Managing Information Technology Issues of Ethics and Values: Awareness, Ownership, and Values Clarification Copyright 1992 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1992. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear,and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information technology in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission.For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu MANAGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES OF ETHICS AND VALUES: AWARENESS, OWNERSHIP, AND VALUES CLARIFICATION by Virginia E. Rezmierski ************************************************************************ Virginia Rezmierski is Assistant for Policy Studies to the Vice Provost for Information Technology at the University of Michigan. She designed and managed the process leading to the development of the University's Proper Use Policy and the "Think About It" implementation project. She is an educational psychologist, adjunct associate professor of education, and visiting lecturer at the Institute for Public Policies Studies at the University of Michigan. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: With the use of information technology on campus, ethical and value dilemmas arise and campus policies are needed to guide and direct administrative decision-making in the face of these dilemmas. This article discusses key aspects of the "Proper Use Policy" and the "Think About It" implementation project at the University of Michigan. Universities and colleges are rapidly incorporating the use of information technology into their operations. As members of these communities learn to apply the new technologies for teaching, research, and administrative practices, behavioral incidents occur that raise ethical and value-related questions. The incidents cover a wide range of topics, including copyright infringement in the use of software, freedom of speech, security, sexual and racial harassment, and many others. Naisbitt and Aberdene wrote: The responsibility for what is happening has already been thrust upon us. Technology is not inherently evil. It is neutral. How we use it is key.[1] CONFLICTS FOR ADMINISTRATORS Ethical dilemmas occur for administrators when they find themselves faced with incidents that engage two clearly conflicting sets of values, or when neither the issues nor the values are easily understood. A few specific incidents will illustrate the nature of the dilemmas. A midwest systems administrator last year reported that she had received a complaint from an individual on the west coast. The complainant said that she received an electronic posting from a student at the administrator's university which announced the availability of 132 files of pornography. The posting also requested a charge-card number from anyone wishing to receive a copy of the files. The woman considered the message intrusive and sexually harassing and asked the university to take action. Another college administrator reported an incident involving a faculty member who used electronic mail over the networks to solicit funds to support the court defense of a young man who refused to fight in the Gulf War. The administrator expressed concern about the appropriateness of such use of public institutional resources and about the ramifications of the widespread distribution of this political request. When incidents such as these arise, because they are often cloaked in the sometimes poorly understood capabilities of new technology, it may be difficult to see them for what they are and to identify the central moral, ethical, and value issues. Administrators who are technical specialists may too quickly reduce the incident to information process and ask simply if the users have been informed about appropriate use of the network and electronic mail resources at their institution. The focus of the response, neutral regarding the political ramifications or the effects on the community, may remain on the information transfer aspects of the incident, the logistics, and the standards, thus overlooking the ethical implications of the behavior. Other administrators, however--those who may not be familiar with what is required to transfer 132 files of pornography to the west coast, or who may never have thought about the possibility--may miss the technical and standards aspects of data transfer and center on the content or the political and social ramifications of the action. For the administrator who is under heavy public pressure and feels the need to react quickly, the underlying educational, moral, or ethical issues may be lost. Reviewing such incidents over time, it has become clear that there are two conditions which most often cause dilemmas and conflicts. The first is when the administrator receives a complaint, needs to respond quickly, and is unclear as to what is technically involved. The second is when the values of two or more parts of the campus become polarized and the administrator must decide which set of values will be supported in responding to a particular incident. CONFLICTING VALUES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY While there are undoubtedly other value polarities that cause tension and conflicts on campuses, four sets seem most frequently involved. System security vs. ease of use Conflict sometimes exists because of coexisting community needs, e.g., institutional system security on one hand, and easy access to, and use of, information resources for the user on the other. For some, the nature of their role as creator and manager of institutional data necessitates emphasis on security. For others, ease of access and use takes precedence over system security. For this set of individuals, the data within the system are valuable only if they can be easily accessed and used in a more distributed environment. When does ease of access begin to threaten system security, data reliability, and the institutional record? When does security so dampen the processes for accessing data that those data become unused and duplication of effort springs up across the campus? Many campuses are experiencing values conflicts in this area as they increasingly move amounts of administrative and institutional data into the hands of personnel within schools and departments. When an incident arises on this continuum of security vs. ease of use, administrators must decide, for that particular action, what value will be supported. Public vs. private ownership Conflict exists when issues of public vs. private ownership are raised. This is particularly the case within public institutions, where the public's "right to know" about decisions of the public body must be balanced with the individual's "right to privacy." What is owned by the individual? What information must be made public? What part of the electronic communications and work of faculty, staff, and students is private, and what is public within a public institution? How can we encourage freedom of speech, exploration of ideas, exchange of information, and the sharing of intellectual products, while also maintaining the public trust by assuring that the use of the resources is in accordance with the mission for which the resources were provided? In increasingly distributed electronic environments, what must administrators tell their communities about the privacy and ownership of electronic mail and files? Social responsibility vs. intellectual experimentation/learning One segment of the college community values technological experimentation in their learning and teaching programs. They value exploration with new applications of the technology as an end in itself, at times, regardless of the effects of such exploration on the rest of the community. Rewards may be given to students who identify creative ways of accessing files thought to be impenetrable, because these acts represent intellectual achievements and may represent a service to the community in the future. Many members of the campus community will not value such intellectual experimentation, however, when a network is made dysfunctional or when a new application affects the specific files on which they are working. This segment of the community will not identify this act as an achievement, but rather as social irresponsibility. On one campus, an extremely talented staff member argued that he had the necessary expertise, and therefore it was his personal responsibility, to test the stability of the campus system whenever time allowed. His rational was that if he was unable to find system security holes, administrators would know that the system was secure. On the other hand, if he were successful in penetrating the system the weakness would be identified and necessary repairs could be made. Though he was not assigned the responsibility for this testing, he reasoned that anyone with his level of skill had an obligation to test. Administrators and staff need to discuss such notions of social responsibility to clarify the potential destabilizing effects these actions can have on the community. Representation/preservation of reality vs. creativity/art The final set of value polarities discussed here is not yet perceived as a conflict area on many campuses. This set of issues is rapidly evolving and constitutes an interesting and increasingly important area of discussion, however. As we develop the capability to electronically alter visual images, some ethical issues become obvious. They include issues of notification, validation, responsibility, preservation archiving, and others. Questions include: What notification is required to inform the viewer when a visual image has been electronically altered? What is the ethical boundary between: (a) altering a visual image and thereby changing or invalidating the image/data, and (b) altering the image by simply enhancing it, removing impediments, glare, etc.? Who has the responsibility for the final product and the validity of the composition, the artist/illustrator or the researcher/professor? What representations of reality should be archived? Do administrators have responsibility for helping users adjust their expectations regarding what they see, and for helping them to identify multiple points for testing visual representations of reality, as this technology enables further alteration of visual images? A medical researcher at one institution recently took a slide, which was photographed during an operation, to the medical illustrator, requesting that the illustrator remove the glare from the slide and also remove the fuzziness caused by a membrane left during the operation. His goal was to have a clearer representation of the organ lying beneath the membrane. The resulting picture would appear in his research paper reporting the results of a specific surgical procedure. Issues raised by this incident include: Who owns the final picture and who is responsible for it, the researcher who took the original image or the illustrator whose art and skill produced the final version? If the final picture was a significant alteration of the original image, did this constitute enhancement or falsification? What should be maintained for the records, copies of the original slide or the altered picture? What notice should be affixed to the final picture? A CALL FOR POLICY FORMATION When a sufficient number of these technical or value conflicts arise, when the incidents threaten the community resources or intellectual products, or when they gain significant publicity, a policy will likely be sought. For some, policy is written as a control tool for unacceptable behavior. When this is the goal, the resulting statement often focuses on the "thou shalt nots"--the unacceptable behaviors. The statement acts as a guide for those who will take disciplinary action as well as a warning for those who use the resources within this environment. For others, policy is designed to clarify the community standard; it is a guidepost for citizenship within the community. According to Ernest Boyer:A college or university is a disciplined community, a place where individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well- defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good.[2] A policy may provide the rationale for the standard, the "well defined governance procedures," that reflect the mission and goals of the institution. Such policy may also identify limits in order to encourage responsible behavior in the use of the institutional resources. Finally, for some the policy itself is actually secondary to the process of creating and implementing the standard. In this instance, the dynamic process of involving individuals is as much the goal as is the final statement. The process individuals undertake as they work to understand and define community standards, as they talk about issues, as they clarify values, as they form communities, may be seen as valuable in and of itself. It is important to note not only the purpose in creating a policy, but the locus and scope of involvement implied by each of the three types of policy identified above. As the three approaches move increasingly toward process, they also reflect movement away from central/administrative locus of control, toward a distributed/community locus of control. Administrators and managers need to clarify both their purpose in creating policy and their goals regarding locus and scope of involvement. PROPER USE POLICY--A DYNAMIC PROCESS AT MICHIGAN There are many different specific applications of information technology required on the University of Michigan campus. There are also many different values and ideas regarding how information and information technology should be accessed and used. When University of Michigan staff undertook the process of developing a policy, it was clear that there were enough different values and opinions that, to be successful, they needed to understand these points of view and incorporate them as the standard-setting process unfolded. It was also clear that unless the community believed in and supported the policy, it would not be implemented. Therefore a wide locus of control and involvement was necessary. Ernest L. Boyer also writes: "For administrators, however, the issue of how to honor and aggressively pursue this diversity is not always clear." [3] Staff at Michigan decided to design a dynamic process, with the goal to allow people the opportunity to define and clarify their values, to define the issues with which the community was struggling as it applied information technology, to become aware of some of the different values on the campus, and ultimately to create policy that defined the community's valued standards as well as citizenship responsibilities. Implementation was perceived to be as much an individual responsibility as it was a departmental, school, college, or central administration responsibility. The following steps proved important and are recommended as benchmarks for others. 1. Establish need Although administrators are not prone to advertise conflicts and management problems, these problems can prove to be invaluable tools in establishing need for policy discussions. At Michigan, such a problem drew sufficient attention to reach the New York Times. It was called the "bad jokes file." The University of Michigan community has a history of electronic conferencing dating back to the early 1970s. Conferencing is an electronic communication process with archival and cross referencing capability. Conferencing allows individuals to discuss a variety of topics with others in a non-real-time environment, from different geographical locations. Conferences are created to allow discussion of topics among a wide and diverse population of users. They may act as a forum for debate of issues, for the exchange of very personal and private information among a narrowly defined group of participants, or as a social arena for meeting other people and sharing opinions. It is a social and informational rather than decision-making environment. In this particular incident, within a conference for student interaction, an item was entered entitled, "Let's tell jokes." The conference organizer realized that the entries were becoming increasingly offensive. He reasoned that parceling the jokes into "bad" and "good" joke files would help people avoid those jokes that they did not want to see. The bad jokes file deteriorated even further. The issue facing the administration was whether to terminate the conference to eliminate the complaints of harassment, discrimination, bad taste, and inappropriate use of public funds, or to maintain the conference in support of freedom of speech. Some people argued that freedom of speech took precedence over other considerations in this matter. They stressed that central to the considerations was the understanding that people should not be subjected to this "offensive" material by having it automatically appear on their screens; however, if individuals chose to read and contribute to this form of communication (the bad jokes file), they should be able to do so. It was the decision of the administration to open, rather than close, the conference--to draw even more attention to the activity and to ask people to participate by providing their points of view regarding the appropriateness of this activity. A discussion of issues pertaining to freedom of speech and appropriate use of the resources ensued. In this incident, opening the conference further and facilitating discussion worked to illuminate the community standards and helped to define the responsibilities of community members regarding use of resources. The overwhelming opinion of the community was that people should not be forced, by virtue of the technology, to read material that they felt was offensive, and that individuals had the right to read and write such material if they chose, but that this was not considered a good use of information technology resources. The item was withdrawn by the person who had originally submitted it. The successful outcome of this process supports another of Ernest L. Boyer's notions of community:A college or university is an open community, a place where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed.[4] The incident was a milestone for the University of Michigan community in establishing need for a dynamic policy formulating process. 2. Increase awareness of incidents Following the "bad jokes" incident, the University-wide policy committee requested that a policy be written to define appropriate use of information technology for the University. Staff began systematic collection of stylized vignettes from actual incidents that were occurring on the campus. This proved to be one of the most important steps to raise campus awareness of ethical and value issues. It was through the use of such vignettes that members of the Michigan community began to understand the decisions that needed to be made. Without the real incidents some were resistant to forming new policy statements which they saw as just "one more regulation." Once community members participated in discussion of real incidents, the need for guidelines became clear and they engaged willingly in the process. Documenting incidents is a valuable tool to increase awareness, to stimulate discussions, and, over time, to reflect changes that may be taking place within the environment.[5] 3. Define expectation for policy This step in the process was designed to define expectations for policy. As stated earlier, some members of every campus will want policy to control behaviors. Some will expect policy to set standards. And some will expect policy to help create a sense of community and to foster discussion of issues. Engaging in this definitional process is valuable work. Examples of all of these expectations were found at Michigan, causing more than one compromise to occur. 4. Clarify community standards and values Extensive discussions in large and small groups allowed the sharing of different points of view from members of key organizations and from specific individuals within the community. Many questions were asked. What kind of policy do you want? What guidelines would be useful to you? What problems are you currently addressing? In the process of clarifying community standards and values, we struggled with two outstanding value conflicts. I have entitled these law vs. learning and individual vs. institutional responsibility. Some members of the campus community, particularly faculty, felt that when these incidents arise, they should be used primarily as learning/teaching moments--as opportunities to advance the ethical reasoning and social development of members of the community, particularly students. They saw them as a way to help students better understand the impact of their actions and the responsibility they carried in the wider community. Other members of the community were more likely to take a legalistic and rule-oriented approach. They argued that a student violating a rule should experience the consequences for that behavior, that policy should help to delineate these consequences. The dilemma of law vs. learning is a conflict that will need to be discussed and balanced for any institution developing information technology use policy. Some members of the community asked: Whose responsibility is it to write a policy or to control these behaviors? Is this really the individual's responsibility? Does an institution, especially an institution of higher education, carry responsibility for informing its community, for setting the standards, for providing the guidelines, for encouraging people to be responsible, for teaching them about the issues? In an appeal for public and private institutions to take a stand, Sissela Bok wrote in 1978: The social incentives to deceit are at present very powerful; the controls, often weak. Many individuals feel caught up in practices they cannot change. It would be wishful thinking therefore to expect individuals to bring about major changes in the collective practices of deceit by themselves. Public and private institutions, with their enormous power to affect personal choice, must help alter the existing pressures and incentives.[6] Clarifying community standards and values, and resolving the conflicts of law vs. learning and individual vs. institutional responsibility, was an important process at the University of Michigan. The resulting policy, called "Proper Use of Information Resources, Information Technology Resources and Networks at Michigan," attempts to describe the community standard and the desired information environment, while also defining some of the agreed-upon major categories of unacceptable and irresponsible behaviors within that environment. The work was well worth the effort. Administrators, faculty, staff, and students found the discussions challenging, stimulating, and beneficial no matter how vigorous the debates. 5. Gain administrative endorsement Administrative endorsement, though a key part in establishing any policy, is often not given sufficient attention. At Michigan, the vice president and provost, as well as the president, repeatedly sent information to the deans and directors encouraging them to participate in the discussions and to fulfill their responsibility for the set of issues surrounding appropriate use of information technology. This reflected commitment from the highest executive officers of the institution to those responsible below them, while also stimulating their own thinking about issues and indirectly enlisting their commitment. It is a critical part of any policy development or implementation process. Though the Michigan computing center team had an operational "conditions of use" statement in place for several years, the campus- wide policy discussions extended and expanded earlier thinking through community involvement and values clarification. The campus-wide policy was formally adopted in May 1990. THE "THINK ABOUT IT" IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT A policy, included in the standards documents of large institutions, is often little more than a piece of paper. It is distributed to department managers, deans, and others to be read, but is too often only filed. While staff will be held responsible for the policy if an issue arises in the future, there is often minimal hope that it will be enthusiastically implemented. Thus, the "Think About It" campaign at Michigan was instituted by a team of colleagues as an attempt to activate the process of policy implementation. The goal was to extend the discussions that had taken place during policy formation, to open them to an even wider audience, and to encourage information sharing regarding the real incidents with which staff were dealing. Information regarding the newly adopted Proper Use Policy needed to be disseminated. But more importantly, a broader understanding of the community values needed to be established so that people would be engaged in implementation. Others wishing to follow this policy implementation model will want to address the following key steps. _Volunteer recruitment._ Names of faculty and staff who were known to be specialists in ethics, philosophy, moral development, values clarification education, or policy studies were gathered. The names of others, known to have a particular demonstrated interest and/or concern about ethical issues on campus, were also collected. All named individuals were contacted and invited to participate in the implementation project. Additionally, a University-wide call for volunteers was issued. _Specific expectations._ The recruitment request specified that volunteers would be expected to participate in a four-hour facilitator training session, and additionally with a partner would donate two one- hour blocks of time during the fall term to facilitate discussion of ethical and value issues in the use of information technology. Facilitators were expected to go wherever they were assigned on the campus and would probably not be assigned in their own department. The response was overwhelmingly positive. When fifty volunteers were identified, it was necessary to close applications in order to limit the size of the pilot project. _Publicity/marketing._ The campaign was publicized on the campus network and in the campus newspapers. Posters announcing the campaign were included with a letter from the vice president to all deans and department chairpersons asking them to make the posters visible and to encourage students, faculty, and staff to participate in the project discussions. Brochures were produced in large quantities and distributed to all system administrators, to the public computing sites, and to all departments. The brochure provided challenging ethical questions as well as the entire text of the Proper Use Policy. Posters were also distributed widely to public offices and computing sites. _Training._ All volunteers were involved in four hours of facilitator training. Instructional content included information about non-verbal communication, group processes, social cognition, group leadership skills, and the dynamics of facilitating discussions. Information about existing relevant laws, about campus resources for technical or legal help, and about the University policy was also provided. Each facilitator was given the opportunity to practice identifying and arguing at least two different points of view during discussion of two or three different vignettes prepared specifically for the training sessions. In these role-playing sessions, facilitators practiced sharing, listening, and valuing different opinions. _Facilitator support._ Once trained, all volunteers were assured that they would be assigned with a facilitator partner for each group discussion. This proved to be an important aspect of the program. It seemed to increase the confidence of the facilitators, allowed them more comfort during the discussions, and when they were trying to accept a particular point of view very different from their own, gave them a partner for support. It also seemed to help them to realize that they did not need to have all the answers, allowing them to truly facilitate open discussion of issues. All volunteers were also provided with packets of information containing copies of vignettes for discussion "starters," copies of brochures, sample copies of guidelines from other institutions, and an outline of goals for each discussion session. Volunteers were encouraged to contact the project coordinator for additional support as needed. _Scheduling._ One staff member carried the esponsibility of receiving all departmental requests, noting the availability of all facilitators, matching facilitator availability with the departments' preferred dates, making the team assignment, and confirming arrangements with both the facilitator team and the department representative. Even in a pilot project, this set of responsibilities proved to be large, complicated, and critical. EVALUATION The "Think About It" implementation project could certainly be an ongoing project at any institution. Values clarification and community sharing seem beneficial at any time. However, this project was designed for a six-month time period. It was evaluated following its termination in March 1991. Approximately 700 people participated in small, facilitated discussion groups. Many hundreds of others participated in spin-off and informal departmental discussions. The facilitators were unanimous in volunteering to participate again should the project be repeated. They were also unanimous in their determination that more needed to be done in this area. Of the people who benefited from the effort, the facilitators felt they had gained the most. Both weaknesses and strengths were identified during the evaluation process. They are briefly described here to provide guidance for others. Weaknesses The main weaknesses of the Michigan model were that it was people- intensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. _People-intensive._ The training of the facilitators, the scheduling of sessions, the support of facilitators, the small group discussions, the sharing of vignettes, and the continuous contact with departments as questions arose required a great deal of person-to-person contact. Such contact built trust and open communication. Cutting this process short for the sake of numbers or time would potentially have destroyed the essential openness, sharing, and safety of the discussions. While the person-to- person design was one of the weaknesses of this model, it was also, most certainly, one of its strengths. _Time-consuming._ Departmental representatives made the necessary arrangements for the meetings, distributed information, and ensured participants. This involvement was necessary to spread and maximize investment in the project. However, since individuals and departments differed in their efficiency in setting up meetings, and since facilitators had to be invited before being assigned, scheduling and accommodating calendars of all those involved was time-consuming. The facilitators felt that while the number of direct contacts was small (700), and the process time- consuming, the model promoted departmental investment, increased the occurrence of informal follow-up discussions, and increased the overall spread effect of the project. _Unpredictable._ "Where will the discussions lead us?" was a question asked by both facilitators and department managers, who were anxious about unforeseen issues that might arise during the discussions. For facilitators, anxiety centered around preparation and whether or not they would be sufficiently knowledgeable. For managers, anxiety focused on whether or not negative discussions and/or policy violations would be made public during the discussions. The unpredictable nature of truly open discussion causes anxiety. Once people understand that they do not have to know all of the answers, indeed that there may not be answers for the questions that may be raised, anxieties decrease. Facilitators were encouraged to admit when they did not know an answer and to jointly pursue additional information with the participants as partners. Strengths The major strengths of the model were that it valued diversity, it was inexpensive, and it capitalized on the spread effect. _Diversity._ This process valued diversity and respected differences of opinion. It did not promote the idea that there is a right or wrong way to go about things, but rather placed a value on understanding others' points of view with the promise and potential of building a community. It sought to clarify community values and to establish standards and guidelines for behavior within the community. _Inexpensive._ Overall, the process was inexpensive in terms of what it achieved. If one calculates real personnel costs (time spent in training, discussions, and group facilitation), costs could be significant. However, enlisting the services of volunteers for the implementation program meant that, overall, the program was inexpensive in its direct costs. We have found that faculty and staff are eager to contribute to community building within their institutions when they see the issues as significant and important. Many facilitators reported that involvement gave them the opportunity to interact with others whom they would otherwise never have met, and allowed them to wrestle with issues of wider scope than their typical assignments. Most participated proudly in this service to the University. _Spread effect._ The design encourages replication, follow-up informal discussions, and an overall spread effect. As a result of this program, not only did facilitators complete their assigned two one-hour sessions, but often asked to be assigned to additional sites as well. In some cases, facilitators as well as participants in the groups have established electronic conferences to discuss the issues, have presented papers at their professional conferences, and have volunteered to participate in any future programs in this area. Many facilitators have already volunteered to be part of a new electronic "ethics think tank" to provide fast information and issues clarification for administrators handling issues as they arise. Other ways of expanding and engaging community involvement are currently being explored. SUMMARY All campuses are different. No two will address ethical issues in the same way. No two will find the same energy within their communities for examining and wrestling with ethical and values issues. No two will place the same value on community building, or allow the same degree of experimentation with dynamic processes. Ethical dilemmas will continue to arise on campuses as the use of information technology increases. Communities will continue to need and seek policy to help guide their processes. A policy is but the starting point for the hard explorations of values and ethical issues that exist as communities mature in their new and increased access to information and in their use of information technology. One model for policy development and implementation has been described here. At the University of Michigan, it has proven to be dynamic, successful, worth the investment, and full of potential for further use. Others are encouraged to examine the usefulness of this model for their own work, and to seize the opportunity for teaching and community building that has come bundled with the new technology. ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 John Naisbitt and Patricia Aberdene, Megatrends 2000 (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1990), p. 246. 2 Ernest L. Boyer, Campus Life In Search of Community (New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990), p. 37. 3 Ibid., p. 25. 4 Ibid., p. 17. 5 An extensive collection of incidents is currently being prepared by the author. It will be made available for dissemination to administrators and teachers. 6 Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Random House, 1978), p. 244. ======================================================================== Managing Information Technology Issues of Ethics and Values: Awareness, Ownership, and Values Clarification