Case Study: This issue was initially resolved by the information professionals’ working practice.  Whenever the information professionals provided data, they would always:

1. make certain that the sources of the data were reputable;

2. inform the consultants of data provenance; and.

3. provide details of any manipulation of the data by the information professionals.

However, the first two points produced other dilemmas.

1. How do the information professionals know whether a source is ‘reputable’?  Would not an economist be better placed to judge the veracity of a source?  Does the information professional have the expertise to determine veracity of data about which he/she may not fully understand?  He/she is, after all, an information professional, not an economist.  The information professional’s response may be seen as intellectual bootlegging.

2. By passing on information regarding the source of data, the information professional could be seen as passing on responsibility for checking its veracity.  Thus, inadvertent provision of corrupted data which goes unnoticed by the consultant is negligence on the part of the information professional for not having checked fully its accuracy, and on the part of the consultant for not having checked the information professional’s source.

The editors comment...

A number of issues arise in this particular case.

First, the information professional could assure himself that he does have the expertise to determine the most appropriate sources of data/information.  He, not the consultant, is the information professional.  He has knowledge, through experience, of where information is available, how it is provided, and whether it is generally accepted among the information community. {A3}

Example: The information professional found that financial data extracted from the Financial Times newspaper occasionally was not identical to that provided by its original compilers, or by third-party vendors (electronic databases, other newspapers, financial magazines, etc.). The information professional – with a variety of sources and resources at his disposal - knew that this may be because of accuracy at the point of publication, interpretation of underlying sources, or other reasons, but that each source had its merits and needed to be considered in the context of its publication. The consultant was not necessarily able to consider the variety of issues here, and in such a case should turn to the information professional for ‘advice’.

However, the information professional must realise that he has a duty to inform the consultant of the potential limits of his expertise.  He should brief the consultant as much as possible regarding the nature of the information provided, and where there is doubt on the part of the information professional, it should be made known to the consultant. {B1}

In this case we also know that the information professional adopted a procedure for checking data and information in line with checking carried out by other consulting staff.  (At this organisation it was standard practice for financial data and mathematical calculations, of which there were many, to be peer reviewed and for client reports which incorporated data to be formally reviewed by an experienced actuary.  It was unusual for errors to escape this rigorous checking procedure, but it did not lessen anyone’s responsibility to check their data thoroughly.)

The information professional in this case realised that it was his responsibility to provide good data or information to the consultant, and not to assume that the consultant and the peer review process would identify any erroneous data.  The information professional carried out thorough checking using standard checklists (which included maintaining audit trails), so providing the consultants with a minimum quality assurance.  But as we noted above, this must not entitle the information professional to abrogate his duties beyond the minimum requirement.

A pleasant consequence of being seen to follow good practice is that the policy of the information professional had the advantage of raising the perception by consultants of the information professional’s work. {C1}

Created: v0.9 27-Nov-05 : JG-T

Revised: v1.0 27-Dec-05 : JG-T. v1.01 14-Dec-06 : JG-T.