AUTHOR

Don Gotterbarn

ABSTRACT

In addressing professional ethics in computing much has been said about the ethics of software project management (Rogerson) and about ethical issues in the development of software (Rogerson & Gotterbarn). In spite of this work, there remains a significant gap in the coverage of ethical issues in software development. Software developers have focused on the possible sequences of steps in the development of software. They have defined frameworks, patterns, and specified different life cycles. One can say that software project management monitors and negotiates working through these frameworks and code and design is primarily about the details of the process. The choice of software development model, however, has significant and overlooked ethical impacts which are at least as important to address as the way one works through or manages the chosen process.

I first briefly define some common process models and their particular roles in software development. The choice of process model is one of those remaining decisions in software development which are characterized as a purely technical decision. The claim is that the choice of development process is guided (mandated) by the kind of software being developed and the environment in which it is developed. Text books provide checklists for the developer to review in determining which model is best for a particular project. The deciding questions include: Is there a clear set of requirements? Are the requirements likely to change? Has the developer done this type of project before? Can the customer afford a long development process? What is our budget? What are the political ramifications of the modification of the software?

When choosing a development methodology the only hint that ethics may be involved in the decision occurs when the software is labelled as ‘safety-critical’. If the software to be developed can clearly and obviously be labelled as safety-critical then the software requirements may be more precisely specified and testing will be specialized, and torte and liability issues for the developer will also be identified. But even for these safety-critical projects the ethical issues of the choice of development process are not examined from an ethical standpoint.

The answer to these questions and the choice of a model can have a long term effect. Whole software organizations have been built around the choice of a process model. This extends the choice of a model beyond a particular project to all projects developed by that organization. For example, in the 1990’s NASA adopted a development model they called “Faster, Better, Cheaper” (FBC) It was to be their model for software development for all projects through 2005.

Using specific recent software development examples -NASA Space Missions, the Columbia disaster, and US experience with electronic vote counting machines – several types of social and ethical impacts of these methodologies are identified.

A major contributing factor to these problems in process choice can be seen by the narrow scope of those stakeholders considered during process choice. Currently, the choice of a framework and the elements of a framework are directed toward what happens within the framework and how it is addressed by and effects the developer and the customer. It is paradoxical that these tools- designed to reduce risk- are grounded in the same narrow stakeholder focus which has been documented as a major cause of project failure.

This paper has three major points. First is the claim that the choice of software process model does not address significant ethical issues. Specific examples are used to support this claim and show identify some of those issues. Second, two current attempts to address these kinds of risk are not satisfactory. The first unsatisfactory approach is UCITA, a proposed law in the USA which transfers the risk by legislation to the user. The developer is not held legally responsible for software errors and negative impacts of the software even if the problems were a direct result of the development methodology. The other unsatisfactory approach is a process called SoDIS. This process looks at software development details but does not address the issues of process choice. It merely asks “Has a development methodology been picked?” This is especially interesting since the SoDIS process is designed to broaden the scope of stakeholders considered in software development. It does not, however, address the failure to broaden the scope of stakeholders considered in the choice of development process. Third, although the primary goal of the paper is to bring the ethical problems of process choice into focus, potential strategies to address these issues will be discussed.

AUTHOR

Krystyna Górniak-Kocikowska

ABSTRACT

There are two basic ways in which new technologies are created.

New technologies, or new inventions within an existing technology, are often created in an attempt to solve a problem or a set of problems faced by society as a whole, or by a segment of society. This is the situation when the need/demand exists prior to the technology. A new technology, by solving the particular problem in question, can provide a welcome “edge” to that society or to its segment. An example: a mauser – a smoke-free firearm that solved the problem of soldiers’ vulnerability during the use of traditional firearms whose smoke betrayed the shooter’s position. The use of mausers by the Spaniards gave them an advantage over Americans in the initial stages of the Spanish-American war.

A second way new technologies are introduced into a society is when a new technology (or a new invention) is developed without an obvious existing need for it. This can sometimes happen “accidentally” — the invention is a result of unintended, coincidental circumstances — or is the planned, purposeful activity of a professional inventor (who can be also an idea-driven “dreamer,” and “amateur” in the best meaning of this word). In this case the social/public need for a new technology or a new invention has to be created, sometimes over public resistance. The automobile would be a good example here.

Computer technology — or broader, ICT — is an interesting mixture of the two processes mentioned above. Initially (first generation computers), the computer was a response to the existing acute need for fast and reliable calculations. The later phase, however, including the present stage, became mostly a phenomenon of the second type: new technology in search of applications. Moreover, ICT has become so huge today that both phenomena are present within its internal development and structures as well.

In the proposed paper, I intend to reflect on the impact that ICT-related phenomena of the second type have on some aspects of individual human life. I will focus on the challenges an individual faces (especially in the decision-making process) when exposed to socio-cultural or political theories conflicting with the reality of an ICT-dominated life.

I shall make my point using two quite common situations as examples. One is the conflict between a widely accepted psychological and educational theory and the reality of ICT-dominated life. The other is the burning problem of the conflict between some socio-political theories of nationhood and the reality of ICT-dominated life in a global society. Both problems are very complex. Neither of them can be fully addressed in a paper-length work. Therefore, in the conference paper only a sketchy presentation of the issues will be possible.

Case # 1: One of the aftermaths of the civil rights, and later human rights, movement in the United States was the issue of equal treatment of and equal access for all citizens to public institutions and services. In result, new laws were created, among them the Persons with Disabilities Act. In the area of education, that meant initiatives directed towards “mainstreaming,” an inclusion of all students into the regular structures of the educational system. This movement benefited greatly from (and welcomed quite enthusiastically) a theory known as Multiple Intelligences Theory, whose author is the psychologist Howard Gardner. Among others, the theory helps institutions of public education to justify highly diversified treatments and evaluations of students in the process of education. The basic message sent to students and parents is that of an equal value of each of the nine (by now, actually more) types of intelligence identified by Gardner.

A problem is that ICT is predominantly a product of one type of intelligence (the logical-mathematical intelligence) and still favors this type of intelligence. Considering the role ICT plays currently in society, and especially in the economy and closely related job market, people with the type of intelligence most adequate for the development and skillful use of ICT will be privileged over those with all other types of intelligence — no matter how the educational system will try to negate it.

There is a conflict situation, therefore, between the values (intellectual inclusiveness) that are presently the theoretical foundation of public education in the United States, and the values (intellectual exclusiveness) promoted by ICT.

Case # 2: Children in many countries are raised based on theories of nationhood, national identity, national pride, etc. These theories require, among other things, that special (the highest) value to be given to one’s native language, and to the cultural traditions of one’s own nation. However, ICT has a global character. Its effective use requires knowledge of English, and the following of “overnational” rules and values. An individual is therefore often facing a conflicting and sometimes painful situation in which he/she has to sacrifice either the sense of national identity and pride or the support of ICT. (This problem was raised frequently at the World Congress of Philosophy, Istanbul, August 2003.)

Presentation and analysis of these two examples of conflicts between existing theories and ICT-dominated reality, as well as the challenges this situation poses for individuals, will serve as justification for a call to create coherent, ethically sound theories guiding and preparing individuals for life in an ICT-dominated global society. At the same time these theories should create a point of reference and a guide for the activities of ICT professionals, for creators and maintainers and users alike.

AUTHOR

Peter Gloor, Carey Heckman, Fillia Makedon

ABSTRACT

Communities of INNovation (COINNs) – a New Organizational Form

Communities Of INNovation (COINNs) have gained prominence in recent years as a new kind of knowledge-centric organizational form. COINNs are self-organizing groups of highly motivated individuals working together towards a common goal not because of orders from their superiors, but because the members of a COINN share the same goal and are convinced of their common cause. This paper analyzes the inner workings of COINNs, and the ethical and social underpinnings of their success. The lessons learned apply not only to the Internet, the Web, Linux, and other Open Source software projects, but have also been utilized successfully at companies such as Intel (Chesbrough 2003), IBM (Hamel 2001), Union Bank of Switzerland and organizations such as the United Nations (Gloor & Uhlmann, 1999, Gloor 2000).

COINNs demonstrate how new technologies require new applications of ethical thinking and how new applications of ethical thinking in turn can be better implemented by new technologies.

Definition
A Community Of INNovation or COINN is a group of self-motivated people with a collective innovative vision, enabled by the web to cooperate in achieving a common goal by sharing ideas, information and work.

People in COINN work together as a virtual team, to realize a shared goal and make their shared vision come true. COINNs have been active well before the advent of the Internet. But by providing instantaneous global accessibility, the Internet has given them an immense boost in productivity. The Internet itself, the World Wide Web, and Linux are examples of innovations driven by COINNs.

This paper first analyzes the inner workings of COINs. It then explores the requirements for an ethical code governing its use as a result of the inner workings of COINNs and proposes the principles for an ethical code for COINNs.

Inner Workings of COINNs

COINNs support an organizational form with five important characteristics: dispersed membership, interdependent membership, no simple chain of command, a work product commons, and dependence on trust. Each of these characteristics creates requirements for an ethical code.

Dispersed Membership: Communication technologies enable COINNs with members located over a wide geographical area, often throughout the world. This dispersion increases the difficulty of maintaining productive relationships. The COINN membership must share a larger vision that focuses the members on working together rather than who wins and who loses. Each member must feel a sense of ownership in the COINN’s undertaking and a conviction that the COINN operates legitimately. Norms must be developed among the members because its members are likely to bring diverse norms when first joining the COINN.

No Simple Chain of Command: COINN technology also enables communications from any member to any other member, undermining a simple chair of command. Violations of the COINN’s norms and the negative consequences of those violations have to be obvious to each member so that cheating does not go undetected or appear harmless. Each member must feel able to express concerns about the COINN or its conduct. Conflicts have to be resolved without a dominating authoritarian force.

Work Contributed to a Commons: Essential to a COINN is creation of a work product commons. Members share work product freely. Members donate work product to this commons. Members build work product based on what is in this commons. The more work product accumulates in the COINN commons, the more costly it will be for a member to abandon their membership, and thus the greater each member’s motivation to comply with the COINN’s norms and resolve conflicts amicably.

Dependence on Trust: (Fukyama 1996) defines trust as “the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community.” The other term that Fukyama uses in the same context is “spontaneous sociability,” which is the ability to form new associations and to cooperate within the terms of reference they establish. If people who work together trust one another because they are all operating according to a common set of ethical norms, their spontaneous sociability will be much higher. COINNs can operate efficiently only if there is mutual trust. Trust can only be maintained if there is a mutually agreed on code of ethics.

Trust can be built even if a global team cannot get together physically. If all parties involved deliver obviously high quality work, trust is built without meetings. But this process takes far more time than an initial face-to-face meeting, as team members have to let their work literally speak for themselves. Also, if the team members come from different cultures it can be hard to define a common language. For example, in the software industry, programmers from India, China, or the Philippines work together with project leaders in the US or Western Europe (Pyysiãinen, Paasivaara & Lassenius, 2003). In order to prevail over initial obstacles and to overcome prejudices, chat can be useful, as it allows asking questions and getting immediate feedback. However, there can be major roadblocks to trust building such as if both sides are not given enough information about the project, the tasks to be done, how the work and responsibilities are divided between sites, and what kind of quality is expected. Under those circumstances, lack of communication will lead to mistrust.

In homogeneous groups such as software developers, the recognition of familiar characteristics in each other’s work will lead them to form a collaborative bond based on skills and similarity of goals (Meyerson, Weick & Kramer, 1996). This works well for example for the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) working groups and the group of programmers developing Linux. But even here, meeting face to face is a much faster way to establish trust.

Initially, new members of a COINN will have a predetermined trust level based on familiarity, reputation, and quality of available information, external recognition, and immediate rewards available to them. Once new members have joined a COINN, they will develop and grow their level of trust based on integrity and competence of the other COINN members they interact with, the quality of information access and communication flow, the intensity of the community building process, and the external perception und support of the COINN.

Principles for an Ethical Code for a COINN

An ethical code sets down the informal rules and principles, which should be followed by all members of a group. The ethical code of a COINN is the main “glue” which holds it together. Rewards in a COINN are given mostly in the form of peer recognition, punishment by withholding recognition or exclusion for really bad offenders. The behavioral code of conduct in online communities can be traced back on the Golden Rule: “only do to others what you would like others do to you.”

Respect your elders: While COINNs have an egalitarian culture, the leaders or gurus of a COINN define the future direction it will be taking. Elders are respected not because of their hierarchical position, but because of their vision. Frequently they are also among the most experienced subject matter experts of a community.

Be courteous with your fellow members: Members of a COINN are expected to treat each other with mutual respect. For example, “flaming” other COINN members in public by sending negative comments to a mailing list is a serious breach of etiquette. Rather, it is expected that negative comments be made in private in a constructive way.

Only say something if you have something to say: It is expected that junior members of a community acquire their knowledge not by asking “naïve” questions in public, but by studying the FAQ (frequently asked questions) lists and by privately consulting recognized knowledge experts. New members are also expected to become knowledgeable as quickly as possible in their community.

Be ready to help your fellow community members: Senior members, knowledge experts, and gurus are usually quite accessible. Recognized knowledge experts are expected to freely share what they know, educating more junior members so that they become knowledgeable themselves.

An ethical code for a COINN can be summarized in four terms: reciprocity, transparency, consistency, and rationality.

Reciprocity, the principle of taking and giving, is at the core of successful innovation communities. Open source software developers contribute their code because they expect their co-developers to do the same.

Transparency means that rules are made explicit, the role and contributions of every COINN member are obvious to the whole community. The skills and the role of every programmer are obvious to all members working on a common open source software project. Violations of the rules are also apparent, and the damage that violations can cause is also well known and understood by every COINN member.

Consistency means that COINN members all behave according to their shared ethical code, and deliver on promises they make to the community. Every open source developer is expected to stick to the programming rules and guidelines that are in effect for his project.

Rationality means that actions within the community are grounded in reason and not in randomness. Innovation communities are driven by learning, logic and a shared vision of working towards “furthering the state of the art.”

REFERENCES
Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed The Way We Do Business” Harper, 2000.

Collaborative Knowledge Networks: Driving Workforce Performance Through Web-Enabled Communities, Deloitte Consulting e-View, Oct 22, 2001

Fukuyama, F. TRUST: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Touchstone, 1996.

Gloor, P. Laubacher, R. Dynes, S. Zhao, Y. Visualization of Communication Patterns in Collaborative Innovation Networks: Analysis of some W3C working groups. Proc. ACM CKIM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, New Orleans, Nov 3-8, 2003.

Gloor, P. Making the e-Business Transformation: Sharing Knowledge in the e-Business Company, Springer, London, 2000.

Gloor, P. Uhlmann, P. The Impact of E-Commerce on developing countries. BIS ’99, Poznan, Polen, 1999.

Hamel, Gary, Waking Up IBM: How a Gang of Unlikely Rebels Transformed Big Blue, Harvard Business Review, April 2001.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., K. Knoll, and D.E. Leidner, “Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1998, pp. 29-64.

Kanter, R.M. Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Harvard University Press, 1972.

Moon, J.Y. Sproull, L. The essence of distributed work: the case of the Linux kernel. First Monday, vol. 5, no. 11 (November 2000), http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_11/moon/

Meyerson, D. Weick, K.E. Kramer, R.M. Swift trust and temporary groups, in Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler, Editors. 1996, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 166-195.

Paasivaara, M. Lassenius , C. Pyysiãinen, P. Communication Patterns and Practices in Software Development Networks. Helsinki University of Technology, 2003.

Pyysiãinen, P. Paasivaara, M. Lassenius , C. Coping with Social Complexity in Distributed Software Development Projects. Helsinki University of Technology, 2003.

Raymond,E. The Cathedral and the Bazaar, O’Reilly, 1999.

Seligman, A.B., “Trust and sociability: On the limits of confidence and role expectations” American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 4, 1998, pp. 391-404.

Tuomi, I. Networks of Innovation. Oxford University Press, 2003.

van der Smagt, T., “Enhancing virtual teams: social relations vs. communication technology”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100, No. 4, 2000, pp. 148-156.

Von Hippel, E. The Sources of Innovation, Oxford Press, 1988.

Watts, A. “Tao: The Watercourse Way” Random House, 1977

Wenger, E. McDermott, R. Snyder, 2002. W. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press,

AUTHOR

David H. Gleason and Lawrence Friedman

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses regulatory frameworks and the knowledge requirements of a citizenry that can hold governments, corporations and individuals accountable for their Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) decisions.
Thesis:

In this paper, we propose a conception of cyberspace that is widely accessible to a global citizenry that can hold governments, market actors and individuals accountable for the impact of their cyberspatial activities. We suggest that the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model authored by the International Organization for Standards (ISO), the basis of interoperability of computers on the Internet, is the appropriate framework for educating a citizenry. Furthermore, we note that the OSI model can be extended to address the personal and social effects of ICT. The extended OSI model has multiple points of entry for cyber-citizens, and provides a knowledge framework with a clear and easy path to increased understanding.

Cyberspace is an artifact of the activities of millions of actors. It continuously subsumes the decisions of those actors into a rapidly-evolving medium. Some of those actors have more of an impact than others: By and large, governments and market-leading corporations establish the cyber-structures within which users must operate. It is important, therefore, that a plurality of users have enough of an understanding of cyberspace that they can hold influential actors accountable for their decisions.

Cyberspace is akin to having an exoskeleton. There is a sense of self that one has in cyberspace that expands into the medium. So perhaps it is not so much a “space” or “place” as it is a mode of being.

This mode of being is intuitive to young people who grow up using technology. To older users, the medium may seem opaque and unnatural. Both generations, however, suffer from a limited understanding of how cyberspace actually works.

The notion of “being in cyberspace” does not exclude the physical medium, the storage of information, or the creation of artifacts. But it respects the notion that cyberspace, or any medium, is only meaningful in terms of its effects and consequences – its effects on people and its consequences in the world. For civil society to properly regulate cyberspace, enough people must understand the medium well enough to make informed decisions about its use.

The 7-layer OSI model, a structure developed by and for engineers, explains how ICT can take information from an intelligible form down to electrical signals, and then back up to presentation. The model is structured as follows:

For our purposes, we suggest that three layers should be added to the model to elucidate the human side of
the equation:

[The three additional layers would be elaborated in detail in the paper. Examples of all layers would be
provided, along with an explanation of how each layer could be made accessible to non-experts.]

We suggest that a user could enter the model at whatever layer fit their aptitude and training. This would
encourage engineers toward better understanding of the impact of their activities, and it would encourage
young “gamers” to dig into the technology behind their play. For most citizens, it would provide a rubric
against which to measure their understanding and, therefore, their potential to influence policy. It is a
conceptual model with both breadth of coverage and depth of knowledge. Within this approach, cyberspace can
be described at many different levels, to whatever degree of detail is needed by a given individual.

Finally, from different entry points, a widely accessible lesson plan could be developed.

This paper attempts to address several questions: How do we make a conception of cyberspace broadly
accessible so that democratic regulation and management becomes possible? How would we teach anyone to
understand cyberspace? What is an appropriate response to the user’s plea: “How do I make sense of
cyberspace?” The paper will develop a framework that maps cleanly onto the engineering standards used to
create cyberspace. This framework, extended into the ethics of technology development, is used to build a
conception of cyberspace that can be made accessible to most users, helping them to understand both the
underlying technology and the experience of “being in” cyberspace. We conclude with recommendations for
helping a plurality of cyber-citizens gain the understanding they need in order to hold government and market
actors accountable.

AUTHOR

Vangelis Giannoutsos

ABSTRACT

The present work is concerned with the initial attitudes of users towards computers, the relation of these attitudes to prior experience, stress, performance and the personality of the individual, and the extent to which changes come about as the result of experience gained from a type of computer course. The extent to which individuals found computing stressful is investigated. Studies were conducted employing questionnaire methods to provide data, over a three year period, on three cohorts of students taking psychology practical sessions which had a computing component.

The first part of this work deals with atttitudes and anxiety towards computers in relation to experience in computing. Relevant studies in the literature have either correlated computer users’ prior experinece with their attitude/anxiety scores or measured changes in computer attitude/anxiety levels as a consequence of completing some type of computer course. The present work is an attempt to cover both: firstly, it examines and discusses the relationship between users’ reported amount of prior computer experience and their attitude/anxiety towards computers; second, it assesses changes in computer attitude and anxiety as a result of the completion of a course in computing.

In this context, the main hypotheses were: a) that there will be a positive relation between computer attitude and amount of prior computer experience, and a negative relation between computer anxiety and computer experience; and b) that computing experience gained from a course in computing will improve attitudes and reduce computer anxiety. It was found that subjects with the greater prior computer experience did indeed have more positive attitudes and lower levels of anxiety compared to those subjects with less experience. However, attitude scores decreased over the duration of the computing course, in that the higher the prior experience the more the decrease.

The second part of this work deals with stress in computing experienced during users’ interaction with computers. Performance in computing as well as the impact of prior computing experience on stress and performance were examined. In addition, the relationship of stress and performance to computer attitudes and anxiety was investigated. These variables and their relationships have been examined by a very limited number of studies(e.g. Hudiburg’s studies have looked at stress in computing). Their results were varied and sometimes contradictory. The present work is a fresh look at these variables as well as an attempt to examine the variables themselves and their relationships within the same study. Moreover, this work examines the impact of actual computer operations on the stress levels of the users by measuring stress before and each computer session within a course in computing.

In this context, the main hypotheses were: a) that a computer session will change levels of stress of the users; b) that prior computing experience will be negatively related to computer stress and positively related to performance; c) that computer attitude will be negatively related to stress and positively related to performance, while computer anxiety will be positively related to stress and negatively related to performance.However, only a transient effect of a computing session on experienced stress was found. Subjects with greater prior experience and more positive attitudes towards computers had lower levels of stress before and after computer sessions. And subjects with lower levels of computer anxiety had also lower stress levels before and after computer sessions. No effects of prior computer experience were found on computer performance, but there was a positive effect of attitude and a negative effect of anxiety on performance. A series of multiple regressions indicated that the main attitudinal predictor of computer related stress was computer confidence, whereas the key predicting variable of anticipatory stress (i.e. stress before computer operation) was computer anxiety.

The third part of this work deals with the personality variables of locus of control, extraversion, neuroticism, and A typology in relation to computer attitudes, anxiety, stress, performance, and prior experience. Relatively little research has been conducted to examine the relationships and interplay among these variables. As before, the findings are varied and sometimes contradictory. This study has two aims: firstly to assesses the correlation between personality variables, and computer attitudes, anxiety, stress, performance and prior experience; second to examine the contribution of personality variables to the variance of stress and performance over and above computer attitudes.

The main hypotheses were: a) that personality dimensions relate either positively or negatively to computer attitudes and computer anxiety; b) that personality dimensions relate to stress before and after computer sessions; c) that personality dimensions relate to performance in computing.

Two measures of Locus of Control were used and correlations suggested that internals were likely to have more positive attitude, experience lower levels of stress and perform better than externals. Higher levels of neuroticism were associated with less favourable attitude and higher levels of stress – although not with performance. Higher extraversion was associated with lower levels of computer anxiety and anticipatory stress. Finally, higher Type A scores were found to be associated mainly with more positive attitude.

A series of multiple regressions suggested that experience explains more variation in attitudes than locus of control. Another series of multiple regressions, using as independent variables attitude and personality variables together, suggested that it is mainly attitude (confidence and anxiety) that accounts for most of the variance in stress.

Results are discussed in the context of relevant literature, and the relationships between attitude and different aspects of experience as well as between attitude and personality are emphasised.

A possible discussion that may arise within the context of this paper could be about the extent to which the findings of this study can be compared to similar studies regarding the use of technology other than computer technology; and the extent to which conclusions about the users’ attitude show either the uniqueness of computer technology or its similarity to other technologies.

So are attitudes and associated anxiety toward computing unique, or are similar difficulties encountered with other forms of technology such as motor cars or even microwave ovens? Computer technology and computing is not simply a matter of operation of machinery, but unlike other types of technology might be thought of as an issue of a user’s literacy. In this context, computer technology and computing are related to a user’s knowledge and understanding rather than the operation of some kind of technology.

This is probably one of the main reasons that, within the relevant literature, computing (literacy) appears to be associated with Maths (literacy). Indeed, some initial research on computer attitudes and computer anxiety took, as a starting point, the related issues of attitudes towards and anxiety about mathematics. And some research on the correlates of attitudes towards maths and on the treatment of maths negative attitudes and anxiety have, to a certain extent, provided clues in identifying and examining correlates and treatment of computer attitudes and anxiety.

In particular, test anxiety and trait anxiety have been found to correlate strongly with both maths anxiety and computer anxiety. In addition, similarly to the correlates of computer attitudes, some of the correlates of attitudes towards mathematics have been reported to be anxiety, experience, achievement, performance, sex, and age (e.g. Themes, 1982, etc).

Moreover, measures of maths attitudes and anxiety have contributed to the design and development of computer attitudes and anxiety instruments. For example, Raub (1981), in her study of computer anxiety, attitudes and their correlates, used Fennema and Sherman’s (1976) Mathematics Attitude Scale (MAS) as a guide in order to develop a measure for assessing computer anxiety. Similarly, the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS, Rosen and Sears, 1984; Marcoulides, 1985) was designed along the lines of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS, Richardson and Suinn, 1972).

In the context of identifying computing as an issue of literacy rather than operation, one of the main social consequences may be the need not only to make computers more usable in everyday lives for all, but also to further proliferate computers and make them more accessible to the poorer parts of the society. Similarly to the problem regarding the gap between the financially poor and rich, there is an increasing concern about the difference between information ‘poverty’ and information ‘richness’. Thus, an important ethical implication may be the problem of how to improve computer literacy and provision of information among the ‘knowledge poor’ elements of the society in order to provide them with as equal as possible chances for personal and professional development.

AUTHOR

A. Fleming Bell

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The law that has developed for public officials in the United States regarding ethics, or what I term fundamental appropriateness, is especially concerned about roles and role conflicts. One common situation that has caught the interest of courts and legislatures is where a public official’s interests as a private individual differ from, or are even in opposition to, the interests of the wider public that he or she is expected to serve. As day-to-day use of computers by individuals in public service has increased, the temptation to take advantage of one’s access to public information for private advantage has become even greater.

Laws dealing with public-private role conflicts vary widely from state to state in the U.S.A. As a professor of public law and government in the School of Government of The University of North Carolina, I am, as one might expect, especially interested in my state’s laws on conflicts of roles and conflicts of interests.

Focus of the Paper

North Carolina’s legislature made major changes in the state’s laws regulating conflicts of interest in public contracting in 2001. Those changes are the subject of this paper. In it, I will explore the current statutes governing contractual conflicts of interests involving the state’s public officials. I will ask why there was a need felt to revise the older law, and I will note and critique some of the principal changes that were made. I will examine how computer technology affects, and is affected by, the requirements of these laws, with a goal of determining ways in which North Carolina’s rules might or might not serve as an example for other jurisdictions.

Some Background on North Carolina’s Laws

The idea that one’s public and private interests may be incompatible and should not be permitted to coexist in the same transaction was expressed in statutory form in the State of North Carolina, one of the thirteen original United States, as early as 1825 or 1826. While not a long time ago by European measures, this dating marks an early statute by North American standards. The original law was passed only 50 years after 1776, when the state’s first constitution was adopted and the United States was founded through the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The 1820s conflict of interest statute basically forbade appointed state government officials to make contracts for their own benefit under their governmental authority, a practice commonly known as “self-dealing.” Remarkably, the basic form and language of this law did not change very much between 1827 and 2001, a period of nearly 175 years. The list of officials that it covered was expanded to include elected and local government officials, and certain exceptions were added, but the statutory prohibition that existed when the 2001 General Assembly of North Carolina convened was basically the same as the prohibition that existed in 1827.

Application of North Carolina’s New Conflicts of Interest Laws

The law adopted in 2001 takes an approach different from the old statute. Rather than relying on a single blanket prohibition on conflicts of interest in contracting, it creates certain new offenses, revises the basic statutory rule itself, and adds definitions of terms where none existed previously. It also incorporates other statutes that had existed separately into one unified system. While the law does not itself consider information technology contracts separately from other agreements, a primary goal of this paper, as noted above, is to highlight ways in which computer technology is implicated in the application of the new conflict of interest law.

Two examples will illustrate. (1) The new law prohibits a public official who is not actually involved in making a contract with his or her public body, but who would benefit from the contract in some way, from attempting to influence the contract-maker, including by the giving of gifts. This means that a volunteer city council member who operates a computer repair business cannot give the city manager, who is about to decide which company will receive the city’s annual computer service contract, a birthday gift, even though this is the standard business practice with his private sector clients.

(2) Some local governments in North Carolina have begun to allow their employees to buy computers from the city or county at wholesale prices, as an employee benefit. Other citizens are not allowed to take advantage of this program. Is this a legitimate practice, or are the employees receiving an improper special private benefit because of their public role? The new conflict of interest statute does not speak to this type of contractual arrangement, however, so it must be addressed in other ways.

A Final Note

My paper will consist mainly of new, as-yet-unpublished material from the forthcoming second edition of my book, Ethics, Conflicts, and Offices, A Guide for Local Officials, as well as other original writing. I will also make some use of the first (1996) edition of my book, a copy of which I can provide on request. Both are English-language publications.