An Ethics Strategy for the ASTC

This article is based on a presentation given at a meeting of the ASTC (NSW) on 4 June 1997.

For a professional society — or a society that seeks to be professional — Ethics must be considered from two points of view:

First, what is the place of Ethics in the life and work of the professional person? What do we mean by Ethics, and how do we relate Ethics to the professional activity of individuals?

Second, what is the role of a professional society in promoting, encouraging, or enforcing ethical behaviour in its members?

The idea of a Code of Ethics for the ASTC was raised some years ago, but it made no headway. Indeed, I was against it myself, because I saw it as nothing more than window-dressing. Since anyone can practise as a technical communicator without being a member of the society, there were no possible sanctions against unethical behaviour, so there seemed to be no real point.

However, neither I nor the society as a whole was taking a strategic view of things at that time. I would like to think that we have changed. I believe that we can now put together a long-term strategy, focused on ethics, that will benefit the society’s membership.

The first thing we need, of course, is to agree on what we are talking about. As is so often the case, a dictionary definition doesn’t get us very far: we need to think about connotations and practical implementations. So let me offer this working definition:

Ethics is the basis for choosing between conflicting responsibilities.

What that definition means in practice will, I hope, become clear as we progress.

We should first decide whether Ethics is actually relevant to what the technical communicator does. I doubt whether anybody working in the field is really in any doubt, but let me demonstrate with an (admittedly fairly extreme) example just to be sure.

Some members of the Society have heard David Hall, of Macquarie University, talk about Patient Information leaflets —those bits of paper that are enclosed with pharmaceutical products, to tell lay people what they can expect from the medication. David’s laconic summary of what some such documents say is something like this: "... possible side-effects include discomfort, nausea, and death."

Now the ethical issues here appear to be clear: how does the technical communicator ensure that the patient has access to adequate information about side effects, while also ensuring that the patient understands the benefits to be obtained? How does the technical communicator ensure that patients in general aren’t scared off, thereby jeopardising the manufacturer’s investment in the product?

But —as David Hall has pointed out —there’s more.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers receive legal advice that plots severity of side-effects against frequency, and divides the plot into four quadrants, as shown below.

Side-effects of low severity that don’t happen very often can be ignored. Side-effects of high severity that happen frequently will probably mean that the product doesn’t reach the market. That leaves the low/high and high/low quadrants. That seems fair enough, to a point — but those quadrants are discontinuous: how can we write about the two sets without confusing the reader?

So, yes: we do have conflicting responsibilities, and we do have to balance them and assign priorities to them.

Let me try to summarise what those responsibilities are, and who we owe them to. This requires that we identify our "constituencies" — the people or groups we need to consider.

We need to remember, here, that the professional technical communicator might be in one of three different employment frameworks. You might work directly for the organisation that needs the material written; you might be an employee of an organisation that has contracted directly with the producer; or you might be working through a third party — a contracting agency.

Regardless of the employment framework, you will also have relationships with the people who will read and use your material. These aren’t only end users: they might be doctors or pharmacists as well as patients; equipment installers and maintainers as well as end users.

You will also have a relationship with the people who actually created the product (usually, though not always, employees of the party commissioning your work). You may not realise it, but you will also have a relationship with other technical communicators and with the community at large.

The responsibilities you owe to these people can be grouped into four categories.

In respect of the information you present in your material, you have responsibilities to users — obviously. Less obviously, you also have respobsibilities to the commissioner of your work and to the product’s developers.

In terms of commercial relationships, you have responsibilities to all those in the "employment" chain — no matter what the basis of your own employment. This may include employers and contracting agencies.

Your obligation to the community at large is essentially that of any citizen: you must comply with all relevant laws and regulations. However, you owe this responsibility to the commissioner of your work as well as to the community, because you must ensure that you do not place the producer in breach of any law or regulation.

Finally, you owe it to your colleagues and to the community to maintain the reputation of technical communicators in general. If producers feel that there is little or no value in engaging professionals, you are reducing your colleagues’ chances of gainful employment, and you are reducing the community’s access to reliable information.

So what does a professional society need to do about all this?

First, the society can define some ethical standards. At this point, I think we need to make a fundamental decision. A Code of Ethics is merely a statement of principles, and can be mere window-dressing. Much more to the point would be a Code of Conduct, which tells people what they can expect us to do.

Second, the society can do something to generate confidence in those ethical standards. I said earlier that — unlike lawyers, accountants, or doctors — technical communicators do not need to be members of a society, so "sanctions" are merely empty threats. But I don’t think that sanctions, such as threats of expulsion, are the only option.

Before I outline a possible alternative, consider who stands to benefit from confidence in ethical standards. I don’t yet want to consider how the benefit might be realised, but merely who the immediate beneficiaries might be if we can make things happen.

I will omit "the community at large", because they will continue to benefit if we do our job properly — a Code of Conduct (or of Ethics) may have no direct effect. For the rest, I think we can devise a means of delivering benefits to all the other "constituencies".

If we can’t enforce ethical standards by imposing sanctions, what can we do? I think we can move in three directions simultaneously.

First, we can define a Code of Conduct. We can put in writing something that says: this is what you can expect from members of this profession — or, at least, from members of this society. (That Code could include a statement of the underlying ethical principles, so that we have a bet each way.)

Second, we can devise a way of having our constituents recognise the value of that written Code.

Third, we can find a way of ensuring that our constituents are aware that the Code exists, and that we really mean it.

To move in these three directions at once, we might do something like this:

First, of course, we need to define the Code itself. We might put together a committee to draft the Code; we can publish it on our web site so that everyone can review it; we can conduct a plebiscite to ensure that all — or near enough to all — of our members are happy with it.

Next, every member must undertake to comply with the Code. That requires a simple addition to the membership application form, and a reminder in the annual renewal notices.

Finally, to get other parties "on board", we do two things:

First, we send a copy of the code to every recruitment agency and contracting agency, with appropriate covering material so that they see the merit of dealing with the society’s members.

Second, we build into the Code a requirement that members will include a copy of the Code with every application for appointment. That way, employers and commissioners will develop consistent expectations.

The upshot, I suggest, will be that commissioners of technical communication materials will see value in dealing with members of the society; agencies will be reluctant to deal with commissioners who specifically say they don’t want our members; the profession (and the society) will gain recognition as a profession; and individual members will gain increased credibility as practitioners.

Now all of that is just one person’s view. I don’t suggest that this is the only way to go. Rather, I suggest that we do need to think very seriously about Ethics in our profession, and I suggest that the time is now ripe to develop an Ethics strategy, which will enhance both our professionalism and our standing in the community.