









































Listen and Learn sessions  129

Applying Ethics in Evolving 
Librarianship
Intersectionality Implications in Ethical 
Decision Making
Rory Patterson, Associate Dean for Planning, Administration, and Opera-
tions, Liberty University

ABSTRACT Librarianship and cultures are changing, which impacts what 
ethics and virtues remain and how they are prioritized. Ethical Decision 
Making (EDM) is when values or ethics conflict. To make decisions that de-
crease bias and marginalization, one needs to consider not just the surface 
characteristics of those involved, but the full identities so that one does 
not inadvertently amplify oppression. Using intersectionality seeks to un-
derstand the multiple identities of people towards that end. Applying the 
University of Michigan’s Social Identity Wheel helps the reader find their 
identities and consider internally the need to build trust so others can share 
their full characteristics. When librarians consider intersectionality in EDM, 
they can navigate changes in ethics and the concomitant conflicts in ways 
that benefit all stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION

Ethics, acting according to one’s values or virtues, is a core part of 
librarianship and religion. As librarians and library associations 

LISTEN AND LEARN SESSIONS



130  atLa 2022 ProCeedinGs

reevaluate and restructure the values of librarianship, there is an 
increase in the situations where those values conflict. Ethical Deci-
sion Making (EDM) is how one decides where one or more of one’s 
ethics or virtues are conflicting. When seeking to balance the con-
flicting ethics, the impact on the people involved is a consideration. 
Since each person is thick and multi-dimensional, using intersec-
tionality encourages decision makers to consider how negative ef-
fects can increase for some people while attempting to decrease 
them for others. This article introduces EDM and intersectionality 
and some research on them, promotes a worksheet of intersection-
ality for the reader’s self-discovery, and demonstrates how the two 
ideas work together to create more ethically and socially respon-
sible decision making.

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

EDM does not have a large body of work in librarianship, but it has 
substantial literature in the fields of business, nursing, and social 
work. Using this larger pool of research, EDM as a subject has four 
branches in two categories. One category provides models for apply-
ing ethics to decision making, and the other provides research into 
how ethics is applied. The Theory category contains the Normative 
and Meta-ethical branches. Normative concerns itself with the big pic-
ture of EDM, how moral systems are structured. Meta-ethical builds 
on normative and looks at the meanings of and reasons for EDM.

The second category of EDM studies is Practical. The first part of 
Practical is Descriptive, and it seeks to describe the EDM of groups 
and cultures. Many Descriptive works are based on surveys of politi-
cal, cultural, or economic groups, and lists what the common virtues 
are for a group, as well as how that group normally prioritize them. 
The last branch is Prescriptive, which seeks to convince others of the 
importance and usefulness of EDM and to train them in using EDM. 
Using these four categories, this article will look at two Descriptive 
articles that are meta-analyses of the literature and EDM models.

O’Fallon and Butterfield’s 2013 article analyzed 174 business ar-
ticles on EDM in the late 1990s and early 2000s (213-263). They con-
sidered what types of factors those articles listed, and in their tables, 
grouped the factors into three types: individual factors, organiza-
tional factors, and moral intensity. They defined moral intensity 
as “the magnitude of consequences and social consensus” around 



Listen and Learn sessions  131

breaking a virtue or value (O’Fallon and Butterfield 2013, 213). Moral 
intensity is seen in the discomfort felt in considering or breaking an 
ethic, whether internal discomfort (individual) or external (organi-
zational). As ethics is prioritized in different ways in different cul-
tures or groups, decisions that might be obvious to some are painful 
to consider to others.

Lehnert, Craft, Singh, and Park review 121 qualitative EDM studies 
over 10 years in the field of business, considering how much effect 
various factors held. They grouped the factors into 12 categories: at-
titude/awareness/perception, behavior, code of conduct, corporate 
social responsibility, education, fraud/corruption, entrepreneurship 
and leadership, moral responsibility, organizational behavior/stra-
tegic management, religion, stakeholders, and values and beliefs 
(Lehnert et al. 2016, 498-537). These authors found many similarities 
with O’Fallon and Butterfield’s smaller list of types, as many of the 
12 can be seen as either personal, external, or organizational. One 
of Lehnert et al.’s lists stands out from the other types: stakeholders. 
Stakeholders include the decision maker, as it is their ethics involved 
in the decision, as well as the other actors whose ethics should be 
considered before they are affected. If librarians seek to acknowl-
edge their privilege while increasing the voices of the marginalized 
in librarianship as part of their EDM, intersectionality provides a 
way to listen for multiple voices of stakeholder representation in 
the decision-making process.

INTERSECTIONALITY

Intersectionality started as a mathematical concept in the mid-20th 
century as the idea that items of a set might have multiple things in 
common (OED Online). An example: a set of apples might include 
red, pink, and yellow apples; and it might also include a range of 
sweetness, from sugary to tart, and a range of textures. Kimberle 
Krenshaw expanded intersectionality into socio-legal spheres of 
thought in 1989 by demonstrating that people and systems of hege-
mony are multifaceted (Crenshaw 1989, 139-167). Since they both 
contain multiple characteristics, it leads to several ways that ethics 
and values can conflict and build into non-obvious effects of op-
pression. Krenshaw uses the case of DeGraffenreid v. General Mo-
tors as an example of how a program to help hire women was used 
to promote White women over Black women, and how a diversity 



132  atLa 2022 ProCeedinGs

program preferenced Black men over Black women. Thus, the two 
programs, while helping some disadvantaged groups, made it worse 
for another group. Using intersectionality during EDM seeks to iden-
tify stakeholders who can raise issues in ways to reduce the ampli-
fication of discrimination instead of creating results that increase 
systemic injustice.

Intersectionality is not an excuse for those with privilege to 
find an area where they are disadvantaged and then claim to be 
diverse. Instead, to use Clifford Geertz’s idea of thick descriptions, 
it is to see people as complex and find where one’s stakeholders 
are marginalized in multiple ways (Geertz 1973). An example is 
the use of subtitles in training videos displayed for a group. Some 
people with disabilities, such as those with hearing loss, appreciate 
the subtitles, but some who self-identify as having ADHD find the 
changing words distracting. This is an example of physical disabili-
ties getting preferenced over mental disabilities, an issue surfaced 
in Gibson, Dowen, and Hanson’s article (2021). Having people from 
both groups working together to reduce barriers for all resulted in 
multiple solutions, including working to find font styles and for-
mats that are less distracting, having transcripts on the side of the 
video, and offering printouts of the transcripts for those who want 
them. Considering the intersectionality of people with disabilities 
promotes disability justice, where solutions are generated by those 
disadvantaged in multiple ways, instead of ideas pushed on them 
by those privileged in these areas. When EDM uses disability in-
tersectionality, improving access for some usually provides better 
access for all.

INTERSECTIONALITY CONSIDERATIONS IN EDM

The American Library Association’s Professional Ethics page added 
a ninth principle in 2021:

We affirm the inherent dignity and rights of every person. We work to rec-
ognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity 
and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and to advance racial 
and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associa-
tions through awareness, advocacy, education, collaboration, services, and 
allocation of resources and spaces.

As librarians seek to integrate the ethics encoded in this principle, 
intersectionality challenges us to accept that virtues might change 



Listen and Learn sessions  133

or be reprioritized. Ettarh calls librarians to evaluate if some of our 
core values, such as being neutral and objective, can still be priori-
tized if librarianship is creating a new table of desired social goods 
(Ettarh 2014, 1-5). Lee and Morfitt demonstrate from the literature 
review and their personal experiences that definitions and displays 
of competency can be culturally biased, leading to misinterpretation 
and creating barriers and burdens for librarians of color (Lee and 
Morfitt 2020, 136-147). As librarians seek to integrate intersectional-
ity into their EDM, it can move decision makers from checklists into 
building relationships with stakeholders.

SOCIAL IDENTITY WHEEL

Self-discovery is an important step in finding one’s privileges and 
disadvantages. The University of Michigan’s Social Identity Wheel 
and its accompanying lesson plans are effective means of finding 
one’s social groups (University of Michigan 2022; The Program on 
Intergroup Relations, University of Michigan 2022). The list of iden-
tities can be used multiple times, with several questions to consider 
as one reads each idea. The first time through the list, record what 
self-identity comes most immediately. On another time through, con-
sider what labels others might give you, or consider what identities 
you might want to learn more about yourself. The following are the 
identities on the Social Identity Wheel:

• Ethnicity
• Socio-economic status
• Gender
• Sex
• Sexual orientation
• National origin
• First language
• Physical, emotional, developmental (dis)ability
• Age
• Religious or spiritual affiliation
• Race



134  atLa 2022 ProCeedinGs

After writing your responses, consider which are your privileged 
and marginalized identities. What items on the list stood out at easi-
est to answer and which took more thought, even for the quick re-
sponses? If one uses the list at different times, it can become appar-
ent that some identities are pushed forward, and others are hidden. 
Likewise, stakeholders might have some characteristics that they 
push out and are easy to be considered. If librarians are to consider 
the intersectionality of their stakeholders, they must develop rela-
tionships with those stakeholders until trust is established and the 
hidden identities can come forward. Only when one moves beyond 
checklists to a foundation of trust, can intersectionality truly be im-
plemented into EDM and librarianship.

CONCLUSION

Librarianship is changing, as are its values and ethics. Those chang-
es will give rise to conflicts between ethics, necessitating EDM. As 
librarians seek to increase diversity and reduce inequity, stakehold-
ers must be considered in their fullest, which is best accomplished 
with intersectionality. To do that, librarians should develop relation-
ships with their stakeholders so the stakeholders have a level of trust 
where they can share their self-identified intersectional character-
istics. Librarians apply those characteristics to EDM models and ac-
tions to increase the voices and representation of those marginalized.

WORKS CITED

American Library Association. “Professional Ethics.” Last modified 
June 29. Accessed June 15, 2022, https://www.ala.org/tools/
ethics.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of 
Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination 
Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of 
Chicago Legal Forum 1989 (1): 139-167. https://chicagounbound.
uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/.

Ettarh, Fobazi. 2014. “Making a New Table: Intersectional 
Librarianship.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe (blog). July 
2, 2014. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/
making-a-new-table-intersectional-librarianship-3/.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected 
Essays. New York: Basic Books.

https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics
https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/
https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/making-a-new-table-intersectional-librarianship-3/
https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/making-a-new-table-intersectional-librarianship-3/


Listen and Learn sessions  135

Gibson, Amelia, Kristen Bowen, and Dana Hanson. 2021. “We Need 
to Talk about How We Talk about Disability: A Critical Quasi-
Systematic Review.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe (blog). 
February 24, 2021. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.
org/2021/disability/.

Lee, Elina and Paige Morfitt. 2020. “Imposter Syndrome, Women 
in Technical Services, and Minority Librarians: The Shared 
Experience of Two Librarians of Color.” Technical Services 
Quarterly 37 (2) (Apr): 136-147. doi:10.1080/07317131.2020.172
8125.

Lehnert, Kevin, Jana Craft, Nitish Singh, and Yung‐Hwal Park. 
2016. “The Human Experience of Ethics: A Review of a Decade 
of Qualitative Ethical Decision‐Making Research.” Business 
Ethics: A European Review 25 (4): 498-537.

O’Fallon, Michael J. and Kenneth D. Butterfield. 2013. “A Review 
of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996–
2003.” In Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics: 
Celebrating the First Thirty Years of Publication, edited by Alex 
C. Michalos and Deborah C. Poff, 213-263. Dordrecht: Springer 
Netherlands.

OED Online. 2022. “Intersectionality, n.” Oxford, UK: Oxford 
University Press. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/429843?redir
ectedFrom=intersectionality.

The Program on Intergroup Relations, University of Michigan. 
“Social Identity Wheel Handout.” Inclusive Teaching, 
University of Michigan. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://
sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/wp-content/uploads/
sites/853/2021/12/Social-Identity-Wheel.pdf.

University of Michigan. “Social Identity Wheel.” Inclusive 
Teaching, University of Michigan. Aaccessed May 1, 2022. 
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/social-identity-
wheel/.

FURTHER READING

Boussalem, Alessandro and Alessandro Hopkins. 2020. 
“Intersectionality.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Sociology 
of Religion, edited by Anthony J. Blasi and Adam Possamai. 
London, United Kingdom: Sage UK.

Nelson, Johnathan. 2017. “Ethical Decision Making and Behavior, 
Promotion Of.” In SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and 

https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2021/disability/
https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2021/disability/
doi:10.1080/07317131.2020.1728125
doi:10.1080/07317131.2020.1728125
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/429843?redirectedFrom=intersectionality
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/429843?redirectedFrom=intersectionality
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/wp-content/uploads/sites/853/2021/12/Social-Identity-Wheel.pdf
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/wp-content/uploads/sites/853/2021/12/Social-Identity-Wheel.pdf
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/wp-content/uploads/sites/853/2021/12/Social-Identity-Wheel.pdf
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/social-identity-wheel/
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/inclusive-teaching/social-identity-wheel/


136  atLa 2022 ProCeedinGs

Organizational Psychology, edited by Steven G. Rogelberg. 
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.

Ramsay, Nancy J. 2017. “Resisting Asymmetries of Power: 
Intersectionality as a Resource for Practices of Care.” Journal of 
Pastoral Theology 27 (2): 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064986
7.2017.1399784.

Smith, Archie, Jr. 1983. The Relational Self: Ethics and Therapy from 
a Black Church Perspective. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Snorton, Teresa and Jeanne Stevenson-Moessner. 2000. In Her 
Own Time: Women and Developmental Issues in Pastoral Care. 
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Tasdoven, Hidayet. 2014. “Ethical Decision Making.” In 
Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, edited by 
Sherwood Thompson. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield 
Publishers.

Wimberly, Edward P. and Robert Franklin. 2006. African American 
Pastoral Care and Counseling: The Politics of Oppression and 
Empowerment. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10649867.2017.1399784
https://doi.org/10.1080/10649867.2017.1399784

