Discussion Topic:
Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct
Pick a case study from the examples provided by the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM).
Review the application of the ethics code to the situation described and highlight the impact on any relevant legal (jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional) and social issues, as well as on the professionalism of the computing professionals involved. You should provide comparisons to the British Computer Society (BCS) Code of Conduct.
Team’s leader abusive behavior such as verbal abuse caused:
Team’s leader failed to adhere to a high standard of professional communication.
Team’s leader would yell at the person and berate them in internal chat forums.
Team’s leader punitive actions of removing names and blocking colleagues' participation.
Team’s leader retaliation, targeting only women team members.
After reporting the case to the Team’s manager, he answered that was the price to pay for working in an intense, industry-leading team. “Grow up and get over it.”
1. Public interest
a. Have due regard for public health, privacy, security and wellbeing of others and the environment.
2. Professional Competence and Integrity
c. Develop your professional knowledge, skills and competence on a continuing basis, maintaining awareness of technological developments, procedures, and standards that are relevant to your field
1. Public interest
a. Have due regard for public health, privacy, security and wellbeing of others and the environment.
2. Professional Competence and Integrity
e. Respect and value alternative viewpoints and, seek, accept and offer honest criticisms of work
1. Public interest
c. Conduct your professional activities without discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, marital status, nationality, colour, race, ethnic origin, religion, age or disability, or of any other condition or requirement
1. Public interest
a. Have due regard for public health, privacy, security and wellbeing of others and the environment.
2. Professional Competence and Integrity
d. Ensure that you have the knowledge and understanding of Legislation* and that you comply with such Legislation, in carrying out your professional responsibilities
1.1 Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.
2.2 Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice.
1.1 Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.
1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
1.5 Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artefacts.
1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
2.4 Accept and provide an appropriate professional review.
3.3 Manage personnel and resources to enhance the quality of working life.
3.4 Articulate, apply, and support policies and processes that reflect the principles of the Code
Hi David,
Thank you for your interesting and informative post comparing the BCS Code of Conduct as well as the ACM Codes of Ethics in relation to the Abusive Workplace Behaviour case study.
It was good how you also added which of Max’s behaviours related to each of the conducts to improve readability within your post.
Given that Max had violated all four of the key principles of the BSC Code of Conduct do you think that there are any legal ramifications for his behaviour?
What I found most concerning about Max’s actions is not only how he verbally abused Diane but that he also removed names of people from group submissions and that this had occurred on more than one occasion.This would be considered plagiarism which is defined as “ the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property” (United States Department of Health and Human Services 2008).
Everyone has a role to play in the prevention, detection and investigation of plagiarism ((Martin, et al 2009). Given this statement do you think that Diane and her colleagues who have previously encountered Max removing their name from submissions are also at fault for not preventing and investigating this plagiarism?
Martin, D., Rao, A. and Sloan, L., 2009. Plagiarism, Integrity, and Workplace Deviance: A Criterion Study. Ethics & Behavior, 19(1), pp.36-50.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2008). Office of Research Integrity. ORI Policy on Plagiarism.Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml 2.
Hello Kalina,
Thank you for your analysis about this case study.
You have well identified all the issues and I agree with your analysis. You have also done a good comparison between the AMC and BCS principles.
It is always difficult to predict how a machine learning algorithm will react and they should have conducted a thorough evaluation of its impacts, including analysis of possible risks.
I completely agree with you that the measures are in violation of rules that prohibits any kind of discrimination. I will just add that the development team should have conduct extra care regarding the protection system to not disclose publicly the system’s limitations. That would avoid malicious people to exploit and corrupt the machine learning algorithm.
David
References:
Martin, D., Rao, A. and Sloan, L., 2009. Plagiarism, Integrity, and Workplace Deviance: A Criterion Study. Ethics & Behavior, 19(1), pp.36-50.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2008). Office of Research Integrity. ORI Policy on Plagiarism.Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml 2.