Columns

Why Ethics?: Interpreting “Ethics” and What STC’s Ethical Principles (Can) Do

Derek G. Ross | STC Member
This column features ethics scenarios and issues that may affect technical communicators in the many aspects of their jobs. If you have a possible solution to a scenario, your own case, or feedback in general, please contact column editor Derek G. Ross at derek.ross@auburn.edu.

As members of the Society for Technical Communication, we are provided a set of six ethical principles designed to help us in our daily decision-making. The principles were first developed in the 1970s (see Cook 2002), and remain a valuable component of the organization. The list, available just off the “resources” tab of STC’s Member Center (https://www.stc.org/about-stc/ethical-principles/), begins, “As technical communicators, we observe the following ethical principles in our professional activities.” We are then presented with the following: Legality, Honesty, Confidentiality, Quality, Fairness, and Professionalism.

These are good words. I think any of us would be hard pressed to argue that we do not want to be viewed as honest, fair, professionals who follow laws, observe workplace confidentiality, and create quality work. But ethical principles (can) do more than just give us a shining sense of self.

If we know how to leverage our own principles, these good words can help us support our daily decision-making, help us convince other technical communicators of the rightness of our decisions (and perhaps convince them to take right action themselves when the time comes), and even give us something to lean on when employers ask us to make difficult workplace choices. To understand how we might better operationalize these principles, then, it is worth taking some time to consider the basics of ethics-based decision-making in general.

The Basics of Ethical Decision-Making

Clear understanding of our actions allows us to communicate our reasoning to others. If we ourselves do not fully understand how we come to decisions, we are unlikely to be able to convince others to support our decisions or judgements in similar situations (see, for example, Dombrowski 2000). Thus, when we make ethical decisions, we are making normative decisions.

A normative decision is one which makes an argument toward how things ought to be. Normative decisions guide our actions and seek agreement from others. So, given a simple situation, I might make an ethical judgement that I suspect most of us can agree with, and say that “punching your coworker is wrong.” Rephrased, I can make an action-guiding statement, and say, “Do not punch your coworker.” Rephrased again, I can seek your agreement: “I think we can all agree that you should not punch your coworker.” I have now made an ethical (normative) decision—not punching your coworker, and agreeing that we should all not punch our coworkers, becomes an action-guiding, agreement-seeking ethical principle.

Ethical situations generally involve four components: a moral agent, an action or series of actions, a recipient, and consequences. The agent takes action, the recipient receives consequences. Ethics comes into play when we consider what actions are appropriate to take in given circumstances, and what consequences are justifiable for recipients of actions—even, in many cases, who or what we will even consider as a recipient for action.

To extend just a bit—skip the next couple of paragraphs if you want to keep to just the basics—if you have heard of “virtue ethics,” you are considering ethics that relate to the agent’s (or action taker’s) moral character. “Deontological ethics” refers to ethics that consider an agent’s duties or obligations in any given scenario, and “consequentialist ethics” focus on the consequences of action.

Who or what is considered a viable recipient (worthy of consideration), also matters. In anthropocentric ethics, only humans have moral standing. In non-anthropocentric ethics, non-humans can be a part of that agent-action-recipient-consequence chain: zoocentric ethics assigns moral standing to all animals; biocentric to all living things, including plants; and ecocentric to ecosystems (communities of organisms in conjunction with non-living components like soil, air, and water). We might consider the agent’s duty in these cases as well: an indirect duty to a nonhuman is a duty owed to a human, and a direct duty to a nonhuman is duty directly owed to that non-human. Put simply, if I have the opportunity to pollute your lake, but do not because you do not want me to and I have told you I won’t, I am following an indirect duty. I did not pollute the lake because of the way I feel about the lake, but because of our human-human agreement. If I have the opportunity to pollute your lake, but do not, even though you have told me I can (perhaps because I think the lake is better off unpolluted), I am following a direct duty. It does not matter what another human says.

Then we get into issues of value: When I make decisions based on action and consequence, I might consider something’s instrumental value (its ability to cause value either through trade, sale, negotiation, etc.), or its intrinsic value (the belief that whatever I’m considering has value no matter what I do with it). All of this—and much more—is why any theoretical discussion of ethical principles and values can get complex very quickly. Add to that considerations of various ethical models such as Aristotelian (virtue-driven, rule-based, decision-making); Kantian (situational, rule-based, motive-driven decision-making); Utilitarian (often described as cost-benefit analysis, or the greatest good for the greatest number of people); Feminist (ethics that show awareness of decision-making repercussion and perceived social hierarchy); and many more, and our discussions dramatically increase in length (and often volume).

Our Code of Ethics: Day-to-Day Operationalized Decision-Making

Despite what the preceding paragraphs might suggest, “ethics” doesn’t have to be complicated on the day-to-day, operationalized level of decision-making. I offer the earlier notes for those of you that might appreciate a starting place for digging deeper into such a rich topic. Thankfully, many of us work in organizations that provide basic ethical guidelines, and, here, we share six ethical principles as members of the STC that give us a basis for making, and supporting, daily ethical decisions. The following explanations might serve as a starting place toward helping us more effectively operationalize these principles. In each case, I begin by directly quoting the text offered by the STC, then offer explanation.

Legality: “We observe the laws and regulations governing our profession. We meet the terms of contracts we undertake. We ensure that all terms are consistent with laws and regulations locally and globally, as applicable, and with STC ethical principles.”

As a normative “ought,” “legality” asks that all STC members consider our personal workplace rules and regulations, obligations to contract-holders, laws of state and country, and organizational constraints. If you are a paying STC member, you agree to follow all legal professional restrictions. Choosing to follow a law is an ethical choice—yes, there are consequences for breaking the law, but only if one is caught (ever knowingly gone over the speed limit?). That makes deliberately choosing to follow laws an ethical choice. Additionally, legality and ethics may differ (see Wicclair and Farkas 1984, for example). What might be legal might not be ethical in some circumstances. Just because it is not illegal for me to cut in front of you in line for tickets to the next Star Wars movie, for example, does not make it ethical.

Honesty: “We seek to promote the public good in our activities. To the best of our ability, we provide truthful and accurate communications. We also dedicate ourselves to conciseness, clarity, coherence, and creativity, striving to meet the needs of those who use our products and services. We alert our clients and employers when we believe that material is ambiguous. Before using another person’s work, we obtain permission. We attribute authorship of material and ideas only to those who make an original and substantive contribution. We do not perform work outside our job scope during hours compensated by clients or employers, except with their permission; nor do we use their facilities, equipment, or supplies without their approval. When we advertise our services, we do so truthfully.”

As a normative “ought,” “honesty” asks that all STC members think about issues like plain language, credit, and ownership of resources. We often work in environments where we provide our own oversight: “Honesty” asks for a true-ness to profession regarding actions, recipients, and consequences.

“Honesty” includes awareness of audience, and awareness that our actions as technical communicators always influence perceptions of all technical communicators. Take the section noting that “we do not perform work outside our job scope,” for example. If I routinely do work other than that assigned by my employer during work hours, or other than that which I am contractually obligated to perform (if freelancing), I create the impression that technical communicators lack focus, or perhaps overcharge for services, or that our work is too simple, or too boring, for my full focus. Any negative perception of my work ethic reflects on other technical communicators, and I ultimately risk creating negative impressions of the profession as a whole. If I use work equipment to forward a personal agenda (a side website design business, for example), I risk building a reputation for technical communicators as a bunch of mercenaries only out for themselves.

Confidentiality: “We respect the confidentiality of our clients, employers, and professional organizations. We disclose business-sensitive information only with their consent or when legally required to do so. We obtain releases from clients and employers before including any business-sensitive materials in our portfolios or commercial demonstrations or before using such materials for another client or employer.”

As a normative (action-guiding, agreement-seeking) “ought,” “confidentiality” asks that all STC members respect others’ boundaries. Much of ethical thought involves thinking about potential repercussions (consequences) of action. Here, we’re asked to think about what might happen to others (or to ourselves) if we share information that has been entrusted to us in confidence.

Many of us work as integral components of what really is an information economy. In designing and articulating information, we may have access to knowledge that could impact an organization or individual’s wellbeing (for better or for worse) if we distribute it outside of the bounds of contractual obligation.

We are often the people that make information tradeable—“confidentiality” asks us to recognize, in many ways, the potential impact of knowledge-work, and, as an extension of “honesty,” argues that we ought to keep an awareness of the way information moves from person to person.

Quality: “We endeavor to produce excellence in our communication products. We negotiate realistic agreements with clients and employers on schedules, budgets, and deliverables during project planning. Then we strive to fulfill our obligations in a timely, responsible manner.”

As a normative “ought,” “quality” asks both that all STC members remember that our actions reflect the actions of all technical communicators, and that we remember our own (and others’) humanity… and limitations. It asks that we don’t commit to producing work that we knowingly cannot produce, and also asks that when asked to produce sub-par work, we work to increase knowledge of what we are capable of doing.

We are often asked to produce work under deadlines, sometimes in high-pressure environments. “Quality” is, in many ways, a call for us to remember that good work may take time, and asks that we keep the expectations of ourselves and our clients realistic, then produce work that meets or exceeds those expectations. In so doing, we increase the reputations of all technical communicators.

Fairness: “We respect cultural variety and other aspects of diversity in our clients, employers, development teams, and audiences. We serve the business interests of our clients and employers as long as they are consistent with the public good. Whenever possible, we avoid conflicts of interest in fulfilling our professional responsibilities and activities. If we discern a conflict of interest, we disclose it to those concerned and obtain their approval before proceeding.”

As a normative “ought,” “fairness” makes explicit issues regarding implicit shared humanity in the other ethical principles. “Fairness” asks us to treat every individual, regardless of race, color, creed, class, religion, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, employer, and more as a moral agent.

“Fairness” also speaks directly back to “honesty” and “quality” by noting that all STC members ought to disclose any instances where we cannot, for whatever reason, act fairly.

Professionalism: “We evaluate communication products and services constructively and tactfully, and seek definitive assessments of our own professional performance. We advance technical communication through our integrity and excellence in performing each task we undertake. Additionally, we assist other persons in our profession through mentoring, networking, and instruction. We also pursue professional self-improvement, especially through courses and conferences.”

As a normative “ought,” “professionalism” recaps issues addressed in every other principle. “Professionalism” argues that all STC members ought to recognize their shared values, and recognize that our actions define technical communication as a profession. Thus, we ought to lift each other up.

As with the other principles, “professionalism” recognizes that our actions are choices that have consequences. If we choose to take actions that support each other and our profession, we—collectively—improve.

Clear Understanding

As I noted earlier, clear understanding of our actions allows us to communicate our actions to others. Sometimes, however, we may find it difficult to find the language to make ethical arguments to others. STC’s ethical principles fulfill an important role here, by offering us a way to justify our actions. Organizationally, they help us preserve integrity. For nonmembers—employers, for example—they give us a reference tool that allows us organizationally validated power. We can choose to take action (or not) based on these principles, then use them to support our decisions. Our ethical principles give us something to fall back on when we make ethical, job-related decisions, and allow us to justify our actions to others either simply, by pointing others to our own guiding principles, or in a more complex manner by breaking down the explanations offered by the organization.

The content for this column was originally presented in a webinar by the same name offered by STC on 20 October 2017. The webinar came about because when we talk about ethics, we often do so in a very general sense. “Do the right thing” seems to be the general perception of what it means to “be ethical,” and, as a result, any meaningful discussion of personal or corporate ethics often seems stagnant. If we all just did the right thing, we wouldn’t have personnel issues, arguments over corporate rights, concerns over privacy issues, or any other problems—unless, of course, we all have a different sense of what is right.

As members of the Society for Technical Communication, we operate under a set of six ethical principles. This column explains how those six principles; legality, honesty, confidentiality, quality, fairness, and professionalism, work against the larger backdrop of ethical theory.

I hope this overview is some use to you. As always, we welcome your responses, and truly enjoying working with the ideas you bring to our attention. Let us know your answers to the questions we’ve posed, your thoughts on our roles as technical communicators in general, or send us your own ethics cases or column ideas. Please send your responses to derek.ross@auburn.edu. Responses will be printed in an upcoming issue of Intercom as space permits.

—Derek G. Ross

Recommended Readings

This column draws heavily from general overviews of ethics, such as those by Paul Dombrowski (2000) and Andrew Kernohan (2012). Both books are excellent starting points for getting into the real work of ethics-based decision-making. The other works I refer to in this piece, as well as the additional works included here, similarly provide good framing for understanding ethics-in-general.

Cook, K. C. 2002. Layered Literacies: A Theoretical Frame for Technical Communication Pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly 11.1, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1101_1

Dombrowski, P. 2000. Ethics in Technical Communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, Sr., C. E., M. S. Pritchard, and M. J. Rabins. 2005. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Kernohan, A. 2012. Environmental Ethics: An Interactive Introduction. Buffalo, NY: Broadview.

Ross, D. G. 2012. Why Ethics?: Can Doing the Right Thing Really Change the World?. Mother Pelican 8.11, http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv08n11page9.html.

Wicclair, M., and D. Farkas. 1984. Ethical Reasoning in Technical Communication: A Practical Framework. Technical Communication and Ethics 31.2, 21–25.