4 Implementing Empathy

Chapter Contents
4.1 What Does Implementing Empathy Look Like in Libraries?
4.2 Librarian / Patron Engagement Pathway
4.3 Ethics of Information and Moral Literacy
Reflective Questions

4.1 What Does Implementing Empathy Look Like in Libraries?

Recent world events and their corresponding impact on library patrons has led to recognition of the need for trauma-based approaches in our libraries. In particular, Dudek’s Library Journal article titled “Working Toward Wellness: Exploring Trauma-Informed Librarianship”, she invokes a call to action in libraries to prioritize more empathetic approaches to service delivery and student engagement; describing the main goal of trauma-informed librarianship as movement from “What is wrong with you?” to “What do you need?”^[1]

Practically speaking, what does this look like in libraries? While many libraries and library workers may feel that their workplace is already empathetic in nature, it is the intentionality of focus on empathy that leads to truly trauma-informed spaces and services.

Davis, et. al. distinguish library worker empathy from sympathy and compassion, emphasizing the following:

Empathy enables a librarian to experience their users not as objects, but as holistic people with unique experiences and life circumstances. Recognizing a user as a whole person lets a librarian make space for the many roles the user plays – student, parent, employee, and more –and creates an understanding environment where the librarian can account for the unique needs that arise from the combination of roles a user plays in their own life. This discernment of others’ needs results in higher quality service by allowing librarians to thoughtfully design experiences to meet a user’s unique needs.^[2]

In this paper, the authors describe typical interactions between users and library staff, and provide options for empathetic practice. The below section is excerpted as an example of these interactions:

A student makes an appointment with you to get help finding sources for their thesis literature review. They ask you about your time as a graduate student and whether you thought doing research projects was hard. What do you tell them?

1. You tell them research is hard for everyone at first but reassure them that they’ll get the hang of it.
2. You tell them that since you studied library and information science, the literature searching part of research wasn’t hard for you.
3. You share a story about one of the research projects you struggled with during your time in school and tell them the strategies you used to get through it.

Davis, et. al. rank the responses and classify Response 1 as offering the highest level of empathy, due to its emphasis on collective experiences, and encouragement of overcoming challenges. Responses 2 and 3 could be considered dismissive of the user’s personal experience, and the offer of solutions that aren’t tailored to their unique needs.^[3]

Research on effective debunking also references empathetic approaches as key; utilizing open questions, affirming and polite language, and perspective taking, while avoiding non-empathetic expressions such as summarizing, judgemental language and ignoring concerns.^[4] Schmid further describes empathetic communication as an action that increases the perceived trustworthiness of the debunker, signaling aligned values and competence.

While established methods such as SIFT and lateral reading^[5] have proven effective tools at identifying misinformation and fake news, effective debunking requires a different approach intentionally rooted in empathy. Useful frameworks can be found in other disciplinary research where there are similar concerns around misinformation and adapted to the academic library context.

For example, dieticians are frequently confronted with misinformation and disinformation from clients regarding food, nutrition, and other diet related issues. Diekman et. al. discuss how clients can present information that is not grounded in the body of evidence, requiring nutrition practitioners and clinician scientists to assess their clients’ understanding and beliefs before providing additional information.^[6] To do so effectively, the Client and Clinician-Scientist Engagement Pathway was developed to simulate an empathetic interaction with a client. The pathway, visualized below, and adapted to the library context prioritizes empathetic communication throughout the engagement process, listening, open questions, and exemplifies effective debunking as described in the research.

4.2 Librarian / Patron Engagement Pathway

4.3 Ethics of Information and Moral Literacy

In addition to library worker empathy with learners, educating learners on ethics with respect to information can also be of assistance in countering the effects of disinformation. Both producers and users of information, ideally, are subject to ethical codes – making choices about how information is produced and disseminated, where one seeks it, and how one uses it, require an understanding of the consequences of those choices and an understanding of the moral implications thereof. Some examples of this moral choice landscape include keeping confidential information private, plagiarism, use of artificial intelligence, predatory journal fees, freedom of expression, censorship, etc. Many information scholars and organizations have proposed a specific information ethics i.e. “a system of moral values in the context of human information interactions.”^[7] As we noted above with respect to IL frameworks, conspiracy groups may be able to use these information ethics frameworks to their own disinformed ends – helping learners understand ethics generally before tackling information ethics specifically may be useful.

Ethics, of course, is not a one size fits all framework – one can subscribe to utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, rights-based ethics, or care ethics, among many others. In line with our empathy framework as described in this handbook, care ethics (based on relationships) would align neatly but is not a requirement. The ethics of care asks us to look at an issue and ask ourselves “Who, relationally, is this hurting, what does this do to the relationship, and how can that relationship be repaired?”^[8] In an academic information context, a learner could use this ethical framework to decide whether to plagiarize or not – they may look to their relationship with the original creator and decide that this would harm the relationship by using their work without attribution, or it may harm their relationship with their professor, other colleagues, or their relationship with themselves. Or, if taking a deontological approach, reaching the conclusion that plagiarism is wrong not because it harms relationships but because we have a duty to always tell the truth.

Ethics education in the context of information literacy – so, adding a moral literacy component – may be a complement to the empathy approach to reduce conspiratorial thinking. We tend not to contemplate right and wrong when it comes to information, something that often comes across as apolitical, benign, or neutral. Everything has an ethical component and it is worth exploring that.

From an information professional perspective, we tend to have a general understanding of the ethics of our position – whether we are adhering to the ALA Code of Ethics^[9] or a more personal understanding of the ethics of educators. The guidance these provide should be shaping our professional decision making, but information ethics may not be as obvious to those interacting with information from outside the profession. We understand that, for example, information can be produced with ill intent. Those who are victims of disinformation tactics may not have had this perspective going in. Many information professionals may be approaching their work from an angle of public responsibility as opposed to the philosophical field of ethics but “social responsibility is fundamentally an ethical concept…Social responsibility provides a way for the information profession to concern itself with the social dimensions of service and be aware of the social impact of that service.”^[10] Do all information professionals agree on ethical frameworks or shared values? Certainly not; even two values most associated with our work – information privacy and freedom of expression – conflict in their mere existence. Some frameworks adopted by information workers will fall on one side or the other but having a commitment to one particular moral landscape or another can give us a way to explain why we chose a particular value. There is a tacit assumption that people are taught the differences between right and wrong at a very young age and we tend to assume others act ethically, but if we cannot count on this assumption, it would be important to both teach about ethics in our information education and reference interactions, as well as in our professional development.

It may seem counter intuitive to think about ethics when simply accessing information: ethics ask us to contemplate “What kind of person should I be and how ought I to live my life” – the big questions. But these questions also trickle down into our minute by minute, day to day functioning. Just like our assumptions about people using logic to approach information, humans also tend to assume “a stability of human nature [and] of choice.”^[11] We assume an understanding of each other’s ethics, but this is not a safe assumption. In fact, it may be safer to assume that learners in our libraries may not have received any specific ethics education at all. Much like our suggestions about empathy, ethics need not be means tested in terms of its subject matter applicability: while an information-focused-ethics may be good to learn as information workers, a more general ethical education for learners who have been victims of disinformation may be an excellent complement. Learners who adhere to an ethical framework can use that in their approach to information as opposed to an emotional or reactive approach. If we discuss censorship ethics with someone who believes they are always being lied to, we may not make progress towards a more open world but if we discuss ethical decision making generally, we may not be undermining their falsely held beliefs directly and can make progress in the area. Ideally, learners would be engaged in what scholar Jela Steinerová has termed the “ethical information literacy experience”; this is comprised of four components (“ethical awareness and sensitivity; ethical imagination and ethical intuitions, including emotions; ethical reasoning, decision-making and problem solving; and ethical self-regulation, metacognition (more on this in subsequent chapters) and metaliteracy” which “[build] on an individual’s cognitive and affective states and considers cognitive and affective biases, influence of patterns of behavior social perception and social diffusion of information.”^[12]