Case Study:  The decision to classify under only one primary element of the Code was preferred for reasons of clarity.  Secondary classification of each case study would enable the assignment of cases to other parts of the Code.  However, this did not mean that it was a simple matter of assigning each case study to one element of the Code and then moving on.  Many of the case studies in this database relate to more than one part of the Code (personal responsibilities, responsibilities to information and its users, responsibilities to society, etc.).  The decision under which part to classify each was made knowing that this would determine its place in the database, and so influence the interpretation of the case study.  The consultants’ ethical responsibilities are called into question.  It was eventually decided that limited multiple classification of primary  issues would be permitted.

The editors comment...

This case is not as trivial as it may seem and alludes to similar situations facing information professionals worldwide.  As experts at classifying and categorising information – from the construction of taxonomies and information architectures to indexing and cataloguing – information professionals are expected to use their classification and categorisation skills appropriately.

The creation of a database of ethical case studies necessarily required a classification framework.  Various metadata were considered, but the one recurring theme which could not be ignored was the need to link case studies to relevant parts of CILIP’s Ethical Principles and Code of Professional Practice.  This has been done, but not without considerable intellectual effort in resolving which of two (or possibly more) competing parts of the Code qualifies as the primary subject in each case.

In many cases we find competing interests, often manifesting themselves as ethical dilemmas.  On the one hand the information professional has personal responsibilities (Code : A. Personal Responsibilities), whilst at the same time the same person may have responsibilities to his or her employer (Code : E. Responsibilities as Employees).  Equally there may be an overall responsibility by both to society at large (Code : D. Responsibilities to Society).  By classifying a case study under, say, E. Responsibilities as Employees, is it implicitly suggested that the case study is any the less relevant to our responsibilities to society or to personal responsibilities?  Logically yes, because E. Responsibilities as Employees has been chosen as the ‘main’ topic.  This is exacerbated by the coding of each case study under ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ issues, more important and less important.

In the opinion of the compilers of this database it is necessary for them to highlight the intellectual challenge of classifying multiple issues under one primary subject, whilst at the same time ensuring that their skills as subject experts and information professionals are employed appropriately so as to minimise the wrongful classification of cases.  The compilers recognised the need to strive to eliminate any wrongful interpretation of information in this database and agreed that the most appropriate way forward would be to permit limited multiple classification of primary issues, but only where not to do so would result in intellectual inconsistency.

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

Revised: v1.0 11-Dec-05 : JG-T.  v1.01 18-Dec-05 : JG-T  v1.1 12-Nov-06 : JGT. v1.11 14-Dec-06 : JG-T.