Infoethics for Leaders: Models of Moral Agency in the Information Environment

INFOETHICS, THE ETHICS OF information systems, can offer insights and methods to understand the problems which leaders in the information professions face. As moral agents (ethical selves) who assume responsibility in their personal, private, professional, and public lives, information professionals balance conflicting loyalties. In the workplace, they negotiate between the ideals and realities of their institutions and of the profession in making decisions. In the global information environment, leaders will be needed to use the tools of ethical analysis for shaping policy. INTRODUCTION In the title story of The Abzlene Paradox, the author Jerry Harvey (1988), his wife, his mother-in-law, and his father-in-law go toAbilene, Texas, one hot July afternoon “in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick” (p. 13). They discover later that none of them had wanted to go. Why then did they go to Abilene? They went because they misunderstood each other. All had wanted to stay home, but they had not communicated their desires honestly. This story illustrates the problem of managing agreement in organizational life. Harvey says that agreement is much harder to manage than conflict because most people fear revealing their real opinions if they think that their views are contrary to those of the prevailing group. Too often, according to Harvey, members of “organizations fail to accurately communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another” and thus Martha Montague Smith, Kenan Library, Saint Mary’s College, Raleigh, NC 27603LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 40, No. 3, Winter 1992, pp. 553-70 @ 1992 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 1689 554 LIBRARY TRENDSIWINTER 1992 there is a “misperceiving of the collective reality.” In private, members may actually agree on the solution to a certain problem, but this is not communicated effectively (p. 16). Harvey’s story provides an appropriate introduction to the present discussion of ethics and leadership. Here i t will be suggested that ethics offers traditions of analysis and methods which leaders can use in facing an uncertain future. The need to question assumptions and the shaping of intellectual tools for approaching controversial issues are both part of the rich heritage of ethics. In the past fifty years, for example, ethicists have confronted challenging new issues in medicine. More recently. the environment has become an arena for ethical inquiry. So too will the future of information and those who manage information resources be proper subjects for ethical analysis. Ethics raises the questions of what is good and what is just. Ethical analysis is designed for weighing competing factors. What is the best of the good? What is the worst of the bad? Ethical inquiry presses to the principles and foundations of both agreement and conflict. What are the goals? How are ends related to means? Applied ethics, such as bioethics or environmental ethics, moves these questions into the private and public arenas. Issues such as the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment or a company’s responsibility to clean up an environmental pollutant illustrate the role of applied ethics in society. Similarly, as information has become a recognized commodity and source of power (Toffler, 1990), the need to address information issues, such as access and privacy, in a systematic way has been acknowledged by many. Thus, the following are some of the questions which may be posed: 1. What are the big questions concerning information? What is the relationship between information and the good of society? What is the relationship between information and justice? Who will decide the future of information? 2. What should be the relationship between the many information professions and the public consumers of information? Is a new megaprofessional code needed? Perhaps a new government information agency is needed? 3. How are codes and other statements of purpose and policy to be used in ethical inquiry and to address problems (Lindsey & Prentice 1985; Finks, 1991)? 4. How shall professionals be prepared and sustained to ask the big questions about options for the future (White, 1989)? 5. What sources can be used and what research can be encouraged to offer insights into these matters (Ellul, 1964, 1990; Florman, 1981)? 6. Is i t appropriate for information professionals to raise these questions in public forums (Doctor, 1991)? SMITH/INFOETHICS FOR LEADERS 555 That leaders in libraries and information services must be participants in planning for the future by asking such hard questions is the burden of this article. It is assumed that a better understanding of the field of ethics can help leaders ask better questions and make the best decisions. Ethics, for the purpose of this discussion, does not refer to codes or to a particular morality but to a discipline of study and a process of reflection which leads to the clarification of assumptions and alternatives. The pursuit of ethical understanding, especially in applied areas, of ten calls for multidisciplinary approaches. One example of this is found in programs of science, technology, and society (Cutcliffe, 1983; Reynolds, 1987) where engineers, physicists, theologians, and policy analysts work together. Ethical concerns in library and information science (Brown, 1990) have been diverse and include issues of censorship (Demac, 1988), threats to privacy (Gerhardt, 1990), reference service (Hardy, 1990), vendor relations (Sugnet, 1986), questions of equity (Doctor, 1991), and access to government information (Schmidt, 1989). Hard issues, such as defining areas of responsibility for electronic technologies (Jonas, 1984) and defining freedom in a new environment (Pool, 1983), have also been topics for ethical inquiry. All these areas are relevant to current discussions of democracy, literacy, and productivity-the theme areas for the 1991 White House Conference on Information and Library Service. The field of ethics offers a variety of frameworks for examining information technology in relation to the future of humanity (Iannone, 1987). Diverse philosophical traditions, including the contributions of Bacon, Hume, Marx, Heidegger, Whitehead, and others, have been explored in recent scholarship (Ferr, 1988). The many approaches provide no easy answers. Increasing activity in the philosophy and ethics of technology, however, suggests broad interest in these issues (Kranzberg, 1980; Durbin, 1987; Ihde, 1990). The term infoethics is used here to unite under one term a wide variety of concerns. Like bioethics, which considers ethical issues and living systems, infoethics examines ethical issues and information systems. As, for example, bioethics addresses genetic engineering, infoethics addresses the engineering of information systems as these systems influence individual welfare and the public good. Like bioethics, which moves beyond medical ethics and the professional ethics of doctors and nurses, infoethics includes, but is not confined to, the professional ethics of librarians, information specialists, and those in related fields. Infoethics encompasses computer ethics (Johnson, 1985), media ethics (Christians, 1987), library ethics (Hauptman, 1988), and networking ethics (Gould, 1989). To summarize, infoethics addresses the use of information in relation 556 LIBRARY TRENDVWPNTER 1992 to human values. Who should control information? What is information justice? Is there a citizen’s right to know? How are conflicting claims of personal privacy and public health to be mediated? Just as health professionals have a responsibility to participate in such debates, information professionals must also become involved. MODELSOF MORALAGENCY The models presented here illustrate one way to understand the various roles which information professionals play. They present the individual and the organization as parts of a larger information environment. The purpose of these models is to show that each individual is a moral agent. The models highlight aspects of loyalty and show that both individuals and groups negotiate among several spheres of experience. A brief overview of the models begins with Model 1-The Ethical Self (see Figure l ) , which describes the information professional as a moral agent who has a variety of experiences which influence behavior and decision making. Model 2 (see Figure 2) focuses on the loyalties of the information professional on the job. Model 3 (see Figure 3) explores the relationship between ideals and realities in the working world. Finally, Model 4 (see Figure 4)shows the ethical self and the professional within the larger context of the information environment and the place of infoethics within this infosphere. These models, therefore, demonstrate the complex roles of the professional at various levels, including public policy making (Kelly, 1990). Again, information professionals share with medical and other professionals the potential for conflicting loyalties. For example, in debates over abortion or the right to die, physicians and other medical professionals are also citizens, parents, and mortal human beings. Their expertise is needed, but they cannot be disinterested parties as they contribute to public debates. In addition, experts must be accountable to the public without sacrificing too greatly their responsibilities to their professions (Kultgen, 1988; Bayles, 1989). Information professionals’ role in shaping policy may be an even more complex issue. Many more people in society claim expertise about libraries, education, or information. Others have money and power at stake in the controversies about access and control of information. LIBRARIANS PROFESSIONALS AND INFORMATION AS MORALAGENTS As defined here, all information professionals are moral agents who think, make decisions, and act according to their selfunderstanding, which includes personal, private, professional, and public dimensions. Robert Coles (1986), the Harvard child SMITHANFOETHICS FOR LEADERS 557 psychiatrist, argues for an awareness of the moral life of the professional. To illustrate, he recalls his experience as a medical student in analysis. Regularly, young Coles would go to the plain, sparsely furnished office of his analyst, who believed in a value-free, artifact-free setting, designed not to distract patients from their problems or give them any hints about the personality of the analyst. However, the office was located in the midst of expensive real-estate and was itself in a lavish high-rise apartment complex. Coles uses this example to explain why he disputes “the notion that our personal values, our moral ideals and ethical standards occupy a separate realm” (p. 38). Many others, from Harlan Cleveland (1985, 1986) and Robert K. Greenleaf (1977) to Max Depree (1989) and John Heider (1986), suggest that leaders are those whose own values, beliefs, and loyalties can be effectively translated into institutional form. Figure 1. The ethical self One way to describe these beliefs, values, and loyalties is presented in the model of The Ethical Self (see Figure 1). This model was influenced initially by Ulric Neisser’s analysis of the self and more recently by Joseph Margolis’s (1989) description of the Technological Self. Neisser (1989) describes “five different kinds of information on 558 LIBRARY TRENDSIWINTER 1992 Figure 2. Loyaltiesof the information professional which self-knowledge is based.” Neisser’s view of self-knowledge includes: (1) “the ecological self, which is the self that we know through direct perception”; (2)“the interpersonal self, which we know through the immediate interactions we have with other people”; (3) “the extended self that we know as a result of information stored in memory about what we have done and expect to do”; (4) “the private self, which we know by virtue of internal mental experiences that no one else shares”; and (5) “the conceptual self, which is the self that we have concepts and theories about” (pp. 1-2). In Model 1 (see Figure l), the Ethical Self has four aspectsthe personal, the private, the professional, and the public. The four aspects function together. The triangle of the Ethical Self fits into the larger world, represented by the circle (see Figure 4), which for this discussion represents the information environment but also indicates that the self functions within the much larger world. Thus Model 1 illustrates the four major areas of experience from which values arise. Harmony and congruence among the four areas is the ideal. However, in facing most decisions, persons must negotiate among conflicting claims. In a time of rapid change, the individual may have special difficulty maintaining the balance among the four SMITHANFOETHICS FOR LEADERS 559 Figure 3. Levels of ethical orientation parts. The individual must act as a unit, negotiating among the parts. The resulting psychic conflicts and how they are resolved would be a good starting point for further study. The concern here, however, is to provide a model which can be used by information professionals to help them understand why some conflicts arise and to suggest resolutions through discussion and compromise among ethical selves. As Personal Self, the self experiences the world as a person of a certain age and gender, with certain likes, dislikes, and feelings. As the Private Self, each person knows the world through relationships and affiliations with family, friends, clubs, and support networks. As the Professional Self, a person identifies with the profession, its values and goals, and learns about the self in a professional group from the reactions of others. As the Public Self, each individual is a member of many public communities-the town or city, the state, and nation. Thus the individual occupies a place within the larger community, as, for example, a patron of the arts or sports enthusiast. As an ethical self who exerts moral agency through each of these dimensions of experience, the information professional will inevitably face conflicts. Model 2 (see Figure 2) illustrates in more detail the conflicting allegiances of the Professional Self. 560 LIBRARY TRENDWWINTER 1992 Figure 4. Ethical selves in the global information environment THEPROFESSIONAL ETHICALSELF: CONFLICTING LOYALTIES Model 2 (see Figure 2) illustrates the multiple loyalties of the professional person: 1. Loyalty to Self-to personal integrity, to job security, to personal responsibilities, to social responsibilities defined by the individual. 2. Loyalty to ClientslPatrons-to clients’ information and general welfare, to freedom of access, to patrons’ privacy, to serving patrons’ needs. 3. Loyalty to the Profession-to maintain professional standards of service, to promote the good of the profession as a whole by working to raise the status within society, to raise the awareness of the public to issues identified by the profession. 4. Loyalty to the Employing Institution-to uphold the goals and priorities of the institution, to honor contract obligations, to promote the good of the organization through loyalty to colleagues and administration. Figure 2 then presents a model of the multiple loyalties of the person as an Information Professional. Again the triangle is divided into four parts, each impinging upon the others. This model was developed from reflection on The Potter Box (see Figure 5 ) presented SMITH/INFOETHICS FOR LEADERS 561 by Clifford Christians and others (1987)in Media Ethics. Originated by Ralph Potter of the Harvard Divinity School and named by Karen Lebacqz of the Pacific School of Religion, the box was created and has been elaborated to define “four dimensions of moral analysis” and serve as an “aid ...in locating those places where most misunderstandings occur” (p. 3). This method of analysis also moves the person through the decision-making process even if the decision must be reassessed and the four steps taken again. The Potter Box includes four steps: (1)defining the problem, (2) identifying the values at stake, (3)considering the ethical principles involved, and (4)defining and prioritizing loyalties and reaching a decision (pp. 3-7).