the perspective of a university archivist upon acquiring a microfilm copy of the university founder’s personal papers, from the Library of Congress. In response to the university president’s demand that archival staff delete a portion of the microfilm—as it contains sensitive information regarding the university founder’s sexual orientation—the ethics of such deletion are discussed, within the context of the Society of American Archivists’ Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics.

CONCLUSION

Peterson (1983) advocates for the existence of prominently published codes of information ethics, “because we librarians have always had trouble in identifying ourselves to the general public—and even to ourselves” (p. 133). Regardless of how well established our profession’s values and ethics are, the ALA’s primary values statements—in their effort to promote intellectual freedom, equitable access, privacy and confidentiality, and intellectual property, serve the crucial purpose of providing libraries a framework with which to design their own guiding principles, as well as informing users of what they can expect from librarians and library services. However, ethical dilemmas can surface when individual values come into conflict. Tensions between intellectual freedom and social justice, neutrality and information literacy, or equitable access and intellectual property rights, present just a few examples of recurring conflicts which are not easily resolved; yet, by establishing a foundational understanding of information ethics, continually examining case studies of ethical dilemmas, and applying the ALA and ACRL’s stated values sensibly, according to local circumstances and needs, academic librarians can properly equip themselves and their institutions to navigate morally complex situations with the nuance they require.

REFERENCES

American Library Association. (2019). Library bill of rights. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

American Library Association. (2019). Code of ethics. https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

Association of College & Research Libraries. (1999). Intellectual freedom principles for academic libraries: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/intellectual

Chiu, A., Ettarh, F. M., & Ferretti, J. (2022). Not the shark, but the water: How neutrality and vocational awe intertwine to uphold white supremacy. In Leung, S. Y., & López-McKnight, J. R. (Eds.), Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory (pp. 49-71). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11969.001.0001

Fallis, D. (2007). Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals. Library Hi Tech, 25(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830710735830

Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2016). Beyond codes of ethics: How library and information professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in a complex and dynamic information environment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(1), 543-556. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.012

Jones, B. M. (2015). What is intellectual freedom? In Magi, T., & Garnar, M. (Eds.), Intellectual freedom manual (pp. 3-13). ALA Editions.

Pekoll, K., & Adams, H. R. (2015). How to respond to challenges and concerns about library resources. In Magi, T., & Garnar, M. (Eds.), Intellectual freedom manual (pp. 83-92). ALA Editions.

Peterson, K. G. (1983). Ethics in academic librarianship: The need for values. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 9(3), 132-137.

Seiter, A. (2019). Libraries, power, and justice: Toward a sociohistorically informed intellectual freedom. Progressive Librarian, 47(1), 107-117. http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL47/107seiter.pdf