Ethics from the
Bottom-Up? Immersive Ethics and the LIS Curriculum
Forthcoming: Journal
of Information Ethics
Spring 2009
Johannes Britz, Ph.D.,
Dean and Professor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
and
Department of Information Science
(t)414.229.4709
(f)414.229.6699
And
Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D. (**)
Associate Professor and Director
Center for Information Policy Research
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
buchanan@sois.uwm.edu
(t)414.229.3973
(f)414.229.6699
** direct correspondence
Introduction
Traditionally, information ethics focuses on the moral questions relating to the life cycle of information as it pertains to its generation, gathering, organization, storage, retrieval, and use. As a field it broadly examines issues related to privacy, security, access to information, intellectual freedom, quality and integrity of information, as well as intellectual property rights. In addition, the broader domain of professional ethics is of import, encompassing the ways we as professionals engage with, and respond and react to those ethical issues. The main stakeholders impacted by this array of ethical issues can be divided into three groups. These are the creators/distributors of information products and services, information mediators, including librarians, and the information users. Information and communication technology (ICT) supports the different information life cycle activities and plays a pivotal role in the shaping, understanding, and defining of information ethics.
The development of modern ICT has profoundly changed the information and knowledge landscape, and as a result, has fundamentally impacted the field of information ethics. In this article we will examine this impact and illustrate how modern ICT has changed the scope and application of information ethics in the discipline of library and information science, and consider the implications for embedding information ethics squarely within and across an LIS curriculum, in an immersive fashion. We thus structure the paper in the following manner: We introduce the topic by outlining the impact of modern ICT on nearly all human activities. We furthermore elaborate on the profound change that modern ICT brings about with regards to the unbundling, distribution, reproduction, and manipulation of information. To gain a clear understanding of how ICT impacted information ethics it is important to understand the relationship between technology and society. We discuss this relationship briefly in the next part of the paper. Based on this relationship we illustrate in the final section how modern ICT has impacted the field of information ethics, and how we as LIS educators must consider this impact. This paper sets the context for a deeper consideration of information ethics pedagogy, which will be explored in a subsequent series of papers presented in JIE.
Everything is information
Modern information and communication technology, which is defined by Preston (2004, p. 35) as “the cluster or interrelated systems of technological innovations in the fields of microelectronics, computing, electronic communications including broadcasting and the Internet,” bring about a profound transformation in the information and knowledge landscape and has radically changed most of our way of living and the way in which we do things. As such it is seen as ubiquitous, invading most facets of our existence. It has created a new and unprecedented form of dependence and most organizations and institutions, including libraries, rely on some form of ICT for their daily operations. It is clear that ICT has become the default technology for most of our socio-economic activities and the organizational changes and benefits that it brought about are no longer in question (Introna, 2005).
The impact of these technologies arises from three of its characteristics. In the first place it is an enabling technology that has not only become instrumental in most of our activities, but also contributes to further technological development and changes. Secondly, it has grown, in terms of its capacity, exponentially over the last couple our years and thirdly, it has become cheaper, making it more affordable and accessible to nearly everyone (Freeman & Louca, 2002).
As such, the introduction of new and modern ICT opens up new possibilities for libraries and information agencies. The most important hereof is the digitization and accompanied manipulation of information. This has far-reaching consequences, not only for the different information based activities pertaining to the life cycle of information, but also with regards to the ethical issues relating to these information-based activities.
The digitization of information allows for the first time the unbundling of information from its original physical carriers, such as objects (e.g. a house), paper and other print material in a different and unique way that previous ICTs, including writing and printing, were not able to do. Pre-digital information technologies did not have the ability to simultaneously reach million of people and allow synchronic interactivity and the customization of needs. Due to modern ICT, digitized information has become interlinked (hypermedia), can “travel by itself” at nearly zero cost, and can reach more people in an interactive way. Obvious examples include e-mail, webcam technologies, as well as interactive TV. These technologies allow for the mass customization of users’ needs, including, and especially, information needs (Evans & Wurster, 1997). A good example of the ability to customize information according to user’s needs is the online booking of airline tickets where people can select their seats as well as meals online; indeed, a customer is at a significant disadvantage without access to ICT in this example. Costs are higher, goods and services unavailable to those without access. Another example is the ability to renew library material online without having to physically visit the library. There has indeed been a move from “textuality to multimediality” (Linguist, 1998, p. 6). It is within this context that philosophers such as Rucker (1988) and De Mul (2003) remark that “everything has become information.” Or, perhaps, as Weinberger (2007) has more recently concluded, “everything is miscellaneous.” In line with Freeman and Soete (1997) we maintain that modern ICT has indeed fundamentally restructured the service economy and, in particular libraries, in terms of both their products and services.
ICT and its relationship to society
In this article our concern is not per se to evaluate the transformation that modern ICT did bring about (see, for example, Sclove, 1995; Tenner, 1997), but we are more interested in the way that it influenced ethical discourse, particularly as it relates to the life cycle of information. In the discussion of this influence on ethical discourse, it is important to first position ourselves regarding the role that technology plays in society. We take as starting point that we don’t live anymore in a pre-technological era (Borgmann, 1984). We argue, in line with Heidegger, that technology is not something strange to us, but is rather a product of human creativity to solve problems. Our position of modern ICT is therefore that technology and society co-constitute one another; we are informed by and informing technology. In other words, one cannot be without the other because of our a-prior technological attitude towards the world. As humans we are in essence technology-orientated and technology is a reflection of who we are. That is why Heidegger claims that “the essence of technology is nothing technological” (1977, p. 32). In line with Heidegger we are of opinion that technology, in particular modern ICT, makes sense to us because we are orientated towards technology to find solutions to our problems, and in this case, to those problems relating to the flow of information between creators and users of information products and services. Modern ICT should therefore also be seen as a social construction created by us to serve a certain purpose. As such it has become an instrument of power whose uses and consequences are co-determined by its social context, which could be, for example, a library. It is therefore our position that society and technology shape one another and certain values are imbedded in the design and use of technology to, theoretically, at least, enhance our lives. All technology is value-laden. As Introna puts it “…the task of ethics is to open up the ‘black box’ of information technology and reveal or disclose the values and interests it embodies for scrutiny and reflection” (2005, p. 7). As we educate in LIS, we must address these values head on, on the practical and on the theoretical levels. This is praxis—an ongoing deep reflection on theory and engagement in practice, continually informed by and informing each other. By engaging in, and encouraging the critical examination of technological discourses, we position future LIS professionals to understand their role in the human aspect of the information life cycle.
Within this framework we focus in the next section of this paper in more detail on the way in which modern ICT has contributed to and problematized theory and practice in library and information science.
Ethics Everywhere?
ICTs have a direct impact on a range of issues relevant to the LIS field, and by extension, our institutions, our libraries, and information agencies; we identify four here, though there are many others easily identifiable: Privacy; access, which encompasses intellectual freedom principles, but also, the concept of access to “unbundled objects” or digital pieces of information; accuracy and truth, as in, how do we verify the correctness of information as an abstraction of reality; and intellectual property, which has spiraled as an area of impact in light of digital reproduction at zero marginal cost, contributing to a growing fragility in the framework of western intellectual property models is fragile. We present these discretely, insofar as possible, noting the inherent interconnectedness of the issues. It is, for instance, impossible to discuss privacy without noting the transparent and incessant flow of and access to information “bundles” that occurs around us.
Privacy is a fundamental principle in the LIS field, as we commit theoretically and practically to protect our users’ privacy. Privacy is simultaneously a legal, philosophical, social, ideological and historical construct. It is, in light of ICTs, a technological construct as well, violating and protecting privacy in a seemingly unending contradiction. Mass surveillance and registration, keystroke monitoring, digital personae are emerging as societal, indeed, global norms. Various externalities seek our most private information, and ICTs make them readily available: From our medical records to our reading habits, governmental and/or commercial interests gather, use, and misuse our personal information. ICTs can mine and distort private information, while conversely, the act of providing private information, for instance, creating profiles, accounts, et cetera, enable us to live more readily, more conveniently, more presently, in an age of ICT. It is a paradox, to be sure, contributing to a growing tension between privacy in one regard and access on another. Thus, ICTs respond with PETs—privacy enhancing technologies, contributing to a seemingly never ending construction and reconstruction of technologies. It is in this unending mediation between technology and society where we also see the influence of—and reaction by—law.
Societally, personally, and professionally, we must decide where privacy fits in our cultural discourse. We can choose to redefine it, legally, philosophically, economically. Libraries as social institutions are integral in this redefinition, and LIS education plays a role by examining privacy in its great complexities. It is not enough to start—and stop—at a code of ethics, but instead, we must explore the construct of privacy across our curriculum.
Next, access to information is a basic premise in the LIS field. This is our task and our goal—to provide unfettered access to information. As LIS educators, we teach “reference” and “sources and services.” We give great discussion to the principles of access vis-ŕ-vis intellectual freedom models and rights to information. One need only look at the array of codes of ethics to see how “access” is squarely presented as a core principle in information work. We “strive to provide access.” And certainly, ICTs have changed the way we talk about information and access to it. Information retrieval systems, digital libraries, web 2.0, the list changes daily, and as it does, newfound concerns emerge. Such technologies, again, are never neutral, but are always biased by culture, ideology, temporality, and so on. This is why understanding intercultural ethics is now the most pressing issue for us as LIS educators. Intercultural ethics allows us to consider the global nature of library and information work in the twenty-first century through a critical and responsive framework, analyzing technology itself within the context of cultural and cross-cultural realities (Capurro, 2007). As access to information itself, on a global level, is increasingly mediated by ICTs, their inherent non-neutrality becomes more problematic.
Moreover, LIS professionals have historically been charged with assisting others in verifying the accuracy and truth of information by providing “quality” sources and services and providing access to those services. There was a clear chain of information processing, and the librarian or information specialist controlled and mediated that process. ICTs, is seems unarguable, have changed the domain of the information seeker, who can assume more responsibility for the information he or she desires. This, of course, comes with growing concerns around the quality, accuracy, and indeed, truth of that information, as anyone can publish anything and present it as truth. Blogs, for instance, are a prime example of the ways in which information can be manipulated by and for users of all kinds. It is fascinating to watch as such technologies as social networking tools embed themselves within the information universe, waiting for no one’s approval or validation. We ask ourselves as LIS professionals how we will respond--how do we approach these pedagogically and philosophically?
And, as technologies change and impact the ways in which understand information itself, we consider intellectual property models. Lessig (2004) has powerfully argued that our culture is at a defining moment in light of and because of intellectual property and the growing tensions among technology, law, and society. The western model of IP has grown to dominate the way we think about creativity, ownership, access, privacy, and even the truthfulness of information. Vaidhyanathan (2007) has recognized the profound impact on IP from such entities as Google and its all-encompassing reach into and over information technologies. We are seeing IP models stretched to serve ill-purposes, disconnected from its original intent of encouraging creativity to now control and box in information. Bio-piracy, for instance, is a prime outcome of IP gone terribly wrong; if we, again, return to the framework of intercultural ethics, we see the people wronged by the usurpation of knowledge and information, approved of and facilitated by extant IP models. We teach a top-down IP model, for that is what we know, and of course, it is law for many of us. But there are alternative models, and we can teach about ethical IP models, and challenge our future professionals to question and seek beyond. We look to a bottom-up approach, looking to and hearing the perspectives and voices from the ground.
The Educational and the Social
LIS education is continually impacting and impacted by our social realities, including technologies, the very ICTs that we are using in our teaching, for our teaching (as in distance education, for example). ICTs are not only technical. They are social. To best understand how to incorporate and how to mediate ICTs in society, and in our societal institutions, LIS educators must think about the transparency and embeddedness of ICTs as they affect the profession. We are doing a disservice to teach how to use a technology without teaching about its societal, ideological, philosophical, legal realities. It is not enough to teach without an awareness of the broader implications of our work, our profession. Indeed, it is our duty to call constant attention to these, with a critical eye to our future, informed by our past, informed by others and those outside the “norms.” We encourage ground-up models of professional ethics, as opposed to top-down, prescriptive models. Within a ground-up model, we see new perspectives, hear different voices, and hopefully, appreciate difference.
We see the continued role that ICTs will play in our profession and our lives, and acknowledge that ICTs are a constant give and take, giving new energy, new hope, new potential to our field. Conversely, they are continually taking away established realities, established principles, established knowledges in our field. Information ethics allows us as professionals to best position ourselves in the incessant mediation created in and by ICTs. As a global society, we have given our approval of ICTs as an integral component of our lives. Intercultural ethics allows us to evaluate that approval with a critical eye. As a profession, we have embraced ICTs for our daily work. Who would, indeed, who could, return to pre-information technology days? Could we conceive of such days anymore, so completely immersed are we in an ICT society, or infosphere, as Floridi (2007) has described?
If indeed we are inescapably engaged in this realm, those that are charged with the stewardship of information, librarians and information professionals, need a firm foundation of ethics from which they embrace information work. We believe the time is ripe to embed information ethics clearly across the LIS professional education. This is more than a discrete class or a week spent on “ethics and LIS.”It is more than a cursory presentation of a code of ethics. It is a true immersion within a model of ethical awareness and responsibility that is the basis for all of what we teach and do in LIS. It is ethical praxis. The things we identify and call “ethical issues” are more than that. As Harris (2007) has suggested, all ethical issues are major issues. If we see information ethics as all of what we do, we have reached the starting point.
References
Barbour,
Borgmann, A.
(1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life.
Capurro, R., Frühbauer, J. and
Hausmanninger, T. (2007). (Eds.):
Localizing the Internet. Ethical Aspects in Intercultural Perspective. ICIE
Series Vol. 4,
De Mul, J. (2003). Cyberspace odyssee. Kampen: Uitgeverij Klement.
Evans, P.B. &
Wurster, T.S. (1997). Strategies and the new economics of
information. Harvard business review,
(September): 71-82.
Freeman, C. and Louca, F. (2002). As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information
Revolution.
Floridi, L. (2007). Understanding information ethics. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computing
6(2).
Heidegger, M. (1977).
The question concerning technology and
other essays. (Translated and with introduction by William Lovitt).
Harris, V. (2007). Archives and Ethics. Keynote Address,
Archives and Ethics: Reflections on Practice Conference.
Introna, L. (2005). Phenomenological approaches to ethics and information technology. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 20 November 2007 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics/ethics-it-phenomenology/
Lessig, L. (2004). Free
Culture.
Lindquist, M. G.
1998. Citations in the digital space. The Journal of
Electronic Publishing. [Online]. Retrieved 10 October 2007 from
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-03/lindquist.html.
Rucker, R. (1988).
Mind tools: the five levels of
mathematical reality.
Sclove, R. (1995).
Democracy and technology.
Tenner, E. (1997).
Why things bite back: Technology and the
revenge of unintended consequences.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007). The googlization of everything. Retrieved 6 December 2007, from http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/.
Weinberger, D.
(2007). Everything is miscellaneous.