Singapore Libraries Bulletin Blog : Library Association of Singapore

LAS Statement of Ethical Principles:

1. Always direct our work towards the preservation and transfer of knowledge in all recorded forms across time and space for the benefit of humankind.
2. Always strive to develop and strengthen our capabilities to serve our users better.
3. Always advance the interests of our profession and ensure its continuity.

We hope that these broad principles will form the basis to guide librarians in thinking through difficult issues and making decisions based on values that we share. We hope these statements would jumpstart the discussion for our members. A professional ethical code would only serve its purpose if the majority of our members participate in shaping it through debates, discussions and reflection.

The principles are purposely broad in scope to cover most scenarios. We hope that librarians, academics and members can comment on each of these principles on a continuous basis as our environment changes. Good commentaries can then be adopted by LAS over time and together these commentaries can form valuable guidelines for us all. We hope that these statements of ethical principles will be responsive to changes in environment and yet rooted to fundamental principles. We hope that it will be a “living” code that stays relevant to our work and professional lives.

Expanding on the Ethical Principles

1. Always direct our work towards the preservation and transfer of knowledge in all recorded forms across time and space for the benefit of humankind.  

The first principle is in fact a statement of the purpose of librarianship. The preservation and transfer of knowledge is the intellectual province which we are engaged in, the purpose for which is to benefit humankind. We may or may not be actually be the custodian of human knowledge, but we certainly engage in activities that promote its preservation for future generations. Transfer of knowledge is also a key phrase as it provides us an active role to ensure that knowledge preserved is used and disseminated. Many issues such as censorship, intellectual freedom, the digital divide, information access can be explored under this principle.

2. Always strive to develop and strengthen our capabilities to serve our users better.

The second principle embodies our primary orientation as a user-centric and service-centric profession. It aims to encourage librarians to take an active role in developing their skills and to strengthen their existing skills with the aim of better serving their users.

3. Always advance the interests of our profession and ensure its continuity.  

The third principle is fundamental to our profession. We need to do the utmost to develop aread of expertise to be recognised as a valuable profession that can contribute effectively to our society. Our profession must maintain a shape and form that is recognisable and acceptable to society at large for it to remain viable to engage in the first and second principles.

The principles were proposed by the ad-hoc committee on ethics formed in November 2004. The committee members were Choy Fatt Cheong, Lee-Wang Cheng Yeng, Lim Siew Kim, Tan Lay Tin, Saralee Turner, Yeo Pin Pin (Chair).

Adapted from Choy Fatt Cheong. 2005 March. Developing ethical principles. Singapore Libraries Bulletin, 15 (1):10-11.

Do librarians have a contract with society?

Why ask such a question? Why bother doing anything except day-to-day work in this profession that involves endless tasks; a lack of appreciation by our supervisors, who are now, more often that not, untrained in librarianship; and little recognition by society at large?

I think this question deserves some careful attention just because our field is so difficult and we have such trouble communicating to anyone what we do and why we do it.

In social action theory, developed by the sociologist, Talcott Parsons, some of the types of actors in society are bureaucrats, workers, entrepreneurs and professionals. Decision making by these four “types” are made in different ways. These “types” are a theoretical construct and the discussion below is based on trying to understand how we work.

Bureaucrats make decisions based on where they are in the hierarchy. The higher a bureaucrat is in the structure, the more decisions he/she will make and the more “power” there will be behind such decisions. Workers make decisions as to how much they are paid for their labour and in a free market, choose the best price for their work. Entrepreneurs make decisions based on the “bottom line” so as to maximise profits. Professionals, relying on an expert body of knowledge in their field, and on extensive training to develop judgement, base their decisions on what is the best solution to a problem, independent of profit motive or their own place in a hierarchy. A professional decision may be unpopular amongst the upper echelon in an organisation where a hierachy exists and that may make the correct decision difficult to enact, but the correctness of the decision cannot be judged by where the professional is in that hierarchy. The professional is a relatively new actor on this stage whereas bureaucrats are an ancient type. One could also include slaves in some societies as actors. Likewise, serfs are actors in feudalistic societies.

What is a professional? What makes an occupation group a professional? Here again, we turn to the sociologists who have studied work and its place in social action. There are several characteristics that are required for professional status.

1. The study and acquisition of a body or knowledge in one area in which the professional attains “expert” status
2. A qualifying process whereby one attains recognition within the profession that one has made the grade and is able to carry out the required duties.
3. The profession must police itself and must provide disciplinary methods to encourage members of the profession to follow “accepted practice”.

This is not an exhaustive list but will work well enough for this short discussion.

Is librarianship a real profession? Looking at the above, it is clear that we are on our way, but there are some problems. Most library associations have a code of ethics in which acceptable behaviour and attitudes towards work are outlined but disciplinary actions are very rare. Librarians have been held to account for providing incorrect or out-of-date information but these examples most often occur in the larger society (e.g. civil courts), so our ability to police ourselves is not, at this point, possible. In addition, certification and the requirement for continuing education to retain such certification are not part of our field at this time.

So, is there a contract between librarians and society? Professions such as lawyers, engineers, doctors and increasingly accountants, have that contract codified into law in many countries. This places the responsibility for correct professional behaviour on the profession itself and in return for this responsibility, th profession is allowed to perform acts normally not allowed by ordinary citizens (e.g. representing clients in court, dispensing drugs, operating and cutting the skin of human beings, signing orders for the building of bridges and other structures). These privileges allow the performance of the “illegal” or “unthinkable” where, should anything go wrong (e.g. patient dying, bridge/building falling down), the consequences far outweigh the capacity of any individual to repay or repair. This contract allows these privileges and operates with the understanding that professionals do not act only, or primarily, out of self-interest. In exchange for such privileges, the profession is expected to maintain discipline. 

The case of librarianship is not as clear. Certainly, the contract with society, if one exists is not codified into law. Negligence in providing up-to-date information is not, normally, a criminal matter but it could and has been handled in civil proceedings. In terms of certification, the closest we come to this in the recognition by library associations of qualifications, often relying heavily on the work already performed in this area by the larger associations (e.g. ALA and LA in UK). Remembering the adage that a public library is the poor man’s university, we could conclude that the teaching profession is closest to librarianship, in that we provide an educational role in the public sphere. However, the mandate of special libraries, especially those serving the business and industrial communities, puts and entirely different focus on the matter. Academic libraries also have an additional focus to that of aiding the process of education - that of providing services to researchers. To further complicate this matter, the role of the national library cannot be judged only in contemporary terms but must also fulfil the historically important role of providing a record of a nation’s cultural heritage, however that is defined. Therefore the expectations and criteria by which librarians can be judged varies with the type of library in which they work.

The setting of standards is another tricky area. So often, in our field, the standards are mundane and trivial in terms of the overall goals of the profession. The counting of titles and volumes in a collection, even broken down by class number; the number of reference queries answered; circulation statistics; and the performance criteria of cataloguing departments in terms of volume of work completed in a specified time spring to mind. We all know that there are better benchmarks but they take time and resources to develop and monitor. Increasingly, our administrators are “time and motion” people, with stopwatches at the ready and little cerebral involvement. 

So if we have even a “soft” contract with society, not codified into law, but an understanding of what we do with all the money that we are responsible for spending to purchase, organise and retrieve the books, serials, videorecordings, sound recordings, maps, music scores, ephemera that make up the collections we build and maintain, what are the terms of this understanding? Is there a mandate to provide to all, regardless of status in the society? Is there a requirement that we select only those items that support a certain view of society or are we expected to provide the members of society with diverse points of view leading to debate and informed choices? Is there an obligation on us to acquire the best materials at the best price and without “kickbacks” that benefit us individuals or as a profession? Are we expected to respect and protect the intellectual property rights of creators and publishers?

These are questions we must ask if we are to gain some understanding of ourselves as a profession. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as bureaucrats (if we are in a large organizations) or as entrepreneurs (if we are freelancing consultants). It goes without saying that hiring ourselves out for work in which professional decisions are not possible would be to assue the role of workers. Further, we should be moving towards certification and to install processes of providing discipline so that librarians are held accountable for the resources that they control.

Turner, Sarlee. 2005 March. Do librarians have a contract with society? Singapore Libraries Bulletin, 15 (1):3-4,6.

Ethics and librarians: A panel discussion

A panel discussion was held on 30 August 2005, at 4:30pm at the NUS Central Library Theatrette 1 to discuss the topic of Ethics and Librarians. The panelists were Mr Choy Fatt Cheong, University Librarian, Nanyang Technological University, Assoc Prof Terry Kaan, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore and Assoc Prof Christopher Khoo, School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University.

Mr Choy Fatt Cheong kicked off the discussion by posing this question, “Why is there a need for a code of ethics?” As Librarians, we tend to be governed by our own moral code of honesty and fairness and we use them to make the ethical decisions at work. He felt that a code would help to guide librarians in their daily work, to be more aware of ethics when selecting library materials; when discussing reference queries and not breaching confidentiality; deciding whether to provide a user with information that could be potentially dangerous (e.g. building a bomb); doing outside part-time work using the library resources or even deciding whether to use the office copier to make copies for personal use.

We had a look at the existing LAS Code of Ethics, which was found to be arcade and did not reflect our current needs. So it was timely that the Ethics Committee was formed to review and update the Code.

Research was done to study the codes of other Library Associations and after much deliberation, the Committee proposed a new Statement of Ethical Principles. The Committee felt that the new Code should articulate the values of our profession and be flexible enough to cope with new issues. It was also important to get buy-in from members through participation, understanding and interpreting the principles of the Code.

The principles proposed were not cast in stone and members were invited to comment on them. Mr Choy proposed that the LAS Council look at these comments and adopt selected ones as approved commentaries, which could serve as guidelines for other librarians. It was hoped that the principles and commentaries would become a living code and a practical instrument for our members.

Prof Christopher Khoo spoke on the difference between ethics and values. He pointed out that ethics involved analysis of issues to determine which response would produce maximum goodness. He also outlined the reasons why LAS needed a code of ethics. He pointed out that librarians had an impact on society as we have the power to help or harm clients. Our employer/client/society offered us a livelihood because of our knowledge and expertise and it entailed us with a responsibility.

The Code should serve the following objectives:

• Protect our users and protect us
• Regulate the profession
• Express the profession’s shared values
• Address important and difficult ethical issues
• Sensitise professionals to ethical constraints 
• Give us a sense of who we are and what we stand for
• Give us a sense of pride in our profession and a sense of belonging to a noble profession

Prof Khoo would like to see some noble mission espoused in our code. He encouraged members to make a stand and advocate some strong values which distinguished us from other professions and from the library profession in other countries. He felt there was no point in advocating some “wimpy” code that did not make a strong stand.

He highlighted the results of a survey of librarians done by Dole, Hurych & Koehler (2000) which showed that librarians from different types of libraries and different regions had slightly different values. Librarians in countries like USA, UK and Australia valued intellectual freedom highly, while librarians in Europe and Asia valued information literacy highly. Overall, all librarians valued service to patron and equality of access.

Prof Khoo conducted a survey of the members present asking them to rank the values that were most important to them. The highest ranked value was service to patrons, followed by preservation, information literacy and equitable access.

Prof Kaan rounded up the discussion by offering his insights based on his work with medical ethics. He had a look at the different code of ethics of librarians in different countries and he found it interesting that there was so much diversity in the codes. He cited possible reasons of different cultures and social conditions. He also wondered if it was due to a lack of common consensus.

The medical profession is working towards an international code of ethics. He replied to a question of why is there a need for a code when the medical professions had the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath focused on loyalty to the master and doing good for the patients, based on the best judgment of the doctor. This was a profession-centered code and the present medical profession was moving to a client-centered code.

Prof Kaan highlighted that a professional often faced problems in deciding which was the best and right decision when there was a conflict between two good principles. He addressed the issue of confidentiality of information which was a common area of concern for doctors and librarians. He pointed out that the law did not protect the confidentiality of information for patients and library patrons. The law only protected the confidentiality of information for clients of lawyers, income tax officers and bankers. If a doctor was asked in court, he would have to reveal the required information about his patient. However, if a doctor did not inspire trust from his patients, they may not be totally honest about their medical conditions. People would also have various degrees of sensibilities about the confidentiality of information. A library patron may be unconcerned or very upset if the list of books he borrowed was released to government authorities. However, they would not have legal recourse.

He highlighted the changes that technology brought about for medical information. They were previously only available on cards in the doctor’s office and there was no cause for concern. However, with the translation of medical information into the electronic format, it then becomes useful information for relational data mining by commercial organisations. A whole new arena of ethical access arises, who can make use of the information, is it only biomedical researchers, government, and what about for-profit organisations? Can anonymous information be used by these organisations?

He pointed out that Internet search engines often kept a log of a user search terms and used it to do targeted advertising. Some US state laws prohibit the use of such information but some search engines continue to keep such logs. A member raised the issue of loan records being used by IT people. Another member pointed out that if we are using American library systems, such data was not retained by the library system and therefore cannot be abused.

Prof Kaan pointed out that with the Internet revolution, there were implications for libraries and librarians as they were traditionally seen to be keepers of books. He raised the example of US and EU governments having mandated that research funded by them must be made available online and asked how librarians would handle this information.

Mr Choy highlighted that librarians played an intermediary role with information, and that information was format independent. He also raised the question of how the information handlers of the online world would handle their ethical problems. Perhaps in this online world which was less constrained by the social conditions of a country, a universal code of ethics would evolve. Prof Kaan agreed that this may happen as seen in the medical profession where there was a rush to harmonise their codes.

A member raised the problem with preservation of online information. Some people are calling it the Digital Dark Age where online information can be lost, changed or manipulated. Coping with technology obsolescence was another problem. New platforms were also being used to share information, like discussion lists and email but how was the information being preserved? Prof Kaan was optimistic that people who perceived the information as important would preserve it but some members had their reservations.

Another member brought up the issue of censorship especially when strong political forces were present. A comment by a political leader often had some librarians removing the items mentioned by the leader, even though it was not on the banned list. If librarians were more aware of why we exist (i.e. to preserve information for mankind) they would be able to make a more informed choice. The code would give us a set of values to hold to and to know when we deviate from it. It was pointed out that we exist within a society which has certain values and that we need to operate within those confines.

When it is a legal issue, it is a straight-forward case of either being according to the law or not. However, ethical issues were different and a code of ethics for librarians would give us principles to keep in mind when making decisions, whether it was for selection, weeding or loan policies. It would guide us to make decisions that reflected the moral worth of our profession.

References
Dole, W.V., Hurych, J.M., & Koehler, W.(2000). Values for librarians in the Information Age: An expanded examination. Library Management 21 (6/7): 285-297.

Yeo Pin Pin. 2005 September. Ethics and librarians: A panel discussion. Singapore Libraries Bulletin 15 (3): 14-15.