The Difference Between Passive Subjects and Autonomous Actors: Proposing an Orientation Toward Consent in Library and Information Science

Authors

  • Ana Roeschley University of North Texas
  • Merrion Dale Frederick University of North Texas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21900/j.alise.2024.1726

Keywords:

consent, ethical collection practices, ethical LIS classrooms, data exploitation, personal data

Abstract

To participate in most aspects of society, individuals are constantly required to share their data. From students in LIS courses to patients forced to enter information into third party software to check into medical appointments, we all have to “consent” to live our lives. While we are presented with consent forms full of legalese constantly, opportunities to opt out are rare. This critical essay posits that to prepare our students to become ethical members of information professions, LIS educators must center consent as a core ethical value. Using a scoping review approach, we explore consent as a distinct topic in LIS literature. We then propose an orientation towards consent that can center human rights, individual autonomy, and care in LIS work.

Author Biographies

  • Ana Roeschley, University of North Texas

    Ana Roeschley is Assistant Professor and Director of Archival Studies in the Department of Information Science at the University of North Texas.

    She is the founder and Co-Director of the Archives Learning Lab—a research lab dedicated to investigating the relationships between people and archives in an ever-changing world. She is the Principal Investigator of the IMLS-supported, Records of Refuge: Supporting Refugee Communities’ Archival Needs (RoR)—a three-year research project that aims to close research gaps on the documentary and archival needs of refugees in the United States. Previously, she was Assistant Professor of Professional Practice in Archival Studies at Louisiana State University’s School of Information Studies. Before beginning her academic career, Dr. Roeschley worked in the Downs-Jones Library and Archives at Huston-Tillotson University. Her previous research has been published in a number of venues including Library and Information Science Research, Archival Science, American Archivist, and Journal of Documentation.  

  • Merrion Dale Frederick, University of North Texas

    Merrion Frederick is an Information Science Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Texas.

    Her work integrates her present degree work with her previous Linguistics Master’s Degree toward the creation of interdisciplinary solutions to complex problems. Merrion's goal is to always prioritize stakeholder needs in archival settings in ways that will ultimately enhance accessibility and foster a flourishing relationship between archives and those who use them, and her current research focuses on the intersection between archival theory/praxis and community-based lexicography for endangered languages. 

References

Brettle, A. (2012). Evidence and ethics. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8P32R

Croft, B. L., Toussaint, S., Meakins, F., & McConvell, P. (2019). "'For the children ...': Aboriginal Australia, cultural access, and archival obligation. In L. Barwick & P. Vaarzon-Morel (Eds.) LD&C Special Publication 18: Archival returns: Central Australia and beyond, xi-xvii. University of Hawai’i Press & Sydney University Press. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24883

Ghaddar, J. J. (2021). Total archives for land, law and sovereignty in settler Canada. Archival Science, 21(1), 59-82.

Haffenden, C., Fano, E., Malmsten, M., & Börjeson, L. (2023). Making and using AI in the library: Creating a BERT model at the national library of Sweden. College & Research Libraries, 84(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.1.30

Harlan, M. (2016). Constructing youth: Reflecting on defining youth and impact on methods. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(2), 1-12.

Hatfield, S. A. (2023). Breaking the fourth's wall: The implications of remote education for students' fourth amendment rights. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 26(1), 179.

Holton, G. (2017). From community to archive and back: Language archives and digital return. Proceedings of the Foundation for Endangered Languages Conference, 17-23.

Huang, C., Samek, T., & Shiri, A. (2021). AI and Ethics: Ethical and Educational Perspectives for LIS. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 62(4), 351-365.

Jones, K. M., Goben, A., Perry, M. R., Regalado, M., Salo, D., Asher, A. D., ... & Briney, K. A. (2023). Transparency and Consent: Student Perspectives on Educational Data Analytics Scenarios. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 23(3), 485-515.

Kirchengast, T. (2020) Deepfakes and Image Manipulation: Criminalisation and Control. Information and Communications Technology Law, 29, 308.

Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?. Library hi tech news, 40(3), 26-29.

Mai, J.-E. (2016). Big data privacy: The datafication of personal information. Information Society, 32(3), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1153010

Marty, P. (2022). Life with Google: LIS educators, generation Z, and the transformation of the information age. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 63(4), 420-435.

Masotina, M., & Spagnolli, A. (2022). Transparency of privacy notices and contextualisation: effectively conveying information without words. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(10), 2120-2150.

Newsome, K., Thompson, P., & Commander, J. (2013). ‘You monitor performance at every hour’: Labour and the management of performance in the supermarket supply chain. New Technology, Work and Employment, 28(1), 1-15.

Pierce, P., & Felver, L. (2021). Visualizing diversity: The Oregon health & science university educational use photo diversity repository. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 109(3), 472.

Schermer, B. W., Custers, B., & van der Hof, S. (2014). The crisis of consent: How stronger legal protection may lead to weaker consent in data protection. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(2), 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9343-8

Schmit, C., Giannouchos, T., Ramezani, M., Zheng, Q., Morrisey, M. A., & Kum, H. C. (2021). US privacy laws go against public preferences and impede public health and research: Survey study. Journal of medical internet research, 23(7), e25266.

Sutherland, T. (2023). Resurrecting the Black body: Race and the digital afterlife. Univ of California Press.

Tummino, A. E., Wong, J. A., & Mondésir, O. (2021). Uplifting diverse and marginalized voices through community archives and public programming. Urban Library Journal, 27(2), 6.

Youngman, T., Appedu, S., Tacheva, Z., & Patin, B. (2023, September). Flashing the Hazard Lights: Interrogating Discourses of Disruptive Algorithmic Technologies in LIS Education. In Proceedings of the ALISE Annual Conference.

Downloads

Published

2024-10-16

Issue

2024: ALISE Proceedings

Section

Juried Papers

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Ana Roeschley, Merrion Dale Frederick

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.