References: | Computer Ethics, Chapter 3 |
Donald Gotterbarn Computer Ethics: Responsibility Regained |
For instance, I am an academic who is also a "computer professional". Are my responsibilities different from another academic who is a lawyer, or one who is a historian? Are my responsibilities different from other computer professionals who are not academics? How do we differ from "ordinary" citizens, or even other professionals?
For example, if you are subpoenaed to give evidence against a defendent, not only must you give evidence, but you must also tell the truth. However, a defendent's lawyer cannot be forced to give evidence against his or her client - even if the defendent has "confessed" to the lawyer!
If you use excessive force in attempting to detain somebody you suspect of having stolen something from you, you can be charged with grievous or aggravated bodily harm. The police, however, may use excessive force in the execution of their duties, and if the suspect fights back, he or she can be charged with resisting arrest!
A doctor has the right to prescribe and administer controlled drugs to patients. A civil engineer can order a building closed if it does not adhere to safety standards; an electrical engineer can prevent access to an electrical installation which he or she deems to be unsafe; a priest can listen to confession and cannot be forced to divulge the secret. People in these professions appear to be able to do things which cannot be done by ordinary citizens. Indeed, if an ordinary citizen appears to do any of these things they will be breaking the law!
How can some members of society receive the right to behave in ways that would be considered to be criminal activities if performed by other citizens? With these extra privileges come extra responsibilities. Drugs can be prescribed only to treat ailments: they cannot be prescribed simply because the "patient" is addicted to them (unless the prescription is part of a recognised treatment for the addiction). These roles and responsibilities are usually described by a Code of Ethics and by legislation (and will be discussed in the next lecture), but today we will concentrate on the characteristics of professions that attempt to set themselves apart from ordinary jobs.
Perhaps a similar situation arises in IT when software is subject to a maintenance agreement. It simply would not do to allow third-parties access to source code and allow them to modify it, and then expect the client to invoke your services under the maintenance agreement to fix any problems that arise. However, these examples are not particularly suitable either, because no one other than the official maintainers would be allowed to modify the source code... not even other IT professionals!
Let's say that we want to raise computing out of the mire and refer to it as a profession, because we want our chosen careers to be considered among the respected careers. Let's assume that there are people out there who call themselves computer professionals simply because they have a computer and they've learnt some programming language or other. They happen to be pretty good at marketing their services, and because they operate out their bedroom they have low overheads and can offer their services for next to nothing. You, on the other hand, have sacrificed four years of your life to study IT at University and you expect a high salary when you graduate. These relatively unskilled (compared to you) workers are making it difficult for you to find a job that pays you what you feel you deserve. What can you do about it?
First and foremost, these are the wrong reasons for wanting to create a profession. Nobody has a right to demand protectionism in their careers. This is tantamount to refusing to recognise qualifications obtained from another country as being equivalent to qualifications obtained from this country. That is essentially a discriminatory practice to ensure protectionism. The real motivation for creating a profession must come from a desire to protect the client. Why cannot just anyone see patients, diagnose ailments, and prescribe medication? Why must a defendent select a barrister to defend them, if they won't defent themselves? Why can't a defendent choose a good friend of their's "who knows what they are really like", and who won't charge the earth? The reason is that client needs to know that the professional knows their job and is committed to protecting the client. The client also knows that he or she can complain about the way the professional has performed, and that the professional can be prevented from practicing if he or she has not acted professionally!
The following are recognised as being characteristics of professions (from Johnson):
Autonomy is also recognised at the collective level. The organisation may taken disciplinary action against its members. The organisation decides what knowledge should be possessed by its members, and how frequently members must demonstrate that they are keeping up with advances in their field.
Typically, a professional is engaged in analysis, design, and certification. A professional knows and can apply standards in their field. A professional is committed to a publicly declared Code of Ethics, and belongs to a professional organisation which vouches for the authenticity of the member, the currency of the member's knowledge, and which can take disciplinary action against members accused of misconduct. The professional puts the client's interests before his or her own, and is committed to protecting the reputation of the profession.
Date last amended: Monday, 25th November, 2002