Search - Ethical dilemmas for librarians and other information workers: case studies

Edili: Ethical dilemmas for librarians and other information workers: case studies

Overview of the previously registered case studies

The database contains 27 case studies

ID	Title	Keywords	Type of library	Type of activity
1	Use of filtering software	Filtering software ; freedom of information ; protection of minors	Public library	Use
2	Armenian Genocide	Armenians; equal treatment; freedom of expression; neutrality; pluralism; censorship	Scientific library; city public library	Cooperation with external partners; space allocation
3	Assisted Dying	Neutrality ; assisted dying ; censorship	Public library	Collection development
4	Use of RFID	Data protection ; user’s point of view ; rationalisation ; RFID ; monitoring	Public library Academic library	Use Management
5	Instructions for bomb-making	Protection of minors ; freedom of information ; leftism ; political violence; explosive devices; terrorism; censorship	Public library	Use
6	Reviews in the catalogue	Catalogue enrichment ; neutrality ; review	Public library	Development
7	Cultivation of cannabis	Data protection ; drugs ; cannabis cultivation ; police investigations ; police access to user data	Public library	Management
8	Suicide	Suicide ; responsibility ; censorship	Public library	Collection development
9	Anorexic girl	Data protection ; protection of minors ; anorexia ; responsibility ; confidentiality	Public library	Use
10	Creationism	Fundamentalism ; gift ; creationism ; neutrality ; sect	Public library	Collection development
11	Piglet book	Atheism ; child protection ; children′s books ; censorship	Public library in a small town	Collection development Development
12	Sex tourism	Development ; feminism ; misogyny; sexism; sex tourism; keywords	Academic library	Development
13	Customer or user?	Library function ; educational mission; public service ; economisation ; New Public Management	Public library	Public relations
14	Bookbinding	Bookbinding ; book cover ; courtesy ; corruption	Academic library	Management
15	Animal rights	Equal treatment ; hunting ; neutrality ; animal rights activists	Public library	Use
16	Negro king	Children′s books ; political correctness ; racism ; text authenticity	Public library	Collection development
17	Homework exchange	Fraud ; filtering software ; homework exchange ; internet access ; obtaining grades by fraud ; plagiarism	Academic library	Use
18	Bestseller service	Bestseller service ; range of services ; fees ; cost of freedom ; professionalism ; social commitment	Public library	Use
19	Gay parents	Homosexuality ; child protection; children′s books ; gay parents ; censorship	Public library	Use
20	Burka wearing	Acceptable use policy ; misogyny ; clothing ; cultural diversity ; religion	Public library Academic library	Use
21	Smell of urine	Harassment ; damage ; equal treatment ; smells ; media ; smell of urine	Public library Academic library	Use
22	Transvestite	Harassment ; transvestite	Public library Academic library	Use
23	Guttenberg	Development ; Guttenberg ; plagiarism ; tradition	Academic library	Development
24	Activities on first day of school	Enrolment ; corruption ; promotion of reading ; neutrality ; sponsorship	Public library	Public relations Management
25	Indexing term foreign infiltration	Development ; neutrality ; indexing	Public library Academic library	Development
26	Author reading	Author reading ; blackmail ; political pressure ; quality	Public library District library	Space allocation
27	Homophobia	Exhibition ; homophobia ; homosexuality ; caricature ; artistic freedom ; freedom of expression ; censorship	City public library	Use

case study 23: Guttenberg

Case description:	In the online catalogue of your library, there is a feedback button for users to email comments and to draw attention to errors, for example about bibliographic records. Now a user has chosen this way to draw attention to the fact that the trade edition of the dissertation of the former Federal Minister of Defence Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (Title: Constitution and Constitutional Treaty: Constitutional development stages in the US and the EU. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot , 2009. 475 pp) is still part of the library, even though the University of Bayreuth denied the author his doctoral degree in February 2011 because of numerous proven instances of plagiarism. The user demands that the work be removed immediately from the collection, since it is contrary to good scientific practice, infringes copyright and unsuspecting readers are in danger of quoting scientifically unacceptable statements. Should the work really be withdrawn, must anything be done or are there other options?
Potential solution 1:	You withdraw the work and delete the title from the catalogue. Assessment : You avoid conflict. There is currently, however, a great demand for the title. Its removal will not go unnoticed. Perhaps other users will complain that the book was removed and speak of censorship. Your actions violate the principles of freedom of information and freedom from censorship. Copyright infringement is not an adequate reason to remove the work: if copyright is infringed in dissertations by plagiarism, this has less weight than the violation of freedom of information, which would occur if the plagiarised work were removed from the collection. There is a high level of interest among the public in the procedures that lead to the withdrawal of an academic title; the procedures need to be open to scrutiny in the future. This is to ensure that libraries preserve such works in their holdings and make them accessible. Such books and documents may contain scientifically relevant statements beyond the plagiarised passages. Your actions violate the principle of value-free support for scientific research.
Potential solution 2:	You reject a withdrawal of the work; however, you recognise the need to place the following words: "withdrawal of the doctoral degree on 23 February 2011" in a prominent position in the bibliographic record and the physical copy. Assessment : The core values of freedom of information, freedom from censorship, the promotion of science and the safeguarding of the cultural heritage are protected. See D 1.3, D 2.1, D 2.2, D 2.3, I 2.1, I 2.2 The procedure may be viewed as a contribution to the prevention of plagiarism. See I 2.6 Copyright is not infringed by the procedure. See D 2.12, I 4.5 There is a high level of interest among the public in the procedures that lead to the withdrawal of an academic title; the procedures need to be open to scrutiny in the future. This is to ensure that libraries preserve such works in their holdings and make them accessible. Because they have been subsequently convicted of plagiarism, books and documents can give rise to special research interest. They also reflect a (not acceptable, but still existing) part of scientific practice. Such books and documents may contain scientifically relevant statements beyond the plagiarised passages. Such academic works as dissertations and habilitation theses are particularly quickly and intensively received by the professional communities (at least in most disciplines). This means that reference to them in other works is rapid. Even those dissertations and habilitation theses where plagiarism could be detected so that academic degrees had to be revoked are cited between the date of publication and the revocation in academic publications. You have thus become an integral part of the scholarly communication process and have left traces in footnotes, scientific instruments and bibliographies that later scholars will want and need to refer to. For this reason, it is necessary to keep these works at a distance from the library collections.
Potential solution 3:	You reject a withdrawal of the work; however, you recognise the need to place the following words: "withdrawal of the doctoral degree on 23 February 2011" in a prominent position in the bibliographic record and the physical copy. In addition, you store the work separately and only allow it to be used when requested and when reasons for use are provided. Assessment : The same reasons for refusing to withdraw the work apply as in potential solution 2. In the present case there are no comprehensible reasons for separating the work. The right to unrestricted access to information and the fundamental value of freedom from censorship would be violated. Such a restriction would mean a restriction of the right to freedom of information and is therefore not acceptable for ethical reasons. If those people who have had their doctoral degree revoked are prominent, then a restriction on the use of the work in the reading room is understandable on the grounds of prevention of theft, at least for a transitional period. It must be examined whether exceptions are justified if the plagiarism concerns the acquisition of specially protected content (trade secrets, trademark protection, procedures, etc.). Reasons for restrictions must be made clear to the user.
Potential solution 4:	The title remains in stock; ultimately it was purchased, and the bibliographic record remains unchanged. An additional note for the revocation of the doctoral degree is not provided for in the rules for descriptive cataloguing. Assessment : You allow the public to have access to the controversial title. It is not acceptable to omit the addition of metadata, merely citing the rules for descriptive cataloguing. There is the option to create footnotes and to make them visible in the display. An additional note in the catalogue does not constitute a breach of neutrality, but is one of the metadata added as the academic record. Without appropriate information in the catalogue, in the physical copy and, if applicable, in the full-text file, you violate the duty to provide value-free and important information describing the recorded work. It should be seen as irresponsible misinformation and a violation of neutrality when former dissertations are characterised as a dissertation in catalogues (and also in the academic record) without further addition. In particular young users, students and users from other countries read the work without knowing that it is based at least in part on plagiarism.
References to values: Values: Professional ethics in Germany:	D 1.3 Free access: “We provide our clients access to our holdings and publicly accessible information resources.” D 2.1 Freedom of information, freedom from censorship: "We support freedom of expression and the free flow of information; libraries and information facilities should guarantee unimpeded access to information resources of all kinds in our democratic society. We reject censorship." D 2.2 Tradition: “We protect our cultural heritage according to the libraries′ collecting mandate." D 2.3 Promotion of science: “We support science and research by providing information, resources and related services." D 2.12 Copyright: "We recognize the rights of creators and copyright holders of copyright-protected library and information material".
References to values: Values: International professional ethics (IFLA):	I 2.1 Free access: “In order to promote inclusion and eradicate discrimination, librarians and other information workers ensure that the right of accessing information is not denied and that equitable services are provided for everyone whatever their age, citizenship, political belief, physical or mental ability, gender identity, heritage, education, income, immigration and asylum-seeking status, marital status, origin, race, religion or sexual orientation." I 2.6 Prevention of plagiarism "Librarians and other information workers promote the ethical use of information thereby helping to eliminate plagiarism and other forms of misuse of information." I 4.5 Copyright: "Librarians and other information workers recognise the intellectual property right of authors and other creators and will seek to ensure that their rights are respected."
Further values:
References:	Burchard, Amory: Plagiate in der Wissenschaft. Guttenberg & Co. bleiben im Regal. In: Der Tagesspiegel. 27.11.12. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/plagiate-in-der-wissenschaft-guttenberg-und-co-bleiben-im-regal/7440060.html (21.6.13) Plagiat. In: Wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiat (21.6.13) Steinhauer, Eric: Gutenberg aussondern? In: Bibliotheksrecht. Virtueller Zettelkasten mit Hinweisen und Anmerkungen zu bibliotheksrechtlichen Themen. 2.3.11. http://www.bibliotheksrecht.de/2011/03/02/guttenberg-aussondern-10740355/ (21.6.13) Upmeier, Arne: Plagiate als Herausforderung für Bibliotheken? Ein Gespräch mit Arne Upmeier. In: Goethe-Institut. Bibliotheken in Deutschland – Fachdiskussion. January 2012. http://www.goethe.de/wis/bib/fdk/deindex.htm (21.6.13) Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis: Empfehlungen der Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“; Denkschrift = Proposals for safeguarding good scientific practice / Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. –Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 1998. http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/download/empfehlung_wiss_praxis_0198.pdf (21.6.13) Was ist ein Plagiat? Universität Duisburg Essen. http://www.uni-due.de/plagiate/definition.shtml (21.6.2013)
Metadata:
Title:	Guttenberg
Keywords	Development ; Guttenberg ; plagiarism ; tradition
Classification	Copyright : plagiarism Development : form
Type of library	Academic library
Place:	Germany
Type of activity	Development
References to values
Author:	Hermann Rösch

User comments

No comments yet � Do you have something to contribute?

Your name (optional):

Your email address (not made public):

Heading:

Your comment: