Looking Back, Looking Forward, and Transformation in Information Ethics

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

This issue represents a unique perspective in at this moment in time. There is a change occurring; indeed, a transition has been under way for some time, from those who set path, those who defined this field, to a newly minted body of scholars who see context for parameters of in a vastly different way. We, this field of ethics, still grapple with same fundamental definitions of as were presented in 1980s, inception of this discipline. We still think about issues of creation, access, control, and dissemination of information. Yet, what constitutes definition of information and what constitutes those activities around is dramatically different. James Moor was one of first to call attention to different nature of data, describing it as greased and malleable; he called attention to policy vacuums and conceptual muddles created by digital data. Those characteristics articulated in 1980s have indeed proven true, and even Moor may be surprised at extent to which those very characteristics have transformed not only research and scholarship but individuals and societies themselves. We have seen such arguments for everything is miscellaneous, and the world is flat-those are indicative of collapsing parameters resultant from ways in which we create, use, and disseminate in this moment. This forces us to a broader question.Where is of ethics? It is increasingly diffused. It is, simultaneously more important and less important than ever. It is ever important because every essentially grapples now with issues, and because of that, its significance as a stand- alone discipline is called into question. Scholars from across an array of disciplines are engaging more directly with issues of data integrity, ethical research practices, privacy, autonomy, identity, trust, reality, data sharing, data manipulation, fragmentation, orientation. Information ethicists have made these issues explicit over years, but increasingly, specificity is collapsing and these issues certainly do not reside in any one clear domain. This is happening because of nature of digital data which is causing every scholar, researcher, bureaucrat, and individual to think differently about their relationship with world, in both physical and virtual realms. Information scholarship is changing, pushing boundaries in its scope and reach. A physicist, Vlatko Vedra, recently described theory of quantum information, that everything, universe itself, is information. Information is superior. If we follow his lead, everything, then, is ethics? With that, one might also argue that nothing is ethics, a stance I do not support.Information has co- existed along with other ethics for many years: computer ethics, business ethics, bioethics. Each of these has a corresponding disciplinary home. Information has had a rocky home in library and studies, and it is notable to consider Enright's perspectives on this. It is also notable to consider numbers of LIS programs that still have no course; there is an implicit assumption that because of accreditation standards, will be interwoven across curriculum, an assumption I question. Ethics is often seen as an afterthought in professional programs, accreditation standards notwithstanding. Other disciplines, for example, those in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), debate heartily what mode is best for education-stand alone courses or infusion models. I have not seen same curricular debates in LIS. More commonly, LIS are introduced through standard codes of ethics. Professional are symbolically embodied in codes-codes of ethics, as Zaiane, presents, are universal guiding documents, but do not ensure ethical behavior or professionalism. …