Group 1 | Rachel Hissong, Ashely Kuch, Ryan Riggs, Brian Whitmer
The Sagamore Community Archives was located in a small city of 10,000 people and had a strong collection documenting the role of community service agencies over the years. The archives consisted of city records and small regional manuscript collection that included personal paper, records of regional organizations, business records, and records from a number of area churches and rural schools. One of the most useful – and unprocessed – collections was from the now-defunct Sagamore Social Service Agency. The records dated from the organization’s inception in 1906 until its closing in 1965. There had been strong community and research interest in this collection because of the impact the agency had on the community, so it was a high priority to process and make the archives available.
While the archivist unpacked the collection, a box called “Surveys” was found. There were forty surveys completed by area women in 1943. At that time, each of the respondents had recently given birth out of wedlock and had given the child up for adoption. The survey intended to assess the mental and physical states of the women during their first year after the adoption process. Each survey included the participant’s name, address, social security number, religious affiliation, and names of immediate family members. The forms stated that the Agency would protect the privacy of the respondents. After checking the local telephone listings, the archivist found that some families still lived in the area. As far as the archivist can tell, the results were never published, though the data within the survey would be of great interest to sociologists, historians, and other researchers.
Rachael Hissong, Ashley Kuch, Ryan Riggs, Brian Whitmer
In the Sagamore Community Archives (SCA) case study, an archivist is faced with an ethical dilemma to keep private personal surveys collected from the Sagamore Social Service Agency (SSSA). Two ethical dilemmas can be identified with this case. The SSSA had an obligation to protect the privacy of the survey respondents by making sure they did not leave the custody of the SSSA without safeguards to protect the availability of the surveys. We do not have the facts of the transmission of the SSSA records to the SCA, but we would expect the container housing the surveys to be clearly marked as confidential records, which they were not. Second, the archivist read the confidential surveys and then used the confidential information contained in them to seek out the original respondents even though each survey clearly stated that the agency would protect the privacy of the respondents.
Next, one should evaluate the dilemmas associated with the case. One should first consider respect for intellectual property. The SSSA failed to adequately safeguard against the potentially harmful dissemination of the confidential information provided by the survey respondents. The archivist respected the intellectual property of the SCA, which now included the records from the defunct SSSA. The forty surveys were voluntarily obtained from the women under the assumption of protection of their privacy and were the intellectual property of the SSSA. The next principle to consider is respect for privacy. The SSSA seems to have respected the women’s privacy while in their possession, judging by the archivist’s opinion that the material had not been previously published. However, we do not know how the materials of the SSSA were obtained by the SCA or if safeguards were put in place to secure the survey documents. Given the way the archivist found the surveys, we do not think SSSA took reasonable precautions for the future protection of the surveys. The archivist violated the privacy of the women by trying to track down their current whereabouts. The archivist did not possess any clear authority to utilize their confidential information for her own purposes whether neutral, well-intentioned, or malign.
The next principle to consider is fair representation. The SSSA seems to have represented itself in an honorable, ethical manner at the time the women voluntarily completed the surveys by noting on the survey forms that the women’s privacy would be protected. As an institution, we have no direct evidence that they surveys were misused. Although the archivist was not directly involved in the original agreement between SSSA and the forty women, as the inheritor of the materials, the archivist’s professional code of ethical conduct would obligate her to respect the intended confidentiality of the women’s private information, while also preserving the records as part of the ethical code that places a high value on keeping information of potential value to scholars, present and future.
The last principle from Severson is nonmaleficence or doing no harm. The SSSA shows no outward signs of directly or indirectly seeking to do any harm to the forty women who responded to the confidential survey. They collected the survey information voluntarily and planned to use the data to assess the mental and physical states of the woman a year after the adoption process. We can likely infer this was done from institutional motives of interest, care, and concern for this population segment. The archivist has two main constituencies to safeguard against harm. First, to the forty women and their families, harm would be done if the archivist, herself, allows others to ignore the privacy assurances the women received in exchange for voluntary completion of the surveys. This could also harm scholars and researchers by making it less likely for people to voluntarily provide information if they feel that privacy and guarantees of confidentiality are not observed. Second, to the scholars and researchers who used this type of data in their investigations, harm would be done to the researchers by destroying the surveys or not making them available through a method that safeguards the privacy of the original survey respondents. The archivist would also be damaging her profession by not following its accepted codes of ethical behavior.
Since the SSSA is defunct, the ethical decision-making authority rests with the SCA and the acting archivist. The archivist should keep the records. They were voluntarily given by the women, knowing they would be used in future research projects. The SCA and archivist have professional and institutional obligations that require them to preserve materials of value to research. The archivist should take on the confidentiality burden of the original “contract” between the SSSA and the forty women. She should control access and immediately restrict access to the surveys until agreed upon methods and standards were put in place to protect the guaranteed privacy of the women. The archivist should review her commitment to the ethical code of her profession, which was potentially violated by checking on the current whereabouts of the survey respondents. Family members should not be made aware of the data. They have no right to know the information in the surveys, as is clear from the women seeking privacy and confidentiality assurances before providing the data. Non-disclosure of the surveys’ existence, which was the evident policy of the SSSA, should be respected by the new caretakers of the information.
Having our decisions publicly disclosed in the New York Times would not dissuade us from sticking by the decision to keep the records and not disclose their existence. However, one group member would dissent on the point of keeping the records based on an absolute reading of the privacy rights of the women. Using this information for any type of research or making it publicly accessible would go against the ALA privacy interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, which states that collection of personal information should be limited to only what is necessary to accomplish the mission of the library. Since they did not consent to have their information in the guardianship of any entity but the SSSA, the records should be destroyed and family members should not be made aware of their existence.